How does the Russia/Georgia conflict affect Singapore.
-
The west's political games with Russia:
When the US and NATO were methodically killing Serbs in the 1990ies, any attempts to forecast similar developments in Russia on the basis of the understanding of the scenario which materialized in Yugoslavia were blocked by the Russian leadership. The official version was that the troubles of the Balkan peoples were their own problems, while Russia's relations with Washington and Brussels were an example of mutually beneficial cooperation. The vision even survived the 1999 NATO airstrikes. It took Georgia's aggression against Russian citizens and peacekeepers in South Ossetia to finally wake Russia up after 20 years of sleep and to make it realize that the forces of the West are playing a global geopolitical game against it.
http://en.fondsk.ru/article.php?id=1600
It appears that the western powers since collapse of USSR in 1992 had only one agenda towards Russia.
Dismember it and neutralise it as a factor in global politics.
This is similar to the political games played by Britain in the 1930s to push Germany eastwards to dismember Russia:
Beijing, February 18, 1973, 2:43–7:15 p.m.
Talks between Chou En-lai, Premier of China and Dr. Henry A. Kissinger, Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs:
PM Chou: Originally Western Europe had hoped that Germany would go eastwards.
Dr. Kissinger: Western Europe.
PM Chou: At Munich.
Dr. Kissinger: Yes, at Munich. Western Europe had very superficial leaders. They didn’t have the courage to pursue any policy towards a conclusion. Once they had done Munich it made no sense to fight for Poland. But that is a different issue. And I don’t blame Stalin, because from his point of view he gained himself the essential time.
PM Chou: But there was one weak point, that they were not sufficiently prepared.
Dr. Kissinger: That is right.
PM Chou: They did make preparations but they were not entirely sufficient. And in Zhukov’s memoirs he also touched upon this. Have you read this?
Dr. Kissinger: Yes. And they deployed their forces too far forward.
PM Chou: Also scattered in three directions.
Dr. Kissinger: So, but the basic point that I want to make is not to debate history but to say the lessons of both wars are that once a big war starts its consequences are unpredictable, and a country which encourages a big war in the hope that it can calculate its consequences is likely to produce a disaster for itself. The Germans had made very careful plans in World War I, and they had exercised them for 30 years, but when the war . . .
PM Chou: You mean after the Pact of Berlin?
Dr. Kissinger: World War I—1914—the Schlieffen Plan.
PM Chou: You mean after the Treaty of Berlin.
Dr. Kissinger: Oh, after 1878, yes, that’s right. But they had exercised the Schlieffen Plan every year after 1893, for 21 years, and they had calculated everything except the psychological strain on a commander under battle conditions. So they thought they were starting a 6-months war and they wound up with a 4-year war. Not one European leader in 1914, if he had known what the world would look like in 1918, would have gone to war. And nor would Hitler in 1939. Let us apply it to the current situation, these observations. If one analyzes the problem of pushing the Soviet Union toward the East, or maybe you trying to push it towards the West . . .Beijing, February 17–18, 1973, 11:30 p.m.–1:20 a.m.
Talks between Mao Zedong and Dr. Henry A. Kissinger, Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs:
...Chairman Mao: (Pointing at Dr. Kissinger) They are uniting and the Soviet Union wants the Communist Party to get into office. I don’t like their Communist party, just like I don’t like your Communist party. I like you, but not your Communist party. (Laughter)
In the West you always historically had a policy, for example, in both World Wars you always began by pushing Germany to fight against Russia.
Dr. Kissinger: But it is not our policy to push Russia to fight against China, because the danger to us of a war in China is as great as a war in Europe.
Chairman Mao: (Before Dr. Kissinger’s remarks are translated, he makes remarks in Chinese and counts on his fingers. Miss Tang then translates Dr. Kissinger’s remarks and after that Chairman Mao’s remarks.)
What I wanted to say is whether or not you are now pushing West Germany to make peace with Russia and then push Russia eastward. I suspect the whole of the West has such an idea, that is to push Russia eastward, mainly against us and also Japan. Also probably towards you, in the Pacific Ocean and the Indian Ocean.
Dr. Kissinger: We did not favor this policy. We preferred the German opposition party which did not pursue this policy. (Chairman Mao, smoking a cigar, offers cigars to Dr. Kissinger and Mr. Lord who decline.)...http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/100320.pdf
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/frus/nixon/xviii/ -
Two weeks after Munich Baldwin said in a conversation with Lord Hinchingbrooke: "Can't we turn Hitler East? Napoleon broke himself against the Russians. Hitler might do the same"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Baldwin#Later_life
Then in July 1936 the Spanish civil war began. Tory ideological dread was brought to a fine edge. The Spanish civil war could lead to a European conflict between ideological blocs; and war could provoke the spread of communist revolution or Soviet influence. It was better, a lot of Tories thought, to turn Germany eastward against the USSR. "Let gallant little Germany glut her fill of reds in the East...," suggested one Tory M.P. (Henry Channon, September 1936). Even the British prime minister, Stanley Baldwin was attracted by the idea.
http://gozips.uakron.edu/%7Emcarley/COLDWAR.html
Date: 04 Aug 1936
Scope/content:
Letter from Major-General Sir Hugh Tudor, St John's Newfoundland, Canada to WSC, on the European situation. Commenting that Britain should make a strong western pact with France and Germany, and allow Germany to "settle" the Soviet Union and Bolshevism "in her own way". Stating that Germany would eventually be stronger after defeating Russia, and it would take years before her to be in a position to make war again. "Russia deserves what is coming to her as she will never stop undermining capitalistic governments in every way she can." Commenting that if left alone Russia would be the stongest power on earth in 10 years, and may be a more dangerous enemy than Germany. Praising WSC for "bradawling" the Government over re-armament.
http://www-archives.chu.cam.ac.uk/perl/node?a=a;reference=
Date: 16 Aug 1936
Scope/content:
Letter from WSC to Major-General Sir Hugh Tudor, thanks for letter on the European political situation. Commenting that a strong and growing section of Conservative opinion agreed with Tudor that Britain should form a strong Western Alliance with France and Germany, leaving Germany free to deal with the Soviet Union.
http://www-archives.chu.cam.ac.uk/perl/node?search_id
And by this date, certain members of the Milner Group and of the British Conservative government had reached the fantastic idea that they could kill two birds with one stone by setting Germany and Russia against one another in Eastern Europe.
In this way they felt that the two enemies would stalemate one another, or that Germany would become satisfied with the oil of Rumania and the wheat of the Ukraine.
It never occurred to anyone in a responsible position that Germany and Russia might make common cause, even temporarily, against the West. Even less did it occur to them that Russia might beat Germany and thus open all Central Europe to Bolshevism...
http://yamaguchy.netfirms.com/cikkek/anglo_12b.html
Britain's agenda in the 1930s with the Nazi regime was to push it eastwards to destroy Russia.
USA's agenda since end of cold war is to encircle Russia, dismember it and remove it as a rival to its global hegemony once and for all.
...For obvious military and political reasons, Washington could not admit openly that its strategic focus, since the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991, had been the dismemberment or de-construction of Russia, and gaining effective control of its huge oil and gas resources, the ‘ultimate prize.’ The Russian Bear still had formidable military means, however dilapidated, and he still had nuclear teeth.
In the mid-1990s Washington began a deliberate process of bringing one after the other former satellite Soviet state into not just the European Union, but into the Washington-dominated NATO. By 2004 Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Bulgaria, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia all had been admitted into NATO, and the Republic of Georgia was being groomed to join...
...In brief, NATO encirclement of Russia, Color Revolutions across Eurasia, and the war in Iraq, were all one and the same American geopolitical strategy, part of a grand strategy to ultimately de -construct Russia once and for all as a potential rival to a sole US Superpower hegemony. Russia - not Iraq and not Iran - was the primary target of that strategy...
-
USA's target is Russia.
That is clear.
All of USA's political's moves since end of cold war in 1992 had been directed towards one goal:
The annihilation of Russia.
-
Poh ah Pak
Interesting, though I fail to see how their plan is going to work, unless you mean that by inciting Georgia to invade S.Ossetia, which they knew Russia couldn't ignore and would retaliate, and in doing so earn the displeasure of everyone in the western world, thus making it a replay of "Allies and commies" era again. With people afraid of Russia, especially with it's monopoly on natural resources, and a rather lethal military under it's command, as well as nuclear technology at it's fingertips. The world might just declare a cold war on Russia and bring it crashing down on it's knees again. Sanctions and mobilisations of military forces to the Russian border, and tough diplomatic policies by the western world would put Russia in a tight spot, perhaps luring Russia into making a wrong step, and "Wham!" the whole world jumps at Russia...America laughs away over half way across the world without ever having had to lift a finger.
Is that it Poh Ah Pak?
-
Important for USA is to expand NATO to the borders of Russia.
They will bring all the states in europe, one by one into NATO so as to surround Russia.
This will bring NATO military forces to the borders of Russia.
Next is to encircle Russia with missile defense bases so as to neutralise Russia's nuclear weapons.
If USA's scheme succeeds, Russia would be in no position to challenge USA global hegemony and will have to follow USA dictates.
After Russia is subjugated, the next target will be China.
If these two, Russia and China are removed as rivals for USA, USA and their NATO clique will be the dominant bloc in world politics, giving dictates to the rest of the world.
I am opposed to USA's agenda.
-
The counter to USA's schemes and plots is in the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, a bloc made up of Russia, China and central asian states.
Shanghai solidarity
http://www.flonnet.com/stories/2008
Russia, China had already foreseen USA's agenda and is building up an alliance to counter USA's global hegemony.
International politics in the next decade will be centered on the rivalry between these two blocs, one dominanted by USA/NATO and the other by Russia/China.
My sadness is that Singapore is pro-western and not with the bloc that I support, which is the Russian/China bloc.
PAP regime is with the USA bloc.
This is the group that I oppose.
-
*Yawn*
Well Mr Conspiiracy Theorist, I pity you if more smaller independent nations have to become pawns if that's part of the agenda that you support. Here's a clear example who you and the muppets in SC fail to understand that your enemy's enemy is not automatically your friend.
-
Well Mr Conspiiracy Theorist
Which part conspiracy theory?
-
Here's a clear example who you and the muppets in SC fail to understand that your enemy's enemy is not automatically your friend.
Who is my friend?
Who is my enemy?
-
It's not the first time...I know you're thick, but damn, you don't even try.
-
It's not the first time...I know you're thick, but damn, you don't even try.
???
-
Statement by His Excellency Mr. Adam Daniel Rotfeld, Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Poland. Fifty-ninth session of the General Assembly of the United Nations. Commemoration of the sixtieth anniversary of the end of the Second World War:
...We are told sometimes that the criminal plot of the two dictatorships – Stalin’s and Hitler’s – was legitimate under the international law of the time. What’s more, it constituted a justified or even essential defense in view of the Munich Agreement concluded in September 1938 among Nazi Germany, Italy, the United Kingdom and France. That treaty was designed to channel German aggression eastward...
http://www.polandun.org/templates/statement
...In order to carry out this plan of allowing Germany to drive eastward against Russia, it was necessary to do three things: (1) to liquidate all the countries standing between Germany and Russia...
...While all this was going on, the remorseless wheels of appeasement were grinding out of existence one country after another. The fatal loss was Czechoslovakia. This disaster was engineered by Chamberlain...
http://yamaguchy.netfirms.com/cikkek/anglo
Above is not conspiracy theory.
It is historical fact.
-
Poh Ah Pak
What our dear Kuali Baba is trying to say is that neither side cares for your nation's agenda, it only cares for it's own agenda, even at the cost of sacrifising your your nation. So your theory of joining the Russian-chinese leauge in hopes of using them against the USA, thus your enemy's enemy is your friend, won't work because be it Russia and china, or USA and NATO don't give a rats ass about Singapore's interest, so long as we don't oppose them.
I understand your worries, but I don't really see how whether USA or Russia wins would help us. There is a saying "It doesn't matter if the wolf beats the bear, or the bear beats the wolf, the rabbit loses in any case. *Grins*
Kuali Baba
Be kind, don't be nasty to others, we're all here to have a friendly discussion aren't we?
-
So your theory of joining the Russian-chinese leauge in hopes of using them against the USA, thus your enemy's enemy is your friend, won't work because be it Russia and china, or USA and NATO don't give a rats ass about Singapore's interest, so long as we don't oppose them.
That's not my idea.
Singapore small state, no position to make this type of move.
I oppose USA agenda because it is aimed at monopoly of power by single state.
I support Russia/China because they are for multi-polar world, balance of power.
That's all.
If Russia and/or China goes for global hegemony, I will oppose and support USA.
-
Poh Ah Pak
My interpretation of your idea
How does the cry go again? Freedoooom!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Yes I think that's how it went.
Rebels with a cause. Yin and yang theory...balance must be restored my young padawan.*Grins*
-
Masters of Defeat: Retreating Empire and Bellicose Bluster
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context
A conversation with Noam Chomsky: Telling the truth about imperialism
-
Coming collapse of the hegemonic world
With the clout of China and India rising on the international arena, some people in the West, who are concerned over the already fragile, US-dominated unipolar world political structure or the Western hegemony, have rushed to offer a variety of recipes for inter-power relations in the 21st century and for the world's new power structure.
These recipes include multi-polar, non-polar or collective power models, a "democracy value alliance", a new trans-Atlantic union, and even a joint China-US governance idea.
All these concepts are in essence changed versions of the new US or Western hegemonic model that proposes maintaining the world's established power structure through absorbing some emerging powers. The model also proposes carrying out reforms of the new power structure. In all this the idea is to keep the US and Western hegemonic position intact as much as possible. The new situation emerging from the very beginning of the 21st century indicates that neither the US nor the Western hegemony will last for ever, and there will not be a transfer of the old hegemony to a new one. In the 21st century, the world will see the end of not only the US-dominated hegemony, but also of the hegemonic model that allows a few world powers to control global affairs.
The decease of the US and Western hegemony will not be caused by the challenge from such rising powers as China or other countries. It will be caused by the world's irreversible efforts for a hegemony-free political structure. As the result of this situation, we can expect a hegemony-free and harmonious world in the 21st century in which big countries will fulfill their responsibilities and obligations and small ones can enjoy equality, democracy and assistance from each other.
In the 21st century, the United States, the protagonist of the current unipolar world, will gradually evolve into a common power because of accelerated efforts of many countries which will advocate an end to the unipolar power pattern. Since the US invasion of Iraq in 2003, a "balance of power" has come into being among the major countries. Despite its sole superpower status, the United States cannot always succeed in solving some global issues. It is even incapable of handling some domestic issues such as the subprime crisis. All these transmit to the world a strong signal that the US hegemony and Western dominance are now in an irreversible process of decline and final disappearance.
In dealing with some global issues, today's United States not only needs substantial support from staunch allies, but also needs understanding, participation and cooperation from other key world or regional players. Sometimes, it even has to give up its leading role to other big powers in finding settlements of some intractable issues.
With the spirit of peace and democracy exercising strong restraint within their boundaries, European countries have lost the basic driving force for hegemonic wars against other countries. On the other hand, economic globalization and marketization of the world since the end of the Cold War have activated the urge for peace and development among a number of developing countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America. Especially the peaceful rise of some powers, such as China, India, Russia, Brazil, Mexico and South Africa, has prompted some Western countries to join the resistance to hegemonism.
Some new-generation European leaders, though, still want to maintain the Western hegemony with the US at its core. They want to do so by advocating the "values diplomacy" and setting up the so-called democracy and values alliance or by forming a new trans-Atlantic union. But all these wishes will be difficult to fulfill.
The emergence of some peace-promoting powers will be an irresistible historical tide in the 21st century. Their rise will lay a solid groundwork for the final end of the long-standing hegemonism in world politics.
New Delhi has generally chosen a path of peaceful development in South Asia despite its position of supremacy in the sub-continent. China has been even more committed to a peaceful development and always condemns any use of force in solving international disputes.
The strong efforts and calls for a hegemony-free world from these new emerging powers and the massive populations of Asian, African and Latin American countries have exerted a huge pressure on hegemonic countries, prompting them to deal with others on an equal footing.
The change of the world's hegemonic pattern pushed by newly emerging powers serves the basic interest of the whole world, including the West. It will also act as the main impulse to build a conflict-free and harmonious world in the new century.
-
Yankee hegemony finished: Hugo Chavez
http://www.hindu.com/2008/09/12/stories/20
Chavez declares U.S. ambassador persona non grata in Venezuela
-
Well, I'll just look at it from a simple view point. Starting a war is wrong. Cause the people who alway lose out are the innocents civilians.
Poh Ah Pak
Noticed that you have been quoting lots of articles to? I agree with Tenebrae that China or Russia won't really care much about Singapore. Of course, U.S isn't all its cut out to be either.
But I think Singapore supports U.S because it does things legally and through legal means. Look at the way Russia is behaving!!! Do you think they have any respect for the international law!!? Also one very important point I would like to STRESS, The U.S (Republicans) look out and watch over countries smaller than ourselves. Do you think China or Russia cares? Lets face it. Who do you think will come to Singapore aid first in the event of trouble. China or Russia? Ha ha.Ever wondered what the U.S submarine stopover in Singapore are build for?? So I hope the Republicans win the election. If the Democrats win, they will focus more on their internal affairs!
-
Originally posted by Xenthar1:
Well, I'll just look at it from a simple view point. Starting a war is wrong. Cause the people who alway lose out are the innocents civilians.
Poh Ah Pak
Noticed that you have been quoting lots of articles to? I agree with Tenebrae that China or Russia won't really care much about Singapore. Of course, U.S isn't all its cut out to be either.
But I think Singapore supports U.S because it does things legally and through legal means. Look at the way Russia is behaving!!! Do you think they have any respect for the international law!!? Also one very important point I would like to STRESS, The U.S (Republicans) look out and watch over countries smaller than ourselves. Do you think China or Russia cares? Lets face it. Who do you think will come to Singapore aid first in the event of trouble. China or Russia? Ha ha.Ever wondered what the U.S submarine stopover in Singapore are build for?? So I hope the Republicans win the election. If the Democrats win, they will focus more on their internal affairs!
No doubt starting a war is alway wrong, but then like it or not, it is peoples who started the war. And the peoples are within that society, yes, there will be innocent, but their elder and leader dun look that way, so, too bad.
Yes the US of A is alway using legal aspect to get thing done, but when it cannot be done, they change the rules of the game and still get it done. It is the same game as Russia and China, just the US of A provide the black and white whereas Russia and china use verbal instructions. I dun see any different in US of A policies with RUssia, both want to gobble small states, states that are worth grobble up, either it had resources or oil, that is most wanted.
The US of A submarine is here only to release their shit and rubbish in singapore, nothing else except maybe drop a few nuclear radiation into our water that you and i eat our seafoods from.
I dun see USA as good as China or Russia, they are just playing Godfather to all the nations, and rule with a velvet gloved hand of nice to look from outside and damn dirty play on the inside
-
But I think Singapore supports U.S because it does things legally and through legal means.
I think Singapore supports USA for arms sales and economic and trade reasons.
USA do things through legal means is a joke.
Here are some information that our pro-USA media will never print:
http://www.flonnet.com/stories/2008092625
http://en.fondsk.ru/article.php?id=1372
http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/118
http://www.doublestandards.org/ciahits.html
http://www.doublestandards.org/blum19
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/articl
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid
http://www.serendipity.li/hr/imf_and_dollar
http://www.iwgvt.org/files/9-gowan.rtf
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article
http://www.motherjones.com/military-maps/
-
Starting a war is wrong
Georgia was the one who launched the attacks first on 7 august 2008, not South Ossetia or Russia.
-
Why people see Russia as expansionistic when USA is actually the one seeking towards global domination.
-
Why people see Russia as expansionistic when USA is actually the one seeking towards global domination.
"Your question does not surprise me. What surprises me is something else - what a powerful propaganda machine the West has. It is quite amazing," Putin said.
-
Originally posted by angel7030:
No doubt starting a war is alway wrong, but then like it or not, it is peoples who started the war. And the peoples are within that society, yes, there will be innocent, but their elder and leader dun look that way, so, too bad.
Yes the US of A is alway using legal aspect to get thing done, but when it cannot be done, they change the rules of the game and still get it done. It is the same game as Russia and China, just the US of A provide the black and white whereas Russia and china use verbal instructions. I dun see any different in US of A policies with RUssia, both want to gobble small states, states that are worth grobble up, either it had resources or oil, that is most wanted.
The US of A submarine is here only to release their shit and rubbish in singapore, nothing else except maybe drop a few nuclear radiation into our water that you and i eat our seafoods from.
I dun see USA as good as China or Russia, they are just playing Godfather to all the nations, and rule with a velvet gloved hand of nice to look from outside and damn dirty play on the inside
Wow.... you actually eat local seafood.