Politics.be Registreren kan je hier.
Problemen met registreren of reageren op de berichten?
Een verloren wachtwoord?
Gelieve een mail te zenden naar [email protected] met vermelding van je gebruikersnaam.

Ga terug   Politics.be > Algemeen > Buitenland
Registreer FAQForumreglement Ledenlijst Markeer forums als gelezen

Buitenland Internationale onderwerpen, de politiek van de Europese lidstaten, over de werking van Europa, Europese instellingen, ... politieke en maatschappelijke discussies.

Antwoord
 
Discussietools
Oud 18 maart 2015, 05:11   #1
zonbron
Secretaris-Generaal VN
 
zonbron's schermafbeelding
 
Geregistreerd: 9 december 2010
Berichten: 36.784
Standaard EU in gevaar: De VS wilt kost wat kost een Duits-Russische alliantie voorkomen

De stichter en voorzitter van Stratfor verklaart de doelstellingen van de 'beste vrienden' van de EU.
Russia Insider - VIDEO - Stratfor Chairman Straight-Talking: US Policy Is Driven by Imperative to Stop Coalition between Germany and Russia
18 maart 2015
George Friedman, Founder and Chairman of Stratfor, or what is called by many "private/shadow CIA" for its well known connections and close cooperation with the CIA, gave a very interesting speech to the Chicago Council of Foreign Affairs on subject Europe: Destined for Conflict? in February of this year.

This speech came after another interesting interview where he admits that the overthrow of Yanukovych was "the most blatant coup in history" and among other things the American "payback" for Russian involvement in Syria.

In my humble opinion, this is one of the most important speeches in years I've heard, blatantly presenting neo-con perspective that dictates Washington's foreign policy.

I very much respect Friedman for his straight-talk and honesty on how the United States should maintain the role of global hegemon. In his speech he cut out all the nonsense and deceiving buzzwords like "spreading democracy and freedom", "promoting human rights" and also gibberish propaganda talk about "bad Russia", and "Putin, the bloodthirsty invader and dictator". He is the only honest spokesman of the Empire.

He recognizes that Russia has legitimate interest for its sphere of influence. However, he doesn't hide that US is trying to geopolitically defeat and humiliate Russia and limit its sphere of influence.

Even though I fundamentally disagree with him about genuine American national and geopolitical interest in decades to come, his realpolitik gives us unique insight.

Friedman's key points:
  • The primordial interest of the United States for centuries (WWI, WWII and the Cold War) has been to stop a coalition between Germany and Russia.
  • US is the only ally Ukraine (the Kiev regime) has.
  • General Ben Hodges, Chief of US army in Europe, not only officially announced that the US would train Ukrainian troops, but also awarded medals to foreign, in this case, Ukrainian soldiers which is against the US army protocol. He's showing that the Ukrainian Army is "our" army.
  • US is positioning troops, armaments, artillery and other equipment in the Baltic, Poland, Romania and Bulgaria.
  • The US will deliver weapons to Ukraine.
  • In all of this the US acted in the context outside NATO because any NATO members state can veto any action.
  • US is preparing a "Cordon Sanitaire" around Russia. Russia knows it and believes the US wants to break the Russian Federation.
  • We are back to the "old game" (Cold War).
  • The United States controls all the oceans of the world and because of that we get to invade people and they don't get to invade us. Maintaining control of the sea and space is the foundation of American power.
  • The best US policy is "divide et impera", what Reagan did with Iran and Iraq - fund both sides so they will fight each other and not fight us. It is cynical and not moral, but it works.
  • The US cannot occupy Eurasia. We can support various contending powers so they concentrate on themselves with political, economic, and military support.
  • In extreme cases we can do what we have done in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan - "spoiling attacks". A spoiling attack is not intended to defeat the enemy, it is to throw them off balance like we did with al Qaeda in Afghanistan.
  • The US can not constantly intervene in Eurasia; it must selectively intervene.
  • The US has staged a series of colored revolutions throughout the Russian periphery. It was the US statement of intent to destroy Russia.
  • The purpose of "the invasion of Georgia" was to show how much an American guarantee is worth and it is message to the Ukrainians: Do you want to be American ally? So did the Georgians... Enjoy...
  • The question for the Russians will be whether they'll be able to retain a buffer zone that is at least neutral in Ukraine or will the West penetrate so far in Ukraine as to be 500 kilometers from Moscow.
  • For Russia the status of the Ukraine is an existential threat.
  • It is not an accident that the US "final solution" is to create an "Intermarium" ("Between-seas") area from the Black Sea to the Baltic Sea.
  • Germany is in very peculiar position and they have a very complex relationship with Russians.
  • The Germans themselves don't know what to do and haven't made up their mind.
  • For the US, the primordial fear is German capital and technology and Russian natural resources and manpower. This combination for centuries has scared the United States.
  • Whoever can tell me what the Germans will do will tell me the next 20 years of the history.
  • The main problem of Germany is that it is enormously economically powerful and geopolitically very fragile and doesn't know how to reconcile two.
  • "The German Question" is coming up again. That's the next question we need to address, and we don't know how to address it, we don't know what they're going to do.





Bekijk de video via de doorverwijzing.
__________________
Citaat:
Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Salah Bekijk bericht
Het zal weer het gekende Zonbron momentje zijn.
HIER

Laatst gewijzigd door zonbron : 18 maart 2015 om 05:13.
zonbron is offline   Met citaat antwoorden
Oud 18 maart 2015, 05:52   #2
zonbron
Secretaris-Generaal VN
 
zonbron's schermafbeelding
 
Geregistreerd: 9 december 2010
Berichten: 36.784
Standaard

Een flashbackje, de geheimen van de VS en vrienden:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=won1okeV6sM
__________________
Citaat:
Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Salah Bekijk bericht
Het zal weer het gekende Zonbron momentje zijn.
HIER
zonbron is offline   Met citaat antwoorden
Oud 18 maart 2015, 06:09   #3
zonbron
Secretaris-Generaal VN
 
zonbron's schermafbeelding
 
Geregistreerd: 9 december 2010
Berichten: 36.784
Standaard

Die Hegemonie der USA und die Rolle Deutschlands 1/3 - Juli 2014

Deel 1,2,3:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQ5qnceakQk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFjH7h1Zw_8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MwzpxWnsiV4
__________________
Citaat:
Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Salah Bekijk bericht
Het zal weer het gekende Zonbron momentje zijn.
HIER
zonbron is offline   Met citaat antwoorden
Oud 18 maart 2015, 20:47   #4
E. Migrant
Banneling
 
 
Geregistreerd: 4 oktober 2011
Berichten: 1.745
Standaard

Ik heb de vrijheid genomen om het interview te posten, waarnaar in de OP wordt verwezen. Is deze George Friedman nu een conspiration nut? Of draagt hij een aluminium hoedje?


This article originally appeared in Kommersant. It was translated by Paul R. Grenier at US-Russia.org

George Friedman, the well-known American political scientist, recently visited Moscow. Stratfor, the private analytical and intelligence agency which he directs, is often referred to in the US as a "shadow CIA." In an interview with "Kommersant" he talked about what goals the United States is pursuing in Ukraine, and explained why these goals are incompatible with Russian interests.

KOMMERSANT: In your analytical work you refer to the fragmentation of Europe. How is this fragmentation manifested?

GEORGE FRIEDMAN: During the Cold War the borders within Europe have been preserved. It was understood that, if you start to change them, it will lead to destabilization. Once the Cold War ended, the redrawing of borders got started in Yugoslavia. Later, there came about also a de facto change of the borders in the Caucasus. Quite recently, 45% of Scots voted for independence. The Catalans are also seeking independence.

Against this background, I do not think the Ukrainian situation (where one part of the country feels pulled toward convergence with the EU, while the other is inclined toward Russia) is something altogether unique. The Ukrainian situation fits into the centrifugal tendencies that we have been already been seeing in Europe for a while now. Indeed, until recently, no one thought that the British-Scottish question, which appeared to have been settled 300 years ago, would suddenly and so urgently resurface. In other words: the Ukrainian crisis is connected with Russia, but not only with Russia. It is also associated with processes in Europe, with the crisis of Europe itself.

KOMMERSANT: European politicians say that what is causing the destabilization of Europe are Russia's actions directed toward Ukraine.

GEORGE FRIEDMAN: Europeans are very proud of what they call their "exceptional" status: that supposedly they have rid themselves of war and that, for more than half a century, they have lived in a world of stability and prosperity. But until the early 1990s Europe, in essence, was occupied by the Soviet Union and the United States. And then there was Yugoslavia, then the Caucasus. The European continent has never been truly peaceful.

KOMMERSANT: But US officials, as well as the leadership of EU member states, have explained their harsh policy toward the Russian Federation on the basis that, through its annexation of the Crimea, Russia for the first time since the Second World has "redrawn borders by force."

GEORGE FRIEDMAN: Americans know that this is nonsense. The first example of the changing of borders by force was Yugoslavia. And Kosovo was only the culmination of this process. And the United States is directly involved in these events.

KOMMERSANT: What is the goal of US policy as far as Ukraine is concerned?

GEORGE FRIEDMAN: For all of the last 100 years Americans have pursued a very consistent foreign policy. Its main goal: to not allow any state to amass too much power in Europe. First, the United States sought to prevent Germany from dominating Europe, then it sought to prevent the USSR from strengthening its influence.

The essence of this policy is as follows: to maintain as long as possible a balance of power in Europe, helping the weaker party, and if the balance is about to be significantly disrupted -- to intervene at the last moment. And so, in the case of the First World War, the United States intervened only after the abdication of Nicholas II in 1917, to prevent Germany from gaining ground. And during WWII, the US opened a second front only very late (in June 1944), after it became clear that the Russians were prevailing over the Germans.

What is more, the most dangerous potential alliance, from the perspective of the United States, was considered to be an alliance between Russia and Germany. This would be an alliance of German technology and capital with Russian natural and human resources.

KOMMERSANT: Today, who in your opinion is the United States trying to restrain?

GEORGE FRIEDMAN: Today the US is seeking to block the emergence of a whole range of potential regional hegemons: Serbia, Iran, Iraq. At the same time, the US authorities take advantage of diversionary attacks. For example, in a battle, when the enemy is on the verge of achieving victory, you hit him in the side get him off balance. US does not seek to "defeat" Serbia, Iran or Iraq, but they need to create chaos there, to prevent them from getting too strong.

KOMMERSANT: And with regard to Russia, what tactics do they use?

GEORGE FRIEDMAN: The fragmentation of Europe is accompanied by a weakening of NATO. European countries, in essence, have no [real] armies of their own. In the North Atlantic Alliance the United States is the only country that is strong in military terms. Against the background of the weakening of Europe, the comparative power of Russia has grown significantly.

Russia's strategic imperative is to have as deep a buffer zone on its western borders as possible. Therefore, Russia has always been particularly concerned about its relationship with Belarus, Ukraine, the Baltic States and other countries in Eastern Europe. They are of great importance for Russia's national security.

At the beginning of this year there existed in Ukraine a slightly pro-Russian though very shaky government. That situation was fine for Moscow: after all, Russia did not want to completely control Ukraine or occupy it; it was enough that Ukraine not join NATO and the EU. Russian authorities cannot tolerate a situation in which western armed forces are located a hundred or so kilometers from Kursk or Voronezh.

The United States, for its part, were interested in forming a pro-Western government in Ukraine. They saw that Russia is on the rise, and were eager not to let it consolidate its position in the post-Soviet space. The success of the pro-Western forces in Ukraine would allow the U.S. to contain Russia.

Russia calls the events that took place at the beginning of this year a coup d'etat organized by the United States. And it truly was the most blatant coup in history.

KOMMERSANT: You mean the termination of the agreement of February 21, or the entire Maidan?

GEORGE FRIEDMAN: The whole thing. After all, the United States openly supported human rights groups in Ukraine, including financially. Meanwhile, Russia's special services completely missed these trends. They didn't understand what was taking place, but when they did realize what was going on they were unable to take action to stabilize the situation, and then they misjudged the mood in East Ukraine.

KOMMERSANT: In other words, the Ukrainian crisis is the result of the confrontation between Russia and the United States?

GEORGE FRIEDMAN: Here you have two countries: one wants a Ukraine that is neutral. The other wants Ukraine to form part of a line of containment against Russian expansion. One cannot say that one party is mistaken: both are acting based on their national interests. It's just that these interests don't jive.

For the Americans, as I have said, it's important to prevent the emergence of a hegemon in Europe. But recently the U.S. has begun to worry about Russia's potential and its intentions. Russia is beginning to move from the defensive position that it has held since 1992 in the direction of the restoration of its influence. It's a matter of the fundamental divergence of the national interests of two great powers.

KOMMERSANT: What actions on the Russian side could have caused the United States to become wary?

GEORGE FRIEDMAN: Russia had begun to take certain steps that the United States considered unacceptable. Primarily in Syria. It was there that Russians demonstrated to the Americans that they are capable of influencing processes in the Middle East. And the US has enough problems in that part of the world already without the Russians.

Russians intervened in the process in the Middle East among other reasons because they had hoped to get leverage to influence US policy in other areas. But they miscalculated. The United States thought that it was Russia's intent to harm them.

It is in this context that we should be evaluating the events in Ukraine. The Russians, apparently, simply have not calculated how seriously the US side might perceive their actions or the extent to which they can easily find countermeasures. It was in this situation that the United States took a look at Russia and thought about what it wants to see happen least of all: instability in Ukraine.

KOMMRERSANT: So you think Ukraine is a form of revenge for Syria?

GEORGE FRIEDMAN: No, not revenge. But Russian intervention in the process in Syria, while the United States was still addressing the problems in Iraq, and was in negotiations with Iran ... In Washington, many people have the impression that Russian want to destabilize the already fragile US position in the Middle East - a region that is of key importance for America.

About this question there were two different points of views in Washington: that the Russian were just fooling around, or that they have found a weak point of the US and were trying to take advantage of it. I'm not saying that Russia's intervention in the Syrian conflict was the cause of the Ukrainian crisis, that would be a stretch. But this intervention tipped the balance of opinion in Washington in the direction of the opinion that Russian is a problem. And in that case what does one do? Not confront them in the Middle East. Better to pull their attention away to a problem in some other region.

Now all of this is a bit oversimplified, obviously it is all more complicated than this in practice, but the cause and effect relationship is as I just described it. As a result, the bottom line is that it is in the strategic interests of the United States to prevent Russia from becoming a hegemon. And it is in the strategic interests of Russia not to allow the United States to come to its borders .....

KOMMERSANT: What, in your opinion, is the idea behind the US sanctions? Russian authorities say that the US wants to bring about regime change.

GEORGE FRIEDMAN: The purpose of the sanctions is to -- with minimal damage to the US and with a somewhat larger damage to the EU -- hurt Russia in order to make it capitulate to US demands.

The sanctions demonstrate the power of the United States. And the United States are happy to make use of that power against countries who lack the means to adequately respond to it. It is also an opportunity to "line up" the Europeans. I do not think that the United States' main purpose is regime change in Russia. The main goal was to limit the Russian authorities' room for maneuver, which is indeed what we are witnessing. But here other factors also played a role, such as, for example, the slowing down of the Russian economy, and falling oil prices.

KOMMERSANT: In Russia, many say that oil prices have dropped thanks to a US conspiracy with countries in the Persian Gulf.

GEORGE FRIEDMAN: It is always easier to explain a difficulty by reference to someone else's deliberate actions. But a number of countries, including China, India and Brazil, have reduced their forecasts as regards their rate of economic growth. And Europe by the way has a zero growth. What is more, a revolution in the petroleum sector is taking place, the amount of available oil is growing.

A fall in oil prices was inevitable. What else did you expect? But you have built your economic strategy not only on high oil prices, but on the export of energy resources as such. That made you vulnerable! You should have used the last 10-15 years of high earnings from selling energy resources to diversify the economy, but your government did not do this.

KOMMERSANT: Can we expect US-Russian relations to improve after the next presidential election in the US?

GEORGE FRIEDMAN: In Russia you overly personify American politics. In the US the president is only one of the institutions of power, he is not all-powerful. Obama is also bound hand and foot, as were his predecessors. If in the Middle East groups like the "Islamic State" are rapidly gaining momentum it doesn't matter whether the US President is a Democrat or a Republican -- he will have to hit them hard.

And no American president can afford to sit by idly if Russia is becoming more and more influential. Russia's actions in the Middle East, or, say, in the case of granting asylum to Edward Snowden were perceived in the US as being directed against US interests. Any US president would have to react to it. About three years ago, in one of my books, I predicted that as soon as Russia starts to increase its power and demonstrate it, a crisis would occur in Ukraine. It was obvious.

KOMMERANT: Howrealistic do you think is Russia's rapprochement with China?

GEORGE FRIEDMAN: China has a lot of problems of its own now -- declining growth, high inflation and unemployment. There is no point expecting gifts from Beijing. And the construction of a pipeline to China, on which the Russian authorities will have to spend a significant amount of money, is unlikely to have any sort of tangible impact on the Russian economy.

KOMMERSANT: What's your sense of how the situation in the Ukraine will develop further?

GEORGE FRIEDMAN: Russia will not make concessions in the Crimea, that is obvious. But I imagine it will face serious problems with getting supplies to the peninsula. And yet Moscow cannot retreat from a number of its requirements with respect to Ukraine. It cannot allow Western military forces to be located on Ukraine territory. This is a nightmare in Moscow, and limits its room for maneuver.

The US will need to make a strategic decision, not now but in the future, either to intervene more actively in events in Ukraine, which is fraught with difficulties, or to build a new alliance -- within NATO or outside of NATO -- with the participation of Poland, Romania, the Baltic States and, for example, Turkey. This is already happening, slowly but it is happening. And this will be something that Russia will not accept -- a "cordon sanitaire." It's not that the US needs to have control over Ukraine; for them the important thing is that it not be controlled by Russia.

Much will depend on Kive.The government in Kiev is the Ukraine's weak point. If it fractures - something which, surprisingly, is not what we observe, then Russia will try to turn this to their favor.

But the main question is whether Russia itself can come through in one piece. It is now facing many of the factors that led to the collapse of the Soviet Union: the lack of an effective transportation system; a skeptical attitude towards the capital in many regions, from the Caucasus to the Far East; but the main thing is that there is an economy that can only function under certain circumstances -- namely, high energy prices. You have only one product, and today there is an excess of it on the global market.


This article originally appeared in Kommersant. It was translated by Paul R. Grenier at US-Russia.org

George Friedman, the well-known American political scientist, recently visited Moscow. Stratfor, the private analytical and intelligence agency which he directs, is often referred to in the US as a "shadow CIA." In an interview with "Kommersant" he talked about what goals the United States is pursuing in Ukraine, and explained why these goals are incompatible with Russian interests.

KOMMERSANT: In your analytical work you refer to the fragmentation of Europe. How is this fragmentation manifested?

GEORGE FRIEDMAN: During the Cold War the borders within Europe have been preserved. It was understood that, if you start to change them, it will lead to destabilization. Once the Cold War ended, the redrawing of borders got started in Yugoslavia. Later, there came about also a de facto change of the borders in the Caucasus. Quite recently, 45% of Scots voted for independence. The Catalans are also seeking independence.

Against this background, I do not think the Ukrainian situation (where one part of the country feels pulled toward convergence with the EU, while the other is inclined toward Russia) is something altogether unique. The Ukrainian situation fits into the centrifugal tendencies that we have been already been seeing in Europe for a while now. Indeed, until recently, no one thought that the British-Scottish question, which appeared to have been settled 300 years ago, would suddenly and so urgently resurface. In other words: the Ukrainian crisis is connected with Russia, but not only with Russia. It is also associated with processes in Europe, with the crisis of Europe itself.

KOMMERSANT: European politicians say that what is causing the destabilization of Europe are Russia's actions directed toward Ukraine.

GEORGE FRIEDMAN: Europeans are very proud of what they call their "exceptional" status: that supposedly they have rid themselves of war and that, for more than half a century, they have lived in a world of stability and prosperity. But until the early 1990s Europe, in essence, was occupied by the Soviet Union and the United States. And then there was Yugoslavia, then the Caucasus. The European continent has never been truly peaceful.

KOMMERSANT: But US officials, as well as the leadership of EU member states, have explained their harsh policy toward the Russian Federation on the basis that, through its annexation of the Crimea, Russia for the first time since the Second World has "redrawn borders by force."

GEORGE FRIEDMAN: Americans know that this is nonsense. The first example of the changing of borders by force was Yugoslavia. And Kosovo was only the culmination of this process. And the United States is directly involved in these events.

KOMMERSANT: What is the goal of US policy as far as Ukraine is concerned?

GEORGE FRIEDMAN: For all of the last 100 years Americans have pursued a very consistent foreign policy. Its main goal: to not allow any state to amass too much power in Europe. First, the United States sought to prevent Germany from dominating Europe, then it sought to prevent the USSR from strengthening its influence.

The essence of this policy is as follows: to maintain as long as possible a balance of power in Europe, helping the weaker party, and if the balance is about to be significantly disrupted -- to intervene at the last moment. And so, in the case of the First World War, the United States intervened only after the abdication of Nicholas II in 1917, to prevent Germany from gaining ground. And during WWII, the US opened a second front only very late (in June 1944), after it became clear that the Russians were prevailing over the Germans.

What is more, the most dangerous potential alliance, from the perspective of the United States, was considered to be an alliance between Russia and Germany. This would be an alliance of German technology and capital with Russian natural and human resources.

KOMMERSANT: Today, who in your opinion is the United States trying to restrain?

GEORGE FRIEDMAN: Today the US is seeking to block the emergence of a whole range of potential regional hegemons: Serbia, Iran, Iraq. At the same time, the US authorities take advantage of diversionary attacks. For example, in a battle, when the enemy is on the verge of achieving victory, you hit him in the side get him off balance. US does not seek to "defeat" Serbia, Iran or Iraq, but they need to create chaos there, to prevent them from getting too strong.

KOMMERSANT: And with regard to Russia, what tactics do they use?

GEORGE FRIEDMAN: The fragmentation of Europe is accompanied by a weakening of NATO. European countries, in essence, have no [real] armies of their own. In the North Atlantic Alliance the United States is the only country that is strong in military terms. Against the background of the weakening of Europe, the comparative power of Russia has grown significantly.

Russia's strategic imperative is to have as deep a buffer zone on its western borders as possible. Therefore, Russia has always been particularly concerned about its relationship with Belarus, Ukraine, the Baltic States and other countries in Eastern Europe. They are of great importance for Russia's national security.

At the beginning of this year there existed in Ukraine a slightly pro-Russian though very shaky government. That situation was fine for Moscow: after all, Russia did not want to completely control Ukraine or occupy it; it was enough that Ukraine not join NATO and the EU. Russian authorities cannot tolerate a situation in which western armed forces are located a hundred or so kilometers from Kursk or Voronezh.

The United States, for its part, were interested in forming a pro-Western government in Ukraine. They saw that Russia is on the rise, and were eager not to let it consolidate its position in the post-Soviet space. The success of the pro-Western forces in Ukraine would allow the U.S. to contain Russia.

Russia calls the events that took place at the beginning of this year a coup d'etat organized by the United States. And it truly was the most blatant coup in history.

KOMMERSANT: You mean the termination of the agreement of February 21, or the entire Maidan?

GEORGE FRIEDMAN: The whole thing. After all, the United States openly supported human rights groups in Ukraine, including financially. Meanwhile, Russia's special services completely missed these trends. They didn't understand what was taking place, but when they did realize what was going on they were unable to take action to stabilize the situation, and then they misjudged the mood in East Ukraine.

KOMMERSANT: In other words, the Ukrainian crisis is the result of the confrontation between Russia and the United States?

GEORGE FRIEDMAN: Here you have two countries: one wants a Ukraine that is neutral. The other wants Ukraine to form part of a line of containment against Russian expansion. One cannot say that one party is mistaken: both are acting based on their national interests. It's just that these interests don't jive.

For the Americans, as I have said, it's important to prevent the emergence of a hegemon in Europe. But recently the U.S. has begun to worry about Russia's potential and its intentions. Russia is beginning to move from the defensive position that it has held since 1992 in the direction of the restoration of its influence. It's a matter of the fundamental divergence of the national interests of two great powers.

KOMMERSANT: What actions on the Russian side could have caused the United States to become wary?

GEORGE FRIEDMAN: Russia had begun to take certain steps that the United States considered unacceptable. Primarily in Syria. It was there that Russians demonstrated to the Americans that they are capable of influencing processes in the Middle East. And the US has enough problems in that part of the world already without the Russians.

Russians intervened in the process in the Middle East among other reasons because they had hoped to get leverage to influence US policy in other areas. But they miscalculated. The United States thought that it was Russia's intent to harm them.

It is in this context that we should be evaluating the events in Ukraine. The Russians, apparently, simply have not calculated how seriously the US side might perceive their actions or the extent to which they can easily find countermeasures. It was in this situation that the United States took a look at Russia and thought about what it wants to see happen least of all: instability in Ukraine.

KOMMRERSANT: So you think Ukraine is a form of revenge for Syria?

GEORGE FRIEDMAN: No, not revenge. But Russian intervention in the process in Syria, while the United States was still addressing the problems in Iraq, and was in negotiations with Iran ... In Washington, many people have the impression that Russian want to destabilize the already fragile US position in the Middle East - a region that is of key importance for America.

About this question there were two different points of views in Washington: that the Russian were just fooling around, or that they have found a weak point of the US and were trying to take advantage of it. I'm not saying that Russia's intervention in the Syrian conflict was the cause of the Ukrainian crisis, that would be a stretch. But this intervention tipped the balance of opinion in Washington in the direction of the opinion that Russian is a problem. And in that case what does one do? Not confront them in the Middle East. Better to pull their attention away to a problem in some other region.

Now all of this is a bit oversimplified, obviously it is all more complicated than this in practice, but the cause and effect relationship is as I just described it. As a result, the bottom line is that it is in the strategic interests of the United States to prevent Russia from becoming a hegemon. And it is in the strategic interests of Russia not to allow the United States to come to its borders .....

KOMMERSANT: What, in your opinion, is the idea behind the US sanctions? Russian authorities say that the US wants to bring about regime change.

GEORGE FRIEDMAN: The purpose of the sanctions is to -- with minimal damage to the US and with a somewhat larger damage to the EU -- hurt Russia in order to make it capitulate to US demands.

The sanctions demonstrate the power of the United States. And the United States are happy to make use of that power against countries who lack the means to adequately respond to it. It is also an opportunity to "line up" the Europeans. I do not think that the United States' main purpose is regime change in Russia. The main goal was to limit the Russian authorities' room for maneuver, which is indeed what we are witnessing. But here other factors also played a role, such as, for example, the slowing down of the Russian economy, and falling oil prices.

KOMMERSANT: In Russia, many say that oil prices have dropped thanks to a US conspiracy with countries in the Persian Gulf.

GEORGE FRIEDMAN: It is always easier to explain a difficulty by reference to someone else's deliberate actions. But a number of countries, including China, India and Brazil, have reduced their forecasts as regards their rate of economic growth. And Europe by the way has a zero growth. What is more, a revolution in the petroleum sector is taking place, the amount of available oil is growing.

A fall in oil prices was inevitable. What else did you expect? But you have built your economic strategy not only on high oil prices, but on the export of energy resources as such. That made you vulnerable! You should have used the last 10-15 years of high earnings from selling energy resources to diversify the economy, but your government did not do this.

KOMMERSANT: Can we expect US-Russian relations to improve after the next presidential election in the US?

GEORGE FRIEDMAN: In Russia you overly personify American politics. In the US the president is only one of the institutions of power, he is not all-powerful. Obama is also bound hand and foot, as were his predecessors. If in the Middle East groups like the "Islamic State" are rapidly gaining momentum it doesn't matter whether the US President is a Democrat or a Republican -- he will have to hit them hard.

And no American president can afford to sit by idly if Russia is becoming more and more influential. Russia's actions in the Middle East, or, say, in the case of granting asylum to Edward Snowden were perceived in the US as being directed against US interests. Any US president would have to react to it. About three years ago, in one of my books, I predicted that as soon as Russia starts to increase its power and demonstrate it, a crisis would occur in Ukraine. It was obvious.

KOMMERANT: Howrealistic do you think is Russia's rapprochement with China?

GEORGE FRIEDMAN: China has a lot of problems of its own now -- declining growth, high inflation and unemployment. There is no point expecting gifts from Beijing. And the construction of a pipeline to China, on which the Russian authorities will have to spend a significant amount of money, is unlikely to have any sort of tangible impact on the Russian economy.

KOMMERSANT: What's your sense of how the situation in the Ukraine will develop further?

GEORGE FRIEDMAN: Russia will not make concessions in the Crimea, that is obvious. But I imagine it will face serious problems with getting supplies to the peninsula. And yet Moscow cannot retreat from a number of its requirements with respect to Ukraine. It cannot allow Western military forces to be located on Ukraine territory. This is a nightmare in Moscow, and limits its room for maneuver.

The US will need to make a strategic decision, not now but in the future, either to intervene more actively in events in Ukraine, which is fraught with difficulties, or to build a new alliance -- within NATO or outside of NATO -- with the participation of Poland, Romania, the Baltic States and, for example, Turkey. This is already happening, slowly but it is happening. And this will be something that Russia will not accept -- a "cordon sanitaire." It's not that the US needs to have control over Ukraine; for them the important thing is that it not be controlled by Russia.

Much will depend on Kiev.The government in Kiev is the Ukraine's weak point. If it fractures - something which, surprisingly, is not what we observe, then Russia will try to turn this to their favor.

But the main question is whether Russia itself can come through in one piece. It is now facing many of the factors that led to the collapse of the Soviet Union: the lack of an effective transportation system; a skeptical attitude towards the capital in many regions, from the Caucasus to the Far East; but the main thing is that there is an economy that can only function under certain circumstances -- namely, high energy prices. You have only one product, and today there is an excess of it on the global market.

http://www.kommersant.ru/doc/2636177
E. Migrant is offline   Met citaat antwoorden
Oud 19 maart 2015, 04:57   #5
zonbron
Secretaris-Generaal VN
 
zonbron's schermafbeelding
 
Geregistreerd: 9 december 2010
Berichten: 36.784
Standaard

Meer in verband met
George Friedman

George Friedman (born 1949 in Budapest, Hungary) is an American political scientist and author. He is the founder, chief intelligence officer, financial overseer, and CEO of the private intelligence corporation STRATFOR.[1] He has authored several books, including The Next 100 Years, The Next Decade, America's Secret War, The Intelligence Edge, The Coming War With Japan and The Future of War.

Biography

Friedman’s childhood was shaped directly by international conflict. He was born in Hungary to Jewish parents who survived the Holocaust. His family fled Hungary when he was a child to escape the Communist regime, settling first in a camp for displaced persons in Austria and then immigrating to the United States, where he attended public schools in New York City, and was an early designer of computerized war games. Friedman describes his family’s story as “a very classic story of refugees making a new life in America." He received a B.A. at the City College of New York, where he majored in political science, and a Ph.D. in government at Cornell University.[2]

Prior to joining the private sector, Friedman spent almost twenty years in academia, teaching political science at Dickinson College. During this time, he also regularly briefed senior commanders in the armed services as well as the Office of Net Assessments, SHAPE Technical Center, the U.S. Army War College, National Defense University and the RAND Corporation, on security and national defense matters.[3]

Friedman pursued political philosophy with his early work focusing on Marxism, as well as international conflict, including examination of the U.S.-Soviet relationship from a military perspective. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Friedman studied potential for a U.S.-Japan conflict and co-authored The Coming War with Japan in 1991. He is also the author or co-author of books examining topics as diverse as the Frankfurt School and warfare, including The Future of War, The Next Hundred Years, The Intelligence Edge, and America’s Secret War.

In 1996, he founded STRATFOR, a private intelligence and forecasting company, and has served as the company's CEO and Chief Intelligence Officer. Stratfor's head office is in Austin, Texas.
Personal lifeEdit

Friedman is married to Meredith Friedman (née LeBard), has four children, and lives in Austin, Texas. She has been Vicepresident of Stratfor for international relations and communication.[4] She also coauthored several publications, e.g. "The Coming War with Japan".[5]
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Friedman


Bekijk ook:

https://www.stratfor.com/about/analy...eorge-friedman
__________________
Citaat:
Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Salah Bekijk bericht
Het zal weer het gekende Zonbron momentje zijn.
HIER
zonbron is offline   Met citaat antwoorden
Oud 21 maart 2015, 04:03   #6
zonbron
Secretaris-Generaal VN
 
zonbron's schermafbeelding
 
Geregistreerd: 9 december 2010
Berichten: 36.784
Standaard

Voor de 'ongelovigen', een recenter voorbeeldje:


RT - US aggressively threatened to 'cut off' Germany over Snowden asylum - report
29 maart 2015

According to Greenwald (who was present at the event to receive an award) Gabriel said that Snowden was forced to seek refuge in “Vladimir Putin’s autocratic Russia” since no other nation was either willing, or able to protect him from threats of imprisonment by the US government. This caused a member of the audience to interrupt vice chancellor and yell out: “Why don’t you bring him to Germany, then?”

Gabriel replied that Germany would have its hands tied, obliged to extradite Snowden to the US if he were on German soil.
Kortom, de handen van de Duitsers gebonden, zonder meer...
__________________
Citaat:
Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Salah Bekijk bericht
Het zal weer het gekende Zonbron momentje zijn.
HIER
zonbron is offline   Met citaat antwoorden
Oud 21 maart 2015, 04:12   #7
zonbron
Secretaris-Generaal VN
 
zonbron's schermafbeelding
 
Geregistreerd: 9 december 2010
Berichten: 36.784
Standaard

Een spotprent:




En hier volgt een lijstje met conspiracy-feitjes om de vingers van af te likken:

https://dublinsmick.wordpress.com/20...united-states/

http://dublinsmickdotcom.wordpress.c...-effective-me/

Other related posts
https://dublinsmick.wordpress.com/20...uldnt-be-done/

Jewish model Tila Tequila wants another Hitler

http://www.jewishterrorism.com/categ...sons-satanism/

Other discussionshttp://realcurrencies.wordpress.com/2013/10/01/hitlers-finances-a-response-to-my-critics/

http://dublinsmickdotcom.wordpress.c...cent-catholic/

https://dublinsmick.wordpress.com/20...l-these-years/

https://dublinsmickdotcom.wordpress....-david-irving/

http://www.whale.to/b/sp/blood.html#...NAL_SOCIETIES_

https://dublinsmick.wordpress.com/20...united-states/

https://dublinsmick.wordpress.com/20...ctators-alike/

http://www.irishcentral.com/roots/Th...156889665.html

https://dublinsmick.wordpress.com/20...v-sexual-rite/

http://dublinsmickdotcom.wordpress.c...he-thule-socie

http://www.thecontroversialfiles.net...-daughter.html

http://dublinsmickdotcom.wordpress.c...f-the-mideast/

http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com...rothschild.htm

http://aangirfan.blogspot.com/2010/0...r-gay-jew.html

http://just-another-inside-job.blogs...itler-jew.html

http://just-another-inside-job.blogs...-zionists.html

http://greghallett.com

http://www.onlinepublishingcompany.i...active_id/2293

http://www5.ocn.ne.jp/~magi9/isracame.htm

http://ascendingstarseed.wordpress.c...ughter-angela/

http://www.chrisspivey.co.uk/little-hitler/

https://dublinsmick.wordpress.com/20...ctators-alike/

http://aangirfan.blogspot.com/2013/0...d-royalty.html

http://aangirfan.blogspot.com/2013/0...evelt-and.html

http://aangirfan.blogspot.com/2013/0...run-world.html

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Nucle...es-38036.shtml

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/so...erhoodss25.htm

http://intheknow7.wordpress.com/jesu...m-knights-rcc/

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/so...pol_bush19.htm

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/va...an_jesuits.htm

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/es...blacknobil.htm

http://beforeitsnews.com/prophecy/20...y-2454240.html

http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/jesuits.htm

http://www.jewishjesuits.com/biographies-a.html

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/es...priorysion.htm

http://www.fourwinds10.net/siterun_d...p?q=1237153170

https://dublinsmick.wordpress.com/20...uldnt-be-done/





De verdwenen postings van 'dublinsmick' kan U terugvinden. Dit volstaat.


__________________
Citaat:
Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Salah Bekijk bericht
Het zal weer het gekende Zonbron momentje zijn.
HIER

Laatst gewijzigd door zonbron : 21 maart 2015 om 04:21.
zonbron is offline   Met citaat antwoorden
Oud 22 maart 2015, 17:19   #8
Sukkelaar
Perm. Vertegenwoordiger VN
 
Geregistreerd: 18 april 2006
Berichten: 10.570
Standaard

Citaat:
Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door E. Migrant Bekijk bericht
Ik heb de vrijheid genomen om het interview te posten, waarnaar in de OP wordt verwezen. Is deze George Friedman nu een conspiration nut? Of draagt hij een aluminium hoedje?


pletely control Ukraine or occupy it; it was enough that Ukraine not join NATO and the EU. Russian authorities cannot tolerate a situation in which western armed forces are located a hundred or so kilometers from Kursk or Voronezh.

The United States, for its part, were interested in forming a pro-Western government in Ukraine. They saw that Russia is on the rise, and were eager not to let it consolidate its position in the post-Soviet space. The success of the pro-Western forces in Ukraine would allow the U.S. to contain Russia.

Russia calls the events that took place at the beginning of this year a coup d'etat organized by the United States. And it truly was the most blatant coup in history.

KOMMERSANT: You mean the termination of the agreement of February 21, or the entire Maidan?

GEORGE FRIEDMAN: The whole thing. After all, the United States openly supported human rights groups in Ukraine, including financially. Meanwhile, Russia's special services completely missed these trends. They didn't understand what was taking place, but when they did realize what was going on they were unable to take action to stabilize the situation, and then they misjudged the mood in East Ukraine.

KOMMERSANT: In other words, the Ukrainian crisis is the result of the confrontation between Russia and the United States?

GEORGE FRIEDMAN: Here you have two countries: one wants a Ukraine that is neutral. The other wants Ukraine to form part of a line of containment against Russian expansion. One cannot say that one party is mistaken: both are acting based on their national interests. It's just that these interests don't jive.

For the Americans, as I have said, it's important to prevent the emergence of a hegemon in Europe. But recently the U.S. has begun to worry about Russia's potential and its intentions. Russia is beginning to move from the defensive position that it has held since 1992 in the direction of the restoration of its influence. It's a matter of the fundamental divergence of the national interests of two great powers.

KOMMERSANT: What actions on the Russian side could have caused the United States to become wary?

GEORGE FRIEDMAN: Russia had begun to take certain steps that the United States considered unacceptable. Primarily in Syria. It was there that Russians demonstrated to the Americans that they are capable of influencing processes in the Middle East. And the US has enough problems in that part of the world already without the Russians.

Russians intervened in the process in the Middle East among other reasons because they had hoped to get leverage to influence US policy in other areas. But they miscalculated. The United States thought that it was Russia's intent to harm them.

It is in this context that we should be evaluating the events in Ukraine. The Russians, apparently, simply have not calculated how seriously the US side might perceive their actions or the extent to which they can easily find countermeasures. It was in this situation that the United States took a look at Russia and thought about what it wants to see happen least of all: instability in Ukraine.

KOMMRERSANT: So you think Ukraine is a form of revenge for Syria?

GEORGE FRIEDMAN: No, not revenge. But Russian intervention in the process in Syria, while the United States was still addressing the problems in Iraq, and was in negotiations with Iran ... In Washington, many people have the impression that Russian want to destabilize the already fragile US position in the Middle East - a region that is of key importance for America.

About this question there were two different points of views in Washington: that the Russian were just fooling around, or that they have found a weak point of the US and were trying to take advantage of it. I'm not saying that Russia's intervention in the Syrian conflict was the cause of the Ukrainian crisis, that would be a stretch. But this intervention tipped the balance of opinion in Washington in the direction of the opinion that Russian is a problem. And in that case what does one do? Not confront them in the Middle East. Better to pull their attention away to a problem in some other region.

Now all of this is a bit oversimplified, obviously it is all more complicated than this in practice, but the cause and effect relationship is as I just described it. As a result, the bottom line is that it is in the strategic interests of the United States to prevent Russia from becoming a hegemon. And it is in the strategic interests of Russia not to allow the United States to come to its borders .....

KOMMERSANT: What, in your opinion, is the idea behind the US sanctions? Russian authorities say that the US wants to bring about regime change.

GEORGE FRIEDMAN: The purpose of the sanctions is to -- with minimal damage to the US and with a somewhat larger damage to the EU -- hurt Russia in order to make it capitulate to US demands.

The sanctions demonstrate the power of the United States. And the United States are happy to make use of that power against countries who lack the means to adequately respond to it. It is also an opportunity to "line up" the Europeans. I do not think that the United States' main purpose is regime change in Russia. The main goal was to limit the Russian authorities' room for maneuver, which is indeed what we are witnessing. But here other factors also played a role, such as, for example, the slowing down of the Russian economy, and falling oil prices.

KOMMERSANT: In Russia, many say that oil prices have dropped thanks to a US conspiracy with countries in the Persian Gulf.

GEORGE FRIEDMAN: It is always easier to explain a difficulty by reference to someone else's deliberate actions. But a number of countries, including China, India and Brazil, have reduced their forecasts as regards their rate of economic growth. And Europe by the way has a zero growth. What is more, a revolution in the petroleum sector is taking place, the amount of available oil is growing.

A fall in oil prices was inevitable. What else did you expect? But you have built your economic strategy not only on high oil prices, but on the export of energy resources as such. That made you vulnerable! You should have used the last 10-15 years of high earnings from selling energy resources to diversify the economy, but your government did not do this.

KOMMERSANT: Can we expect US-Russian relations to improve after the next presidential election in the US?

GEORGE FRIEDMAN: In Russia you overly personify American politics. In the US the president is only one of the institutions of power, he is not all-powerful. Obama is also bound hand and foot, as were his predecessors. If in the Middle East groups like the "Islamic State" are rapidly gaining momentum it doesn't matter whether the US President is a Democrat or a Republican -- he will have to hit them hard.

And no American president can afford to sit by idly if Russia is becoming more and more influential. Russia's actions in the Middle East, or, say, in the case of granting asylum to Edward Snowden were perceived in the US as being directed against US interests. Any US president would have to react to it. About three years ago, in one of my books, I predicted that as soon as Russia starts to increase its power and demonstrate it, a crisis would occur in Ukraine. It was obvious.

KOMMERANT: Howrealistic do you think is Russia's rapprochement with China?

GEORGE FRIEDMAN: China has a lot of problems of its own now -- declining growth, high inflation and unemployment. There is no point expecting gifts from Beijing. And the construction of a pipeline to China, on which the Russian authorities will have to spend a significant amount of money, is unlikely to have any sort of tangible impact on the Russian economy.

KOMMERSANT: What's your sense of how the situation in the Ukraine will develop further?

GEORGE FRIEDMAN: Russia will not make concessions in the Crimea, that is obvious. But I imagine it will face serious problems with getting supplies to the peninsula. And yet Moscow cannot retreat from a number of its requirements with respect to Ukraine. It cannot allow Western military forces to be located on Ukraine territory. This is a nightmare in Moscow, and limits its room for maneuver.

The US will need to make a strategic decision, not now but in the future, either to intervene more actively in events in Ukraine, which is fraught with difficulties, or to build a new alliance -- within NATO or outside of NATO -- with the participation of Poland, Romania, the Baltic States and, for example, Turkey. This is already happening, slowly but it is happening. And this will be something that Russia will not accept -- a "cordon sanitaire." It's not that the US needs to have control over Ukraine; for them the important thing is that it not be controlled by Russia.

Much will depend on Kiev.The government in Kiev is the Ukraine's weak point. If it fractures - something which, surprisingly, is not what we observe, then Russia will try to turn this to their favor.

But the main question is whether Russia itself can come through in one piece. It is now facing many of the factors that led to the collapse of the Soviet Union: the lack of an effective transportation system; a skeptical attitude towards the capital in many regions, from the Caucasus to the Far East; but the main thing is that there is an economy that can only function under certain circumstances -- namely, high energy prices. You have only one product, and today there is an excess of it on the global market.

http://www.kommersant.ru/doc/2636177
Sorry, maar het is te lang .
Sukkelaar is offline   Met citaat antwoorden
Antwoord


Discussietools

Regels voor berichten
Je mag niet nieuwe discussies starten
Je mag niet reageren op berichten
Je mag niet bijlagen versturen
Je mag niet jouw berichten bewerken

vB-code is Aan
Smileys zijn Aan
[IMG]-code is Aan
HTML-code is Uit
Forumnavigatie


Alle tijden zijn GMT +1. Het is nu 11:45.


Forumsoftware: vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content copyright ©2002 - 2020, Politics.be