Russia, Europe and the East: The dual strategy of the empire to submit Moscow

Martin, when the Bolshevism was the ‘deadly threat’ was at the beginning of it … not at the end of the USSR.

By the end, which is the time you love, the Russians had overcome the deadly aspects of Bolshevism. And then perhaps capitalism came in, instead…just as deadly, and perhaps almost the same thing only opposite. Pathetic.

Its not communism, but Bolshevism that’s so deadly.

@ elsi

Well estadio de sitio was not a documentary but useful thanks.

Perhaps of greater relevance is:

http://www.chinasmack.com/2014/stories/indonesian-massacre-of-ethnic-chinese-documentary-reactions.html

profiling Joshua Oppenheimer’s Act of killing.

Through the link you can watch a version with Chinese subtitles.

Through Youtube you can view an Indonesian version for free, or download the Directors Cut version with English subtitles for a fee.

When the omniscient question resolve, just watch the documentary.

“This is acknowledged by some analysts in the CIA and elsewhere.”

A small example but not unique re the CIA and others.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article42820.htm

A quick attempt to clarify the English:

Russia, Europe and the East: The dual strategy of the empire to submit Moscow

By Youssef Hindi

Translation: Brahim

Source: http://www.egaliteetreconciliation.fr/La-Russie-l-Europe-et-l-Orient-34799.html

Russia is not only a great military power, an old nation which, from the arrival of Vladimir Putin at its head, has endeavored to balance the relation of geopolitical and economic forces. It is also a natural bridge, in varying degrees, between Europe and Asia, West and East.

For over a century, some have wanted to destroy this bridge notably by means of the weapons which are the modern ideologies: Bolshevism, a deadly disease that attacked the heart of Russia, the Christianity which is her soul; and the ultra-liberalism of the 1990s, to finally finish Russia. To this were added the independentism of regions of the Russian Federation, stimulated or encouraged by the United States to definitively shoot down the Russian bear. If Russia has recovered, we must understand the root causes and perceive the role and fate of Russia.
Anthropology, religion and geopolitics

The “miraculous” return of Christianity in Russia is not the result of an accident of History, but the manifestation of fundamental anthropological laws that should attract the attention of Europeans. Every society is organized around collective belief of a majority; most durable of these are of course the great religions that, especially from the industrial era, have been replaced gradually by profane beliefs, materialistic and ephemeral, like the Communism, coupled with the liberal utopianism (derived from Jewish messianism), promising a worldly paradise; or the idols of money, sex and violence, which occupy an important place in the neoliberal societies. The anti-religious ideologies, like communism and secularism, exist by definition only in opposition to transcendental religions, and against the belief in a transcendent God.
But history and anthropology teach us that atheism (negative belief) when it becames the majority, leads to an inexorable collapse of society – no longer supported by a religion nor by moral stability – and leads to the atomization of society and the emergence of individuals lacking any horizontality (community, family, ecclesia) because deprived of verticality; in our viewpoint, both of these being complementary.
.
The historical sequence that has crossed Russia showed us how the sudden collapse of communism – the dominant ideology could not last through the maintenance of the structure that underlies it – gave way to the return of traditional religion in Russia namely Christianity (Nature having, according to Lavoisier, a holy horror of vacuum). This allows us to anticipate the manifestation of the same phenomenon in the West and Europe in particular. In fact, the liberal system and ideology are visibly heading for a collapse (or more precisely it is in progress, but we will not develop this idea here) – since the financial crisis of 2007-2008 – like the communism of yesterday; in this context, we can anticipate an imminent return to religion in Europe. However, it must be feared that uncontrolled return (for those in charge: the ecclesial hierarchy) to belief in God leads to dangerous abuses, such as the rise of gurus and impostors of all kinds. Russia managed its return to Orthodoxy through strong church integrating with the people and the state.
This leads us to conclude that Russia – beyond its economic complementarity with Western Europe – could be a stabilizing element in a Europe facing serious social unrest, political and identity.We must add to this the highly important role that Russia plays in the Middle East. She is a real bridge between Europe and the East, Christianity and Islam – as analyzed by Imran N. Hosein – as a large multiethnic and multi-confessional nation; she, as a model, is a potential cure to the strategy of the clash of civilizations, a strategy which herself is one of the first targets.

The anti-Russian strategy

This Christian Russia, this Russia as a continental power, tellurocratic, extends a natural influence on a wide geographical area inhabited by diverse populations but having paradoxically, the majority of them, a family structure of Russian type-egalitarian community; it is this relative anthropological homogeneity, which in the long term, has allowed Russia to become the “natural empire,” in contrast to his enemy, the thalassocratic American power, heir to the British Empire and carrier of differentialist ideology, imbued with social Darwinism disguised as the founder of democratism.

Russia faces a dual strategy: a US imperial strategy, of which the main brain is Zbigniew Brzezinski and on the other, what can only be specifically called the “Zionist” strategy. The containment strategy and dismantling of the Russian Federation elaborated by Brzezinski in his book The Grand Chessboard (1997/2002), has become obvious to all observers, but the Zionist strategy is much less clear .

Brzezinski’s geopolitical strategy is half a success in terms of the dominance of the heart of Europe by the total submission of France and Germany, but as for the breakdown of Russia’s provinces, allowing Americans to control all of Eurasia and control the natural resources, mainly fossil fuels, this is still the order of fantasy. The dreams of domination by Brzezinski are broken by the Russian wall, by the sovereigntist Putin. But the crisis in Ukraine—a country to which Brzezinski gave special attention and wanted to absolutely separate from Russia–he wrote: “The independence of Ukraine changes the very nature of the Russian state. For that reason alone, this important new square on the Eurasian chessboard is a geopolitical pivot. Without Ukraine, Russia ceases to be an empire in Eurasia.” This shows that Americans have absolutely not abandoned their project. So far, Putin’s Russia has held in check the Americans in Syria (in September 2013 the White House renounced in extremis its bombing operations), and accomplished the spectacular return of the Crimea to the Russian House (March 2014 ) in the midst of a full Ukrainian crisis.

The Zionist strategy for Russia combines with the American strategy, but in no case openly opposes Israel or directly to Russia, on the contrary. Israel maintains good diplomatic relations with Russia while opposing its allies in the Levant (Syria). Israel through the Israel lobby, especially since September 11, 2001, uses the United States and NATO as a tool for the destruction of the historical allies of Russia in the Middle East, thus further opposing Russians and Americans. In parallel, the Zionist leaders are trying, through intermediaries, to negotiate with Russia to abandon its Syrian and Iranian allies. In July 2013, Prince Bandar, as the representative of Saudi Arabia (ally of Israel), met Vladimir Putin, during the Syrian crisis. Bandar proposed an economic agreement, oil and gas to Vladimir Putin, in exchange for dropping Iran, abandoning the Syrian President, and delivering Syria to the terrorists

This indirect Zionist strategy or “bypass” manifested itself when Henry Kissinger, said, May 11, 2014, that we must not isolate Russia, but that “it is in the interest of all that she is kept within the international system.” In 2008, he was more specific about his intentions when he reached out to Russia at the expense of Iran, which he designated “a danger to the surrounding world”. And by “surrounding world” one must of course understand Israel. Kissinger met with Putin in 2009 and in January 2012, two months before his re-election as President of Russia.
The hand that the Zionists offer to Russia is a “treacherous” hand because, from the time when Russia refused to compromise placed itself as a shield for Syria, the fire lit up in Ukraine. So the message delivered to Russia was clear: Either she abandon her eastern allies so they can be delivered to be dismantled geographically, politically, ethnically and religiously, which will then handed over to the great strategy of the North American empire (to the immediate benefit of Israel); or Russia will be attacked at her borders. But this proposed choice is also a trap because if Russia abandoned Syria, it would lose its only port and point of strategic support in the Mediterranean (Tartus), which does not prevent the Americans from maintaining their containment policy of Russia, on the contrary. In fact this concession would be costly to Russia, who is facing an enemy that takes its commitments very lightly.

In short, Russia has every reason to make no concessions and advance a pawn whenever she feels attacked or threatened. Still, the current game of chess probably soon “coming to term.” Israel is beginning to reveal its intentions towards Russia. While Putin authorizes the delivery of defensive missiles S-300 to Iran (April 2015), Israel sends weapons to Ukraine to feed the fire, smoldering after the cease-fire agreements of Minsk II (12 February 2015).

It is only after having understood the strategic coupling of the Zionist and American vis-à-vis Russia that we can hope to better interpret the position of some géopolitologues who, following Kissinger, advocated the hand being extended to Russia while being hostile to its allies, while a the same time covertly fanning the fires of war in the Donbass.

So far Russia has not fallen into this trap and did not weaken against the obvious and insidious US aggression. She remained focused. As one can be assured that she will play an increasingly decisive role in the Middle East and Europe, to the detriment of the destabilizing and expansionist politic of the Zionist elites and their Atlanticist counterparts. The fate of Russia is clear; as for that of Western Europe, if it appears ambiguous, it could nonetheless reveal itself fully in case of a major crisis of a real political and societal upheaval. Russia must and should be careful.