Brzezinski: Obama should retaliate if Russia doesn't stop attacking U.S. assets

[MikeWB]

This POS is still around and still spewing Cold War BS.


http://www.politico.com/story/2015/10/zbigniew-brzezinski-financial-times-op-ed-obama-retaliate-russia-214438

Brzezinski: Obama should retaliate if Russia doesn't stop attacking U.S. assets

By Nick Gass

10/05/15 02:37 PM EDT

The United States should threaten to retaliate if Russia does not stop attacking U.S. assets in Syria, former national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski wrote in a Financial Times op-ed published Sunday, urging "strategic boldness," with American credibility in the Middle East and the region itself at stake.

Moscow's apparent decision to strike non-Islamic State targets and those of Syrian rebels backed by the Central Intelligence Agency "at best" reflects "Russian military incompetence," and worst, "evidence of a dangerous desire to highlight American political impotence," wrote Brzezinski, the national security adviser for former President Jimmy Carter and a strong supporter of current President Barack Obama.

Story Continued Below

And if Russia continues to pursue non-ISIL targets, the U.S. should retaliate, he added.

"In these rapidly unfolding circumstances the U.S. has only one real option if it is to protect its wider stakes in the region: to convey to Moscow the demand that it cease and desist from military actions that directly affect American assets," he said.

"The Russian naval and air presences in Syria are vulnerable, isolated geographically from their homeland," Brzezinski noted. "They could be 'disarmed' if they persist in provoking the US."

The problem in the Middle East is bigger than Syria, Brzezinski wrote, and it would behoove Russia to cooperate with the U.S., who cannot as it did in the past, rely upon the United Kingdom and France to play a "decisive role" in the region.
151001_barack_obama_ap_1160.jpg

Obama: Putin hasn't won anything

By Michael Crowley

"But, better still, Russia might be persuaded to act with the U.S. in seeking a wider accommodation to a regional problem that transcends the interests of a single state," he added.

Instead of what he calls a "new form of neocolonial domination," the United States, along with China and Russia, must act in concert to protect their mutual interests, he warned.

"China would doubtless prefer to stay on the sidelines. It might calculate that it will then be in a better position to pick up the pieces. But the regional chaos could easily spread northeastward, eventually engulfing central and northeastern Asia. Both Russia and then China could be adversely affected. But American interests and America's friends — not to mention regional stability — would also suffer. It is time, therefore, for strategic boldness," he concluded.

[yankeedoodle]

"They could be 'disarmed' if they persist in provoking the US." 

Of course, the "disposal" of "arms" - in the form of firing them off - might be considered being "disarmed" in the mind of this absolute fucking lunatic. 

[Michael K.]

Let's keep in sight who Brzezinski is fundamentally, a commie double agent like O'Commah, whom he advises with such alacrity and wisdom.

From Wiki:

Brzezinski's parents were Leonia (née Roman) and Tadeusz Brzeziński, a Polish diplomat who was posted to Germany from 1931 to 1935; Zbigniew Brzezinski thus spent some of his earliest years witnessing the rise of the Nazis.[8] From 1936 to 1938, Tadeusz Brzeziński was posted to the Soviet Union during Joseph Stalin's Great Purge.[9]

In 1938, Tadeusz Brzeziński was posted to Canada. In 1939, the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was agreed to by Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union; subsequently the two powers invaded Poland. The 1945 Yalta Conference between the Allies allotted Poland to the Soviet sphere of influence. Some sources suggest this meant Brzezinski's family could not safely return to their country.[citation needed] The Second World War had a profound effect on Brzezinski, who stated in an interview: "The extraordinary violence that was perpetrated against Poland did affect my perception of the world, and made me much more sensitive to the fact that a great deal of world politics is a fundamental struggle."[10]

Rising influence   

After attending Loyola High School in Montreal[11] Brzezinski entered McGill University in 1945 to obtain both his Bachelor and Master of Arts degrees (received in 1949 and 1950 respectively). His Master's thesis focused on the various nationalities within the Soviet Union...

Brzezinski was on the faculty of Harvard University from 1953 to 1960, and of Columbia University from 1960 to 1989 where he headed the Institute on Communist Affairs. He is currently a professor of foreign policy at the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University in Washington, D.C.

So Brzezinski creepily ends up immigrating by "accident", then goes to Black Pope high school, followed by McGill along with MK Ultra doctor " White", Cameron, who is doing psychological experiments on children around the same time.  Then he taught at Columbia in for twenty-nine years, head of "Communist affairs" at a Jewish university.  Hmmm.

Remembering that all the while Soviet strategy is being formulated along the lines of the Perestroika deception, and the National Bolshevik convergence, and according to Aleksandr Dughin:

https://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/2015/03/04/aleksandr-dugin-putins-rasputin/

However, the strategy just starts from there. Dugin states that defeating the United States and limiting their power in the Eastern Hemisphere is a necessary task, referring to the United States as "a necessary scapegoat." Russia can and should use their natural resources to turn former American allies into Russian allies, and Dugin advises fomenting instability and separatism within the United States itself:

"It is especially important to introduce geopolitical disorder into internal American activity, encouraging all kinds of separatism and ethnic, social and racial conflicts, actively supporting all dissident movements – extremist, racist, and sectarian groups, thus destabilizing internal political processes in the U.S. It would also make sense simultaneously to support isolationist tendencies in American politics...(p. 367)"

"Geopolitical Disorder", as Dughin calls for, sounds like Brzezinski's effect on US strategy, especially his observed inability to see through Russia's deception, but rather leading forays into one 'Big Muddy' after another, while selling himself as a leading Sovietologist to American leaders.

Anatoly Golytzin writes about Brzezinski's curious ineptitude in his book:

https://thecontemplativeobserver.wordpress.com/tag/the-perestroika-deception/

In 1984, I published a book, 'New Lies for Old', about Communist strategic political disinformation. In the book and in my Memoranda, I made several significant predictions about future developments in the Communist world. I predicted that the Communist strategists would go beyond Marx and Lenin and would introduce economic and political reforms in the USSR and Eastern Europe. I predicted the legalisation of Solidarity in Poland, the return to 'democratisation' in Czechoslovakia and the removal of the Berlin Wall. I warned about a political offensive to promote a neutral socialist Europe which would work to Soviet advantage. I also warned that the West was acutely vulnerable to the coming major shift in Communist tactics.

It is axiomatic that political ideas should be tested out in practice. And it is a fact that many of my predictions, particularly about the coming economic and political reforms in the USSR and Eastern Europe, passed the test and were confirmed by subsequent events, particularly in Poland and Czechoslovakia.

It remains also a fact that leading Soviet experts like Mr Zbigniew Brzezinski failed to make accurate predictions about these developments. This failure on the part of Mr Brzezinski and other experts in Washington was noticed by an 'independent observer' in 'The New York Times' of 12 September 1989.

Since then, I have submitted new Memoranda to the CIA and American policymakers in which I explained Soviet grand strategy and its strategic designs against the West, the essence of 'perestroika' (the final phase of the strategy), the new use of the Bloc's political and security potential for introducing new deceptive controlled 'democratic', 'nationalist' and 'non-Communist' structures in the Communist countries, and the deployment of the political and security potential of the renewed 'democratic' regimes for the execution of the strategic design against the West.

In the Memoranda, I provided seven keys for understanding 'perestroika', explained the danger of Western support for it and proposed a reassessment of the situation and a re-thinking of that support as priority items of business. I suggested also how the West should respond to the challenge of 'perestroika' and its destabilising effect on the Western democracies.

Since the Central Intelligence Agency did not react to my Memoranda, I decided to publish them and asked the CIA to declassify them for the purpose. The Agency agreed. Several considerations forced me to take my decision.

First, the democracies of the United States and Western Europe are facing a dangerous situation and are vulnerable because their governments, the Vatican, the elite, the media, the industrialists, the financiers, the trade unions and, most important, the general public are blind to the dangers of the strategy of 'perestroika' and have failed to perceive the deployment of the Communist political potential of the renewed 'democratic' regimes against the West. The democracies could perish unless they are informed about the aggressive design of 'perestroika' against them.

Secondly, I could not imagine that American policymakers, and particularly the conservatives in both the Republican and Democratic parties, despite their long experience with Communist treachery, would not be able to grasp the new manoeuvres of the Communist strategists and would rush to commit the West to helping 'perestroika' which is so contrary to their interests.

It has been sad to observe the jubilation of American and West European conservatives who have been cheering 'perestroika' without realising that it is intended to bring about their own political and physcial demise. Liberal support for 'perestroika' is understandable, but conservative support came as a surprise to me.

Thirdly, I was appalled that 'perestroika' was embraced and supported by the United States without any serious debate on the subject.

In the fourth place, I am appalled by the failure of American scholars to point out the relevance of Lenin's New Economic Policy to understanding the aggressive, anti-Western design of 'perestroika' or to provide appropriate warning to policymakers, and their failure to distinguish between America's true friends and its Leninist foes precisely because these foes are wearing the new 'democratic' uniform. Given the pressures they face, policymakers have no time to study the history of the period of Lenin's New Economic Policy, or to remind themselves of Marxist-Leninist dialectics.

But how could such learned and distinguished scholars as S. Bilar and Z. Brzezinski have failed to warn them about the successes of the New Economic Policy, the mistakes made by the West in accepting it and Gorbachev's repetition of Lenin's strategy and its dangers for the West? What happened to their credentials as great scholars? Why was it left to Professor Norman Stone of Oxford University to detect and make the parallel in his article in the London 'Daily Telegraph' of 11th November 1989, and to express concern at the euphoria over Gorbachev? In his book, 'The Grand Failure', Brzezinski limited his description of Lenin's New Economic Policy to three brief phases. He described the New Economic Policy as amounting to a reliance on the market mechanism and private initiative to stimulate economic recovery. In his words, it was probably 'the most open and intellectually innovative phase' in Soviet history.

For Brzezinski, the NEP is 'a shorthand term for a period of experimentation, flexibility and moderation' [see 'The Grand Failure', Charles Scribner and Sons, New York 1989, pages 18-19]. I am appalled by Brzezinski's failure to explain the relevance of Lenin's New Economic Policy to 'perestroika'.

This failure is further illustrated by the following:

(a) S. Bialer, a former defector from the Central Committee apparatus of the Polish Communist Party, wrote a foreword to Gorbachev's book, 'Perestroika', introducing it to the US public without inserting any warning about the parallel with the New Economic Policy and its dangers for the Western democracies.

(b) During his recent visit to Moscow, Z. Brzezinski, the former National Security Adviser in the Carter Administration, met leading Soviet strategists including Yakovlev, an expert on the manipulation of the Western media, and advised them on how to proceed with 'perestroika'. Furthermore, Brzezinski delivered a lecture on the same subject to the Soviet diplomats at the High Diplomatic Academy!

[MikeWB]

Brzezinski's one of the top globalist elites and tools of zionism. In his books he talks about people like cattle.