Discussion in 'The Grand Chessboard' started by Angroid, Aug 23, 2017.
It's an interesting article but there are some inconsistencies and inaccuracies.
Not sure I agree with that claim. I'd argue that any Empire's expansion is only limited by the amount of internal decay or external resistance it encounters and the US Empire has arguably not yet reached its limits. It is indeed beginning to face diminishing returns vs the efforts being invested into expansion but that's another topic.
Was Vietnam really such a strategic failure? It got bombed to the stone age and its economic, social and political development and influence was set back for decades. Its neighbouring states were bombed to the stone age ensuring that they'd be of little consequence for decades to come. Surrounding countries like Thailand were entrenched with US & allied military, political & social influence. The Vietnam war made fortunes for US tycoons and industrialists. Kissinger signed up the Sunnis to trade oil for worthless paper money. Nixon took the US off the gold standard enabling it to run up infinite debts and trade deficits.
So all in all, was Vietnam really such a strategic failure? I'd argue that things aren't what they seem and that whilst Vietnam may have seemed like a failure on the surface, the reality and real outcome is a lot more complex and was perhaps less of a "disaster" for the US than what the media commonly portrays it to have been.
What loss of influence amongst the petro-monarchies? Saudi Arabia are still signed up. So are most of the oil bearing Sunni dictatorships across the Middle East.
The other major oil producers like Iraq & Iran aren't monarchies.
It's not clear what exactly he means with the reference to Egypt. Long time Egyptian strong man Hosni Mubarak was basically putsched from power by the US / West / Soros mafia and they had him replaced with a Muslim Brotherhood terrorist government, albeit a "democratically elected" one which lasted until the Egyptian military had finally had enough of the West's meddling & Arab Spring activities and they in turn deposed the Muslim Brotherhood, much to the chagrin of Hilllary, Soros & Obongo.
The author is being misleading here. He omits the fact that the Obama regime were first and foremost sponsoring a JEWISH OLIGARCH coup in Ukraine and that they placed a JEWISH MAFIA in power in Ukraine, which bizarrely is in alliance with mostly Western Ukrainian Nazis. (WTF is a "Ukrainian Neo-Nazi"??? They're Nazis and have been Nazis since the WW2 era and earlier.)
Bullshit, he wasn't opposed to "intervening" in Syria at all. The war in Syria was his own administrations doing!! He was simply too scared to attack Syria directly because it risked starting a war with Russia.
The classic way to reduce the power and influence of the MIC is to defund them.
The classic way to get the MIC and the generals on your side is to bribe them with gibs. Trump paid the piper.
Nonsense. Utopian idealism has nothing to do with it. That's the classic lie that the MSM and #FakeNews sell the public. The lie that "poor and unfortunate decisions were made to wage wars for freedom and democracy, and that these decisions were made with the best and noblest of intentions. It's bullshit. Greed and lust for power is the real name of the game.
I think that the general gist of the article has something to it. Eurasian Empires are indeed going to speed up de-dollarisation and this will have a very serious impact on the US's ability to influence the global economy as it is currently capable of doing.
It's only a question of time before the Saudi ragheads are going to be coerced by Yellow Peril to start accepting Renminbi for oil and this is going to cause an extremely serious rift with the US and it will have severe consequences for the Saudi / US relationship.