in ,

Ukraine in the big chess game

An interesting view from a Norwegian about Zbigniew Brzezinski and the US attempts to dominate the world

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of this site. This site does not give financial, investment or medical advice.

A translation of the blog of Terje Valen, also published on the popular Norwegian news site Steigan.no, often with solid geopolitical analysis.

The big elephant in the room during the Ukraine conflict is not much mentioned in the big mass media. But without understanding this factor, it is not possible to understand what is happening in Ukraine now. I’m talking about the United States’ strategy for dominating the Eurasian continent, which was formulated after the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the United States helped Yeltsin to cut the lead in Russia. The strategy was summarized by Zbigniew Brzezinski in the book The Great Chessboard from 1997 and followed up during Obama’s election campaign in 2009 with Second Chance which was the basis for Obama’s foreign policy. Brzezinski then also became Obama’s most important informal adviser.

The main idea behind this strategy was that the United States should rule the whole world. To do so, they had to take control of the states on the Eurasian continent, so that no state there became so strong that it could challenge the hegemony of the United States. Ideally, this should happen in a collaboration on the United States’ premises. If it this was not successful, the United States would have to maintain its power by other means, including wars, coups, regime changes, undermining activities and sanctions. All this is in publicly available in this public US document. In Ukraine, coups with regime change were used. Inside the country, there was intense work by Soros’ NGOs and cooperation with the powerful Nazi unions that secured the coup. Afterward, the friends of the Nazis from all over the world came there to fight the Russians in the Donbass, and then several of them went home to spread their knowledge in Europe and elsewhere.

The United States and the use of reactionary political directions

On the whole, the United States has been a master at educating and using people from such reactionary political directions. In Afghanistan, it was help from smuggled so-called radicalized Islamists who were locked in by the US through Koranic bullets in Pakistan who first did the job, and afterward there was direct war from the US along with a number of vassals, including Norway. It is estimated that after the Soviet Union withdrew from Afghanistan, there were around 100,000 jihadists there. Many of them traveled out of Afghanistan and the United States used them in several sections, in North Africa, in Bosnia, in Chechnya, and in several places.

In Iraq, there were direct wars with American soldiers that managed regime change. In Libya, there was direct war and terrorist bombing plus cooperation with jihadists on the ground that did it. In Syria, violent jihadists were used, but then Russia had learned, among other things, so that the United States did not succeed there, even though with the help of Kurdish soldiers they kept the richest part of the country occupied, and the jihadists still occupy Idlib. This was part of the United States’ strategy to secure world domination. They are constantly striving to follow this strategy. The power of the United States over Ukraine was important for further aggression to the east.

The central strategist

Zbigniew Brzezinski was central to this strategy. But he also said that in order to have hegemony on the Eurasian continent, there were some crucial conditions. China and Russia were not allowed to come together, and Iran was not allowed to cooperate with Russia. When Russia had experienced what the cooperation with the United States meant in the 1990s and the first years after 2000, with the enormous breakdown of the whole society there, they found that they would no longer be part of it. With Putin in the lead, Russia tore itself out of the sphere in which the United States had hegemony. But this was after Brzezinski wrote the chess book.

In the book, he also deals with Ukraine. This is one of the four states that the United States must have control over in order to dominate the entire continent in addition to France, Germany and Poland. He writes about the most important players in this chess tournament on the Eurasian continent. There are five geostrategic players and five geopolitical hubs (pivots). France, Germany, Russia, China and India are the most important geopolitical players, of course in addition to the United States. Great Britain, Japan and Indonesia are important countries but are not qualified to reach the top league. The critically important pivot countries are Ukraine, Azerbaijan, South Korea, Turkey and Iran.

When Brzezinski wrote his book, Russia was still under the control of the United States, and he believed that it could continue, even though the country became formally independent and developed in a democratic direction, that is to say in practice within the United States’ system. China had opened up, and the leaders in the United States thought they were entering the United States system.

As for Ukraine, Brzezinski writes that there was a new and important room on the Eurasian chessboard. With an independent Ukraine that does not cooperate with Russia, Russia can not become a powerful player on the chessboard. Therefore, Russia did not have to gain control of the country. It was also important to keep Azerbaijan with its rich resources out of Russian control.

US vassals in Europe

Regarding Europe, Brzezinski writes that it serves as a springboard for further expansion of democracy deeper into Eurasia and that Europe’s expansion to the east would consolidate the victory in the 1990s. But first of all, he writes, Europe is America’s essential bridgehead on the Eurasian continent. What is at stake geostrategically for the United States in Europe is enormous, because through NATO, Europe attaches American political influence and military power directly to the Eurasian mainland, as, for example, Japan did not do in the east.

Then he states that it is a weakness that Europe is not one unit, but different states with their priorities. Therefore, the brutal truth is that Western Europe and increasingly Central Europe is, by and large, an American protectorate in which the allied states are reminiscent of vassals and those liable to pay tribute. Then he says that Europe is more divided because the threat from the Soviet Union was awake and that some nations wanted out of their roles as students of the United States. Because of this, the United States had to work to create conditions that made Europe more united under American leadership.

He then deals more closely with France and Germany and says that the United States must help them to unite Europe more. The best candidate to manage this was Germany. They were well established in Europe and had become harmless, but secure due to the visible US military presence. Germany could become one that promoted and perhaps led to the formal inclusion of Central Europe in the EU and NATO.

“America’s central goal is to construct a Europe based on the Franco-German connection, a Europe that can function, that can be linked to the United States and expand the scope of the cooperative democratic international system on which the effective functioning of American global superiority depends on.” The widening of the European bridgehead as the springboard for democracy is directly relevant to American security. It would also help if they managed to mobilize France for NATO enlargement eastwards. Because of all this, the United States must work closely with vassal Germany to promote Europe’s eastward enlargement. American-German cooperation on this was essential.

Conquest of Eastern Europe central for a long time

This idea of ​​expanding NATO and the EU to the east was not new to Brzezinski. As early as 1989, he had received his doctorate on a dissertation in which he said that all force had to be used to prevent Russia from standing up as a great power. It was also the motive for pushing for an independent Ukraine and independent Baltic states with the goal of getting them into NATO later. It was a key building block in his geo-political concept that the West had to penetrate the energy-rich Central Asian region. To achieve this, Ukraine was a “geopolitical turning point and crank”. It was important to isolate Russia as a rival and then bring the country into a position where it was economically dependent on the International Monetary Fund and militarily on NATO. After a weakening and destabilization of Russia, it was also important to prevent Russia from having relations with Western Europe and to prevent Russia from being allowed to build oil and gas pipelines to Europe. Then China and Iran had to stay out.

With the magic word “democratization of fossil resources”, the United States should be able to do this. Brzezinski then traveled to Georgia where he worked in the old Azerbaijani oil capital Baku for BP-Amoco and Freedom House, a research institution headquartered in Washington. About Azerbaijan, he stated that there was a cork in the bottle that contained access to the treasures of the Caspian basin and Central Asia.

Grand Chessboard again

To return to The Grand Chessboard, he also emphasizes that the bottom line when it comes to the enlargement of Europe was that no power outside the existing transatlantic system had the right to veto the participation of any European state that wanted to join the EU or NATO. This has become especially relevant during the current Ukraine conflict.

Finally, in Chapter 3 of the book, he points to the states that constitute the critical core of European and thus American security. These are France, Germany, Poland and Ukraine. My comment is, of course, that this had nothing to do with US security, but with securing world domination.

With the American Silk Road Laws of 1999 and 2006, what Brzezinski wrote here became official American policy in the area, which has remained until today. He updated his thoughts in the book Second Chance from 2009, and he became an unofficial tutor for President Obama, who followed up his policy.

From December 4, 2014, Brzezinski’s thoughts on the United States’ domination of the Eurasian landmass were confirmed as the United States’ official state doctrine in Congress’ Resolution H. Res. 758 by an overwhelming majority (against 10 votes) and uncritical reception of the European vassals in Europe. On the same day as this, Congress legend Ron Paul wrote on his home page “Reckless Congress ‘Declares War’ on Russia“. In November of the same year, US-Army-Training-and-Doctrine-Paper entitled How to Win in a Complex World, 2020-2040 was published. This is no less than “full spectrum dominance” on land, in the air and at sea. The most important enemies were identified as Russia and China. It is this policy that has led to the situation in Ukraine.

Based on this, we understand the five billion dollars and the other activities of the United States to destabilize Ukraine and the bitter struggle with Russia over Ukraine. Obama also stated that Russia was no longer a power to be reckoned with and that he would not stick to Putin personally. We also understand the background to the coup in 2014 and everything that has happened since then. It is the United States’ prelude to weakening Russia and bringing it under its domination in order to continue its aggression.

Putin has stopped this without the United States and NATO being able to do anything. Demonstrating that he is doing this is a direct support to the United States ‘policy of aggression in the area and to the United States’ plans to crack down on Russia and put the countries further behind it. But we must also cause those who have been in favor of demonstrations against Putin. People have been completely unaware of the United States’ geo-politics and have been marinated in US propaganda that it is Putin who is aggressive. It’s not so easy to get your head over the sauce.

Read Zbigniew Brzezinski The Grand Chessboard, 1997 and

Wofgang Effenberger Geo-Imperialism – The Destruction of the World , 2016.

Terje Valen, Friday 25 February 2022

This article was first published on Terje Valen’s blog.

_________________

Kristian Kahrs describes himself as a former NATO aggressor and warmonger in Kosovo, turned into a warrior for peace, democracy, and freedom of speech. Kristian is a Norwegian living in Belgrade, Serbia, and there is more about him on his website ohrabrenje.com, the Serbian word for encouragement, where you can sign up for his newsletter. Also, follow Kristian on Gab, Telegram, and VK.

The Duran on Gab, Telegram, VK, and of course the vibrant community on theduran.locals.com.

Endnote: Although I agree with Valen’s assessment about the aggressive nature of United States geopolitics, I regret that Russia has used military power to reach their goals in Ukraine. They would have achieved their goals with peacekeepers in Donbass and diplomatic measures.

Report

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of this site. This site does not give financial, investment or medical advice.

What do you think?

11 Points
Upvote Downvote
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
7 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Tommy Jensen
Tommy Jensen
February 27, 2022

Strange conclusion. How can anybody conclude an appeasement solution would have been better, with all the insanity going on the last 20 years.

Jovanda
Jovanda
February 28, 2022

Truly catastrophic that citizens chose, or default, to ignorance regarding geopolitical Masterplans. Israel’s continues unabated. Can both be countered by the alliance of Russia, China and Iran toward socio ecological Common Good?

Hopium
Hopium
February 28, 2022

Brilliant article. Most don’t comprehend that we are witnessing the battle for Eurasia. It’s interesting because I was watching Psaki the other day get angry with a journalist who was grilling her about Russia still being involved in the Iran P5. The Psaki tool rarely gets angry and states that Russia is a member of the P5 and they will have to work with them as this is about American national security. This made me think… Hmmm… The US gets cheap oil from Russia and with the current mother of all sanctions, is it possible Russia might stop the flow?… Read more »

Last edited 5 months ago by Hopium
Helga Fellay
Helga Fellay
Reply to  Hopium
February 28, 2022

According to an article in today’s Daily Sabah, “two faced snake Erdogan” has definitely decided not to close Russian traffic through the Bosphorus Straits. He wants to play both sides, continuing with NATO, but also wants cooperate with Russia. I am not sure that will be possible much longer.

The Infant Phenomenon
The Infant Phenomenon
Reply to  Helga Fellay
March 5, 2022

True, but Erdogan was clever enough not to close the Bosphorus until it didn’t matter to Russia, Russia having had her naval assets in place before Erdogan acted. Turkey depends upon Russia for nuclear power plant technology and for other vital things, too.

The Infant Phenomenon
The Infant Phenomenon
March 5, 2022
Rate this article :
     

” … I regret that Russia has used military power to reach their goals in Ukraine. They would have achieved their goals with peacekeepers in Donbass and diplomatic measures.” I must respectfully disagree. When Zelinsky went to Munich in February and announced that the Ukraine was going to acquire nuclear weapons, Putin was obliged to act at once, which is exactly what he did. His only other choice was eventual capitulation, which was no choice at all. Moreover, the US and its vassals had already made abundantly clear their aggressive and inimical posture towards Russia. The US has not acted… Read more »

Is Tulsi Gabbard finding her Trumpian voice? [Video]

MASSIVE ESCALATION: US & EU sanction Russia’s Central Bank (Live)