Olduvaiblog: Musings on the coming collapse

Home » Posts tagged 'regime change'

Tag Archives: regime change

Obama's Former Foreign Policy Adviser Said – In 1997 – that the U.S. Had to Gain Control of Ukraine Washington's Blog

Obama’s Former Foreign Policy Adviser Said – In 1997 – that the U.S. Had to Gain Control of Ukraine Washington’s Blog.

The Battle for Ukraine Was Planned in 1997 … Or Earlier

Neoconservatives planned regime change throughout the Middle East and North Africa 20 years ago. Robert Parry correctly points out that the Neocons have successfully “weathered the storm” of disdain after their Iraq war fiasco.

But the truth is that Obama has long done his best to try to implement those Neocon plans.

Similarly, ever since the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, the U.S. has pursued a strategy of encircling Russia, just as it has with other perceived enemies like China and Iran.

In 1997, Obama’s former foreign affairs adviser, and president Jimmy Carter’s national security adviser – Zbigniew Brzezinski – wrote a book called The Grand Chessboard arguing arguing that the U.S. had to take control of Ukraine (as well as Azerbaijan, South Korea, Turkey and Iran) because they were “critically important geopolitical pivots”.

Regarding Ukraine, Brzezinski said (hat tip Chris Ernesto):

Ukraine, a new and important space on the Eurasian chessboard, is a geopolitical pivot because its very existence as an independent country helps to transform Russia. Without Ukraine, Russia ceases to be a Eurasian empire.

***

However, if Moscow regains control over Ukraine, with its 52 million people and major resources as well as access to the Black Sea, Russia automatically again regains the wherewithal to become a powerful imperial state, spanning Europe and Asia.

And now Obama is pushing us into a confrontation with Russia over Ukraine and the Crimea.

As Ernesto notes:

Late last year when Ukraine’s now-ousted president Viktor Yanukovych surprisingly canceled plans for Ukrainian integration into the European Union in favor of stronger ties with Russia, the US may have viewed Ukraine as slipping even further out of its reach.

At that point, with the pieces already in place, the US moved to support the ousting of Yanukovych, as evidenced by the leaked phone conversation between US Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland [arch-Neocon Robert Kagan‘s wife]  and US Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt.  When peaceful protests were not effective in unseating Yanukovych, the violence of the ultra-nationalist Svoboda party and Right Sector was embraced, if not supported by the west.

In today’s Ukraine, the US runs the risk of being affiliated with anti-Semitic neo-Nazis, a prospect it probably feels can be controlled via a friendly western media. But even if the risk is high, the US likely views it as necessary given the geopolitical importance of Ukraine, as Brzezinski mapped out in 1997.

In other words, Obama is following the same old playbook that the Neocons have been pushing for more than a decade.

Obama’s Former Foreign Policy Adviser Said – In 1997 – that the U.S. Had to Gain Control of Ukraine Washington’s Blog

Obama’s Former Foreign Policy Adviser Said – In 1997 – that the U.S. Had to Gain Control of Ukraine Washington’s Blog.

The Battle for Ukraine Was Planned in 1997 … Or Earlier

Neoconservatives planned regime change throughout the Middle East and North Africa 20 years ago. Robert Parry correctly points out that the Neocons have successfully “weathered the storm” of disdain after their Iraq war fiasco.

But the truth is that Obama has long done his best to try to implement those Neocon plans.

Similarly, ever since the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, the U.S. has pursued a strategy of encircling Russia, just as it has with other perceived enemies like China and Iran.

In 1997, Obama’s former foreign affairs adviser, and president Jimmy Carter’s national security adviser – Zbigniew Brzezinski – wrote a book called The Grand Chessboard arguing arguing that the U.S. had to take control of Ukraine (as well as Azerbaijan, South Korea, Turkey and Iran) because they were “critically important geopolitical pivots”.

Regarding Ukraine, Brzezinski said (hat tip Chris Ernesto):

Ukraine, a new and important space on the Eurasian chessboard, is a geopolitical pivot because its very existence as an independent country helps to transform Russia. Without Ukraine, Russia ceases to be a Eurasian empire.

***

However, if Moscow regains control over Ukraine, with its 52 million people and major resources as well as access to the Black Sea, Russia automatically again regains the wherewithal to become a powerful imperial state, spanning Europe and Asia.

And now Obama is pushing us into a confrontation with Russia over Ukraine and the Crimea.

As Ernesto notes:

Late last year when Ukraine’s now-ousted president Viktor Yanukovych surprisingly canceled plans for Ukrainian integration into the European Union in favor of stronger ties with Russia, the US may have viewed Ukraine as slipping even further out of its reach.

At that point, with the pieces already in place, the US moved to support the ousting of Yanukovych, as evidenced by the leaked phone conversation between US Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland [arch-Neocon Robert Kagan‘s wife]  and US Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt.  When peaceful protests were not effective in unseating Yanukovych, the violence of the ultra-nationalist Svoboda party and Right Sector was embraced, if not supported by the west.

In today’s Ukraine, the US runs the risk of being affiliated with anti-Semitic neo-Nazis, a prospect it probably feels can be controlled via a friendly western media. But even if the risk is high, the US likely views it as necessary given the geopolitical importance of Ukraine, as Brzezinski mapped out in 1997.

In other words, Obama is following the same old playbook that the Neocons have been pushing for more than a decade.

After Ukraine, Turkey might be the Next Target of “Regime Change” | Global Research

After Ukraine, Turkey might be the Next Target of “Regime Change” | Global Research.

Global Research, March 14, 2014
white moon and star turkey map

The plot and the leading actors are almost the same. Just change the backdrop. Throw in the diplomatic and intelligence machinations into the mix and you have a recipe for regime change.  A corrupt leader backed by a powerful next-door neighbour or an overseas sponsor. Internal dissent in the form of mass, on going, and very violent protests, which lead to several deaths in the streets due to confrontation between riot police and demonstrators. Calls for resignation of the (elected) leader and foreign forces manipulating events by meddling in the internal affairs of a sovereign state.

After US-EU backed palace coup in Kiev is Ankara the next target?

Yes, this sounds very much like pre-putsch Ukraine, doesn’t it? But what if we look across the Black sea to a powerful regional US alley, and key NATO member state (NATO’s second largest standing army in terms of troop numbers): Turkey. The same template or scenario for a popular uprising or potential for  “regime change” can just as well be applied to that country. Sound exaggerated? Let’s see then.

The whole world knows that, Turkey is currently racked by inner or domestic instability. But unlike Ukraine or Arab states which saw their leaders overthrown in successive revolutions as part of the euphemistically termed “Arab Spring”, the Turkish leader has applied methods not unlike his archenemy President Assad of Syria, to remain in power.

Tactics used such as the systematic persecution of opposition and trade union leaders, journalists, censorship of social media etc. have not gone unnoticed in the EU and the US.  The imprisonment without trial of political dissenters or dissidents (to use the old cold war word) has become a common, or everyday occurrence in Turkey. Hence, the brutality of the ruling AKP (Development and Justice Party) regime makes the reign of ousted (yet democratically elected) President Yanucovitch, seem almost like life in Arcadia or Shangri la by contrast.

 Erdogan’s iron fisted rule over his country has become wearisome for many of the country’s denizens, over the past year or so. How has the west and especially Turkey’s biggest sponsor (the US) reacted to his anti-democratic and at times paranoid (He has accused foreign powers or outside forces, including Israel, and individuals like Fethullah Gulen, of subverting his rule or plotting his demise.) behaviour?  With a slight tap on the wrist or maybe a gentle rebuke or two.

Until Yanukovitch’s overthrow Washington denounced this “Russian puppet” as a corrupt and despotic ruler over Ukraine. However during this same period, and up until now, the US has conspicuously remained strangely mute, about the turbulent events in Turkey. Is there a double standard here, or am I misreading the situation?

But beneath the surface tensions between Turkey and the US are rising. Washington seems displeased with Erdogan’s rule. Might regime change in Turkey be on the menu at the White House? Hard to tell at this point, but Washington’s patience with Erdogan is certainly not unlimited; in other words, it’s running out. As the March 30th municipal elections approach things will get very dicey in the country indeed and Washington’s support for the AKP may begin to wane.

A Ukrainian style “crescent moon” revolution on the way in Turkey?

Reccip Tayyip Erogan has since June 2013 been faced with waves of protest in his country. These protest continue  . He has been exposed recently as a corrupt, venal, authoritarian and some say even a megalomaniac. He’s has done everything to maintain his grip on power, including purging the police, and security and judicial apparatus. His ruthlessness seemingly knows no bounds. The constant repression has reached a tipping point: either more dictatorial style domestic policies will continue or a popular “democratic” and “home-grown” uprising backed by shadowy groups, like the ones currently operating in Ukraine will likely materialise.   The Ukraine scenario of course, is based on outside interference in the internal affairs of a sovereign country.

Fomenting a coup in Turkey is far more complicated, due to the country’s immense strategic importance to the west. As well, the only leading actors capable of overthrowing the current, graft- ridden, regime (as in the case of Egypt most recently) is the military. There have been several military coups in Turkey’ history. So this cannot be excluded (some with US assistance).

Ukraine’ Crimean secessionist movement mirrors that of Kurds in Turkey

With the potential of Crimea seceding from the rest of Ukraine or possible reuniting with Russia, Kurds in Turkey who have fought for decades for an independent homeland might be looking closely at the outcome of the referendum there. Moreover, after decades of armed conflict there is a very tenuous peace in that part of eastern Turkey. But growing secessionist movements, clamouring for more regional autonomy (triggered by the Ukraine crisis in the region), might rekindle nationalists’ fervour in Turkish Kurdistan. This could destabilise Turkey further and add to the long sanding domestic internal turmoil.

After Ukraine, Turkey might be the Next Target of “Regime Change” | Global Research

After Ukraine, Turkey might be the Next Target of “Regime Change” | Global Research.

Global Research, March 14, 2014
white moon and star turkey map

The plot and the leading actors are almost the same. Just change the backdrop. Throw in the diplomatic and intelligence machinations into the mix and you have a recipe for regime change.  A corrupt leader backed by a powerful next-door neighbour or an overseas sponsor. Internal dissent in the form of mass, on going, and very violent protests, which lead to several deaths in the streets due to confrontation between riot police and demonstrators. Calls for resignation of the (elected) leader and foreign forces manipulating events by meddling in the internal affairs of a sovereign state.

After US-EU backed palace coup in Kiev is Ankara the next target?

Yes, this sounds very much like pre-putsch Ukraine, doesn’t it? But what if we look across the Black sea to a powerful regional US alley, and key NATO member state (NATO’s second largest standing army in terms of troop numbers): Turkey. The same template or scenario for a popular uprising or potential for  “regime change” can just as well be applied to that country. Sound exaggerated? Let’s see then.

The whole world knows that, Turkey is currently racked by inner or domestic instability. But unlike Ukraine or Arab states which saw their leaders overthrown in successive revolutions as part of the euphemistically termed “Arab Spring”, the Turkish leader has applied methods not unlike his archenemy President Assad of Syria, to remain in power.

Tactics used such as the systematic persecution of opposition and trade union leaders, journalists, censorship of social media etc. have not gone unnoticed in the EU and the US.  The imprisonment without trial of political dissenters or dissidents (to use the old cold war word) has become a common, or everyday occurrence in Turkey. Hence, the brutality of the ruling AKP (Development and Justice Party) regime makes the reign of ousted (yet democratically elected) President Yanucovitch, seem almost like life in Arcadia or Shangri la by contrast.

 Erdogan’s iron fisted rule over his country has become wearisome for many of the country’s denizens, over the past year or so. How has the west and especially Turkey’s biggest sponsor (the US) reacted to his anti-democratic and at times paranoid (He has accused foreign powers or outside forces, including Israel, and individuals like Fethullah Gulen, of subverting his rule or plotting his demise.) behaviour?  With a slight tap on the wrist or maybe a gentle rebuke or two.

Until Yanukovitch’s overthrow Washington denounced this “Russian puppet” as a corrupt and despotic ruler over Ukraine. However during this same period, and up until now, the US has conspicuously remained strangely mute, about the turbulent events in Turkey. Is there a double standard here, or am I misreading the situation?

But beneath the surface tensions between Turkey and the US are rising. Washington seems displeased with Erdogan’s rule. Might regime change in Turkey be on the menu at the White House? Hard to tell at this point, but Washington’s patience with Erdogan is certainly not unlimited; in other words, it’s running out. As the March 30th municipal elections approach things will get very dicey in the country indeed and Washington’s support for the AKP may begin to wane.

A Ukrainian style “crescent moon” revolution on the way in Turkey?

Reccip Tayyip Erogan has since June 2013 been faced with waves of protest in his country. These protest continue  . He has been exposed recently as a corrupt, venal, authoritarian and some say even a megalomaniac. He’s has done everything to maintain his grip on power, including purging the police, and security and judicial apparatus. His ruthlessness seemingly knows no bounds. The constant repression has reached a tipping point: either more dictatorial style domestic policies will continue or a popular “democratic” and “home-grown” uprising backed by shadowy groups, like the ones currently operating in Ukraine will likely materialise.   The Ukraine scenario of course, is based on outside interference in the internal affairs of a sovereign country.

Fomenting a coup in Turkey is far more complicated, due to the country’s immense strategic importance to the west. As well, the only leading actors capable of overthrowing the current, graft- ridden, regime (as in the case of Egypt most recently) is the military. There have been several military coups in Turkey’ history. So this cannot be excluded (some with US assistance).

Ukraine’ Crimean secessionist movement mirrors that of Kurds in Turkey

With the potential of Crimea seceding from the rest of Ukraine or possible reuniting with Russia, Kurds in Turkey who have fought for decades for an independent homeland might be looking closely at the outcome of the referendum there. Moreover, after decades of armed conflict there is a very tenuous peace in that part of eastern Turkey. But growing secessionist movements, clamouring for more regional autonomy (triggered by the Ukraine crisis in the region), might rekindle nationalists’ fervour in Turkish Kurdistan. This could destabilise Turkey further and add to the long sanding domestic internal turmoil.

Snipers Are Commonly Used as “False Flag” Terrorists Washington’s Blog

Snipers Are Commonly Used as “False Flag” Terrorists Washington’s Blog.

A Common Tactic to Discredit Opponents Or to Create Momentum for “Regime Change”

The powers-that-be often use agent provocateurs to disrupt protests and paint protesters as violent and unlikeable.

For example, violent provocateurs were deployed:

There is a related type of false flag operation commonly used to create chaos and discredit regimes or protesters:  snipers.

For example:

  • Unknown snipers reportedly killed both Venezuelan government and opposition protesters in the attempted 2002 coup
  • Unknown snipers allegedly have created bedlam in Syria
  • A Russian general alleges that – during Yeltsin’s protest in front of the Russian parliament – sniper fire came from the roof of the American Embassy
  • And the Estonian foreign minister claims that the new Ukranian coalition deployed snipers to discredit the former government of Ukraine

Brutal … but effective and cheap.

Because it doesn’t cost much to hire one or a handful of snipers to access rooftops or bridge overpasses, create chaos, and then quietly disappear.

Snipers Are Commonly Used as "False Flag" Terrorists Washington's Blog

Snipers Are Commonly Used as “False Flag” Terrorists Washington’s Blog.

A Common Tactic to Discredit Opponents Or to Create Momentum for “Regime Change”

The powers-that-be often use agent provocateurs to disrupt protests and paint protesters as violent and unlikeable.

For example, violent provocateurs were deployed:

There is a related type of false flag operation commonly used to create chaos and discredit regimes or protesters:  snipers.

For example:

  • Unknown snipers reportedly killed both Venezuelan government and opposition protesters in the attempted 2002 coup
  • Unknown snipers allegedly have created bedlam in Syria
  • A Russian general alleges that – during Yeltsin’s protest in front of the Russian parliament – sniper fire came from the roof of the American Embassy
  • And the Estonian foreign minister claims that the new Ukranian coalition deployed snipers to discredit the former government of Ukraine

Brutal … but effective and cheap.

Because it doesn’t cost much to hire one or a handful of snipers to access rooftops or bridge overpasses, create chaos, and then quietly disappear.

Sleepwalking Again – PaulCraigRoberts.org

Sleepwalking Again – PaulCraigRoberts.org.

February 22, 2014Paul Craig Roberts

On the 100th Anniversary of World War 1, the Western powers are again sleepwalking into destructive conflict. Hegemonic ambition has Washington interfering in the internal affairs of Ukraine, but developments seem to be moving beyond Washington’s control.

Regime change in Ukraine for a mere $5 billion dollars would be a bargain compared to the massive sums squandered in Iraq ($3,000 billion), Afghanistan ($3,000 billion), Somalia, and Libya, or the money Washington is wasting murdering people with drones in Pakistan and Yemen, or the money Washington has spent supporting al Qaeda in Syria, or the massive sums Washington has wasted surrounding Iran with 40 military bases and several fleets in the Persian Gulf in an effort to terrorize Iran into submission.

So far, in Washington’s attempt at regime change in Ukraine large numbers of Americans are not being killed and maimed. Only Ukrainians are dying, all the better for Washington as the deaths are blamed on the Ukrainian government that the US has targeted for overthrow.

The problem with Washington’s plot to overthrow the elected government of Ukraine and install its minions is twofold: The chosen US puppets have lost control of the protests to armed radical elements with historical links to nazism, and Russia regards an EU/NATO takeover of Ukraine as a strategic threat to Russian independence.

Washington overlooked that the financially viable part of today’s Ukraine consists of historical Russian provinces in the east and south that the Soviet leadership merged into Ukraine in order to dilute the fascist elements in western Ukraine that fought for Adolf Hitler against the Soviet Union. It is these ultra-nationalist elements with nazi roots, not Washington’s chosen puppets, who are now in charge of the armed rebellion in Western Ukraine.

If the democratically elected Ukraine government is overthrown, the eastern and southern parts would rejoin Russia. The western part would be looted by Western bankers and corporations, and the NATO Ukraine bases would be targeted by Russian Iskander missiles.

It would be a defeat for Washington and their gullible Ukrainian dupes to see half of the country return to Russia. To save face, Washington might provoke a great power confrontation, which could be the end of all of us.

My series of articles on the situation in Ukraine resulted in a number of interviews from Canada to Russia, with more scheduled. It also produced emotional rants from people of Ukrainian descent whose delusions are impenetrable by facts. Deranged Russophobes dismissed as propaganda the easily verifiable report of Assistant Secretary of State Nuland’s public address last December, in which she boasted that Washington had spent $5 billion preparing Ukraine to be aligned with Washington’s interests. Protest sympathizers claim that the intercepted telephone call between Nuland and the US Ambassador in Ukraine, in which the two US officials chose the government that would be installed following the coup, is a fake.

One person actually suggested that my position should be aligned with the “sincerity of the Kiev students,” not with the facts.

Some Trekkers and Trekkies were more concerned that I used an improper title for Spock than they were with the prospect of great power confrontation. The point of my article flew off into space and missed planet Earth.

Spock’s mental powers were the best weapon that Starship Enterprise had. Among my graduate school friends, Spock was known as Dr. Spock, because he was the cool, calm, and unemotional member of the crew who could diagnose the problem and save the situation.

There are no Spocks in the US or any Western government and certainly not among the Ukrainian protesters.

I have often wondered if Spock’s Vulcan ancestry was Gene Roddenberry’s way of underlining by contrast the fragility of human reason. In the context of modern military technology, is it possible for life to survive humanity’s penchant for emotion to trump reason and for self-delusion to prevail over factual reality?

%d bloggers like this: