Comments on: Russia, Afghanistan and Starwars: Westward Hu

By: efgh1951

efgh1951 — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 03:15:59 +0000

>split between Putin and Medvedev
yes, shades of Kremlinology of days gone by. who cares? perhaps there is some difference, but what is important is the policy direction, which is fairly clear now, even if I suspect it is misguided.

re Kenny’s parsing of my point about the imploding US empire, I finally figured out the point, which is very clever, taking my analysis a step further. perhaps Russian strategists are anticipating the US decline (don’t hold your breath: it could take some time) and want to position themselves at the heart of Europe, ready to take the place of the US. maybe they’re not so misguided as I fear.

re Kenny’s reference to “the new-found support on the Israeli right for the one-state solution”, he draws a parallel between the Russian rightwing realism of acceding to the US agenda and the (more intelligent faction of the) Israel rightwing contemplating the inevitable in search of an end to the present impasse. Israel should be worried about US patience running out, despite the chokehold by the Zionists. good point.

re teafoe2′s befuddlement, I agree that there’s not much light in this tunnel. we live in a time of post-apocalypse politics. I agree that Medvedev is craven and this policy lurch is cowardice on Russia’s part. :(

By: Gary S. Corseri

Gary S. Corseri — Wed, 28 Jul 2010 21:02:58 +0000

Nicely done, Mr. Walberg. A thoughtful analysis that penetrates the mustiness of the New York Times’ Empire-cheering, war-mongering trio of pundit-”experts.” Whether Bryzezinski is in or out, it appears that the Great Chess Game of global dominance remains intact. The big fish eat the little fish–and when they can’t eat each other, they conspire among themselves to remain BIG FISH!

Such an article posted by a US-based journalist would surely have made much of this new Westward course as representing a split between Putin and Medvedev. Addicted though we are to celebrity news and personality fixations, I, for one, am glad to see DV rise above that silliness, providing a broader, more heightened perspective.

I also must confess, with “teafoe2″ to some befuddlement about Mr. Kenny’s comments above. Where exactly is Israel mentioned in Mr. Walberg’s piece? I, too, like to dig at The Entity whenever I can, but probably we best save our ammunition for when it’s called for (one suspects there will be plenty of apt occasions) … or risk accusations of reductio ad absurdum. (And why all the fuss about an arbitrary comma? For the loss of a nail … a kingdom was lost … but probably not for the loss of a comma!)

Mr. Walberg has offered a good piece on which to sharpen our geopolitical incisors.

By: teafoe2

teafoe2 — Wed, 28 Jul 2010 19:07:10 +0000

M Kenny writes: “What’s being proposed is logical and actually is in everybody’s interest, including the interest of the US.”

Sorry, but I don’t see how any of these realpolitik games are in MY interest. Please explain what you mean.

By: David Silver

David Silver — Wed, 28 Jul 2010 16:43:29 +0000

Eric, you clearly show where Russia is going politically whic I believe
was somewhat different under Putin –more neo-liberal and anxious to\ally with NATO

By: MichaelKenny

MichaelKenny — Wed, 28 Jul 2010 15:58:24 +0000

“It looks like Medvedev has opted for US empire even as it implodes”. Precisely! What he has not done is to “opt for the US empire, even as it implodes” That comma makes all the difference. The American Empire is indeed imploding and the hyenas are starting to smack their lips. Russia intends to get its share of Uncle Sam’s inheritance, but I don’t see what ground there is to suppose that the Russians will be in any way fooled. They, no doubt, take the US defeat in Afghanistan for granted (who doesn’t?) and all the talk about a “Euro-Atlantic community” is just a smokescreen to fool the few surviving cold warriors. What’s being proposed is logical and actually is in everybody’s interest, including the interest of the US. In other words, what’s changing is that the US is ceasing to subordinate its own interests to those of Israel and, at that point, acting like a normal country, it is able to find mutually convenient accommodations with other normal countries. I would tie all this in with the new-found support on the Israeli right for the one-state solution, the growing concern in the US with the economy and the growing identification of the alliance with Israel as the source of the country’s problems.