Yet whilst these are just some of the reality checks needed in order to assemble a measure of veracity and insight regarding all things Ukraine, such "checks" one imagines are, and will remain for sometime, asynchronous with the narratives disseminated via Washington's anti-Putin, anti-Russian 'brochure'.
Anyone for chess?
Although there is some contention as to whether the following attribution is accurate, for our purposes herein it is worth recording for posterity what Vladimir Putin was once reported to have said about the U.S. President:
'...negotiating with Obama is like playing chess with a pigeon. The pigeon knocks over all the pieces, sh*ts on the board and then struts around like it [has] won the game.'
Even if the Russian president didn't say this, given the way things are panning out between the two countries, it is difficult to escape the conclusion Putin would not disagree with the sentiment therein. Either way, it nonetheless would be darkly amusing if the stakes central to this particular 'game of chess' weren't so serious.
Now when it comes to 'playing chess like a pigeon', in the annals of the history of U.S foreign policy, Obama may not be president 'Pat Malone' as it were. But along with the incumbent president's 'choice' of opponent on this occasion, it his style of 'chess' that may prove to be the most consequential, not least because as we have seen with his acquiescent, ill-considered, and at times vacillating, approach to foreign policy especially in relation to the Ukraine and Russia, he is allowing too many others to make the most crucial moves, arguably risking in the process some of the most valuable pieces on said board.
That this situation seems far removed from any reasonable, coherent and rational considerations of the short- and long-term U.S. national interest -- something we might expect to be uppermost in the mind of the 'Oval One' and his closest advisors -- is it seems, becoming more apparent with every misstep taken by the U.S. in its dealings with Europe in general and that of its relationship with Russia in particular.
And it is herein in many respects that Baldwin and Heartsong's book -- incorporating as it does a smorgasbord of sound arguments and compelling views from a wide range of authoritative voices -- brings home the bacon. As they make clear in their introduction, amongst other goals, their book is an attempt to "speak to the historical and geostrategic moves" executed by the U.S. and NATO since the fall of the Soviet Union, [and their efforts] "to control the Eurasian landmass", as prescribed by Brzezinski's "Grand Chessboard" Doctrine.
It should be noted for the record herein, there is a direct line between this "Doctrine" when it was first implemented in Afghanistan by its author in the late 70s and most of the terror and carnage purportedly executed in the name of Islam by sundry jihadists today. This situation is now an ever-present geopolitical reality that frames much of the foreign policy and national security debate in the West, and provides the justification for America's semi-permanent war footing.
This, it needs be noted, is an outcome the man after whom said "Doctrine" is named has not only not regretted, he has virtually claimed bragging rights on it. Much like one suspects most of those PNAC folk who were responsible for the disastrous decision to invade Iraq in 2003, none of whom have demonstrated any inkling of regret, or for that matter any acknowledgment their decision did infinitely more to foment that "terror and carnage" than it did to prevent it. Indeed, they can't seem to get enough of it.
Moreover, the Doctrine they note has continued "unabated", with Washington moving 'at a feverish pace to bring the endgame, a checkmate, for Russian and ostensibly Chinese power projection' in the Heartlands and Rimlands of Eurasia. Such goals -- 'checkmate of Russian and European integration, and suppression of [her] economic viability' -- they declare with compelling rationale, 'collectively represent the final gambit by the West, so as to render Russia a permanent vassal state.'
However, they do add, somewhat ominously,
'...it now appears, a U.S./NATO checkmate will not be forthcoming as deft economic, political and tactical counter-moves by Vladimir Putin have turned the tables. As a result, Russia now stands ready to checkmate the West via its own gambit -- the Grand Chessboard strategy. The potential ramifications are the displacement of the petro-dollar, [the] near-term demise of the U.S. empire, [the] potential dissolution of NATO, and severe Western economic recessions and depressions for decades to come'.
Many folks with a more nuanced, objective assessment of the Ukraine situation have likened an attempt by Russia to perpetrate a color revolution of its own on Uncle Sam's door-step -- let's say in Ottawa or Mexico City -- the aim of which is to install a regime more favorable to the prevailing dictates of the 'gremlins' in the Kremlin. One imagines the putsch pirates would experience collective asthmatic apoplexy potentially sparking a synaptic meltdown just musing on such counterfactual scenarios, let alone their looming prospect.
But as hinted, in the rarefied, groupthink troposphere that envelops the Beltway, such 'if the boot were on the other foot' rationales don't get much breathing space. Indeed, anyone within -- or aspiring to membership thereof -- said circles proposing such bothersome views could/would expect to have their careers keel-hauled by the putsch pirates in short order.
Yet, for those people predisposed to consider alternative narratives such as the ones Baldwin and Heartsong articulate, the writing might just be on the wall for Washington's imperial putsch-meisters. In a recent article on the New Eastern Outlook website, at least one prominent geopolitical commentator Tony Cartalucci says he believes the strategy of the color revolution (or "stealth coup") -- 'backing subversion in a targeted country and overthrowing a sitting government under the cover of staged mass protests' -- may have finally reached its UBD.
Citing as an example a recent abortive attempt at such in of all places Armenia, andcrediting the Russian media's increasing global reach coupled with its more assertive efforts to counter the Washington propaganda "Blitzkrieg", as the key factor for its failure (one suspects, to the considerable chagrin of the putsch pirates), in his view,
'[I]t is because the US can no longer hide the fact it is behind these protests and often, even hide their role in the armed elements that are brought in covertly to give targeted governments their final push out the door. Nations have learned to identify, expose, and resist this tactic, and like Adolf Hitler and the Nazi regime's tactic of Blitzkrieg or "lighting war," once appropriate countermeasures are found, the effectiveness of lighting fast, overwhelming force be it military or political, is rendered impotent'.
But the prospect they may have outlived their usefulness is something they appear unlikely to embrace before it is much too late. And not just "much too late" for them. Doubtless then they will relentlessly and ruthlessly pursue further revolutions, coups, and regime resets going forward in the unshakeable, hubristic belief their bespoke empire in the making's best days are still to come, that it is truly different from each and everyone that has trampled and trodden the geopolitical landscape in the past, [and] that they are without a shadow of doubt the indispensable -- nay exceptional -- hegemon, manifestly destined to implement revolutions in every nook and cranny of everyone's 'fave' planet the Big Blue Ball until such time as the rest of said planet is remade in its own image and likeness.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
2
1
1
