Noam Chomsky on NATO...

[Stevicus]

We'll ignore the various tussles of the British and French over colonies - the smaller countries got what the French and British weren't so bothered about.

From the point of view of the Imperialists, India was the Empire, it outweighed everywhere else in significance and was also key to the security of trade routes in both south Asia and central Asia (where Russia was seen to be expanding). A threat to the 'jewel in the Crown' of the Empire was not to be entertained under any circumstances and Russia's tendency to territorial and influence expansion was a fact of European and Asian history.

The British and French had some early tussles over colonies, although it seems by the mid-19th century, they had gotten over it and seemed willing to co-exist with each other. Britain and France were on the same side with each other in the Crimean War.

Russia's expansion into Central Asia was a gradual, incremental process which took place over the course of centuries, as the flagging Mongol Empire fell apart, piece by piece. The Russians had a presence in Asia while England and Scotland were still fighting each other and before Britain had even existed as a unified kingdom - long before they staked any claims on India. I'm sure the British were quite well aware of the boundaries of Russia when they showed up in India (although they weren't the only European power vying for a piece of India).

Then there's also the matter of the distance and terrain. A cursory look at a topographical map of Asia would show large mountain ranges dividing Central Asia and the territory associated with what was once known as British India. Trying to send an army from the European part of Russia across the deserts of Central Asia, and then across the mountain ranges in and around Afghanistan, just to get to India, would be a colossal undertaking and a logistical nightmare. The British army would be there to be meet them, along with many local volunteers. It would be a complete disaster for the Russians - far worse than the debacle they endured against the Japanese.

And you're saying the British were genuinely worried about this possibility? Seriously? Based on what?

Of course, if they were able to move into Turkey and (possibly) Persia, then that might have been a game changer. But even if the Russians had done that, trying to conquer and occupy those territories would have also taken up a lot of their time and resources. But they also apparently didn't like the idea of Russians in control of the Holy Land - a territory which has also had an enormous role in shaping the geopolitical perceptions of many people, including many in Britain and America. They may have been more concerned about that than any possible threat to India.

 

[Stevicus]

I know both Russians and Italians living in Russia.
Most Americans probably ignore how americanized the Russia of the big cities it.
It is a nation that loves the West, culturally.
Putin did ask the NATO to join in 2000..there is the evidence.
Russians did anything to be accepted as Westerners, after the fall of communism.

But the NATO has always covered it up. Because, evidently their purpose is to keep the NATO as an anti-Russian organization.

When I visited there in the 80s, I encountered many Russians who seemed enamored with Western culture. They would want to trade for blue jeans, rock and roll cassette tapes, etc. There were those who liked Americans, but not everyone was like that.

I believe that the Russians wanted to be accepted as an equal partner to the West. They demonstrated a willingness to cooperate with the US after 9/11. If we had warmed up to them and established more cordial and friendly relations, we might have had a powerful ally against various "rogue nations" like Iran or North Korea. We could have formed a unified front against the likes of Al Qaeda and ISIS. A lot of problems we're dealing with now could have been easily avoided if not for the blind greed, myopia, and stupidity of America's leadership.

 

[Stevicus]

Since McNamara confessed the Tonkin incident was faked, it means a Deep State exists.
And not only..there are tens of other examples...like Kissinger and the Operation Condor.

Well, there's certainly evidence of corruption, iron triangles, big business forming lobby groups, and other things like that. We also know that the US government has tailored its foreign policy to be more pleasing to big business interests - such as United Fruit in Latin America.

It's not that difficult to tell that the country and government (and much of the world, for that matter) are run by a bunch of dishonest scalawags and miscreants. I've studied it as a familiar pattern all throughout history, so there's nothing new about any of this. Man's inhumanity to man knows no bounds.

I resist terms like "Deep State," since it makes it seem all the more mysterious and sometimes even supernatural.

I don't make any claims to know what goes on behind closed doors. All I really know is what I can see around me in the real world, as well as the kinds of ideas which appear prevalent in what is loosely referred to as the "mainstream media." This is what the Powers That Be are presenting to us, as their view of the world and the various forces that operate within it.

Another point that often gets missed is the idea of American exceptionalism. That's always been a key point in the overall perception of Americana, particularly as we're taught growing up and conditioned to believe that we in America have freedom, while most of the rest of the world didn't have freedom. We were taught that in our society, we have a democracy where the government does what the people want it to. This is a singular point of faith which is non-negotiable in the American political culture. Within that ideological structure, we can't possibly think of ourselves as "just an ordinary nation" using the same basic political processes and mechanisms of power which have always existed within human societies.

If one takes away the illusions and gimcrackery of Americana and lifts the shroud of American exceptionalism, I think we'll find ordinary human beings who operate not much differently than the leaders of ancient Rome or the old kingdoms of Europe. They still managed to get things done, so I can't fault them entirely, but all the pomp and circumstance, along with the illusions of "freedom" and self-righteousness and sanctimonious Captain America drivel - they spread that on too thick at times. That's where it goes over the top for me.

"Deep State" is like a counter to the kind of melodrama that seems to dominate the US political culture already. The American Dream and American Exceptionalism are already part of the scene, but "Deep State" plays into it like some kind of evil villain in sheep's clothing.

I don't think it's an evil villain. It's just ordinary humans conducting politics and wielding power in the same way it has always been done.

There is no "deep state" required for that, but the problem is that so many of us have been led to believe that America is all about "freedom" and "democracy." Against that conditioning which starts literally from birth, people are programmed to believe that such things of the kind associated with the "Deep State" can't possibly happen in America because....well, they just can't. This is America, and we are special.

 

[Stevicus]

I don't think there was ever any irrational hatred of Russia - in the UK. They might have been fearful as to their intent - the leaders, that is, and as to how they tended to dominate and suppress all those who were forcibly servile under them. Given that we did witness the various uprisings and put-downs over the decades. Why would we respect or trust them?

My view is that they misread their intent. Why would they respect or trust us? I think the thing that hampered "our" side the most in foreign policy and especially when dealing with Russia was that we wanted things stacked in our favor - just as much as we believed they wanted things stacked in their favor. It's natural for governments to behave like this. We always want our side to get the better deal.

But we can't always have it both ways. We can't paint ourselves as the objective "good guys" while calling them the "bad guys," when both sides are/were likely made up of "bad guys."

 

[Estro Felino]

Well, there's certainly evidence of corruption, iron triangles, big business forming lobby groups, and other things like that. We also know that the US government has tailored its foreign policy to be more pleasing to big business interests - such as United Fruit in Latin America.

It's not that difficult to tell that the country and government (and much of the world, for that matter) are run by a bunch of dishonest scalawags and miscreants. I've studied it as a familiar pattern all throughout history, so there's nothing new about any of this. Man's inhumanity to man knows no bounds.

I resist terms like "Deep State," since it makes it seem all the more mysterious and sometimes even supernatural.

I don't make any claims to know what goes on behind closed doors. All I really know is what I can see around me in the real world, as well as the kinds of ideas which appear prevalent in what is loosely referred to as the "mainstream media." This is what the Powers That Be are presenting to us, as their view of the world and the various forces that operate within it.

Another point that often gets missed is the idea of American exceptionalism. That's always been a key point in the overall perception of Americana, particularly as we're taught growing up and conditioned to believe that we in America have freedom, while most of the rest of the world didn't have freedom. We were taught that in our society, we have a democracy where the government does what the people want it to. This is a singular point of faith which is non-negotiable in the American political culture. Within that ideological structure, we can't possibly think of ourselves as "just an ordinary nation" using the same basic political processes and mechanisms of power which have always existed within human societies.

If one takes away the illusions and gimcrackery of Americana and lifts the shroud of American exceptionalism, I think we'll find ordinary human beings who operate not much differently than the leaders of ancient Rome or the old kingdoms of Europe. They still managed to get things done, so I can't fault them entirely, but all the pomp and circumstance, along with the illusions of "freedom" and self-righteousness and sanctimonious Captain America drivel - they spread that on too thick at times. That's where it goes over the top for me.

"Deep State" is like a counter to the kind of melodrama that seems to dominate the US political culture already. The American Dream and American Exceptionalism are already part of the scene, but "Deep State" plays into it like some kind of evil villain in sheep's clothing.

I don't think it's an evil villain. It's just ordinary humans conducting politics and wielding power in the same way it has always been done.

There is no "deep state" required for that, but the problem is that so many of us have been led to believe that America is all about "freedom" and "democracy." Against that conditioning which starts literally from birth, people are programmed to believe that such things of the kind associated with the "Deep State" can't possibly happen in America because....well, they just can't. This is America, and we are special.

Very interesting analysis.

 

[Stevicus]

No they didn't

They took control of 1/3 of Africa mostly to stop others taking it.

Britain mostly cared about strategic ports, but keeping these secure requires controlling inland areas too if there were rival colonial powers.

Much of the empire was a drain on resources.

The agreed partition of Africa was to avoid unnecessary conflict.

But the bottom line seems to be that they felt they could agree with the other powers vying for Africa, but for whatever reason, they didn't think they could make any agreements with Russia. That Britain felt her empire was at risk from Russia, which was very remote and far away, geographically, seems quite a bit of speculation and imagination.

The East India company took over India, financed by Indian elites (who saw them as more likely to pay debts than the Mughals) and using mostly Indian troops.

Even after coming under crown control, it was a long way from Britain and could only be held with the support of local elites.

A European power with land routes to India and the ability to attract local elites was a threat.

Britain conquering Afghanistan was a threat to Russian interests.

Hence the great game.

Remember this is before modern transport and communications technologies where the world was shrouded in a fog of uncertainty and it could take months or years to respond to any actions in far away lands.

The idea it was some strange Russian hatred is bizarre seeing as Britain generally sided with whoever kept the balance of power best.

Peter the Great lived in Britain and learned about ship building there prior to his expansionist career.

Well, their land routes to India were not exactly the Berlin to Baghdad Railway - although the British seemed to have a problem with that as well - even after siding with Turkey against the Russians.

The whole trouble with trying to keep the balance of power is that it involves switching sides and playing other powers off against each other. It's a dangerous game which got out of their control when it came to dealing with Germany. Funny thing is, though, I don't think Germany really threatened Britain as much as they threatened the French and wanted pieces of the French Empire. The British stopped them from getting French Morocco in 1905. The Germans also were looking east at the vast lands teeming with resources in Russia.

 

[Estro Felino]

When I visited there in the 80s, I encountered many Russians who seemed enamored with Western culture. They would want to trade for blue jeans, rock and roll cassette tapes, etc. There were those who liked Americans, but not everyone was like that.

I believe that the Russians wanted to be accepted as an equal partner to the West. They demonstrated a willingness to cooperate with the US after 9/11. If we had warmed up to them and established more cordial and friendly relations, we might have had a powerful ally against various "rogue nations" like Iran or North Korea. We could have formed a unified front against the likes of Al Qaeda and ISIS. A lot of problems we're dealing with now could have been easily avoided if not for the blind greed, myopia, and stupidity of America's leadership.

If you ask me, I think the average American is not even curious about European geopolitics.
Whereas we Europeans watch American media (and movies) 24/7.

I can tell you that in Europe we love the US, and we idealize the US. And sometimes idolize them.

But when it deals with war, everything changes.
I can talk about my country. War is really disliked because it is a notion that belongs to prehistory , almost. It is uncostitutional too.
And so it saddens us that some countries still have the notion of war.

 

[kaninchen]

And you're saying the British were genuinely worried about this possibility? Seriously? Based on what?

Read up on the 'Great Game' - btw, many of us did 'the Empire' (ie British History) at school so we don't need 'school history' in replies.

 

[Stevicus]

Read up on the 'Great Game' - btw, many of us did 'the Empire' (ie British History) at school so we don't need 'school history' in replies.

Is that why your view of history is so one-sided?

 

[Kooky]

That the "war for pipelines" trope got wheeled out for Kosovo, Syria, Afghanistan, etc.

I'm not familiar with any claims made in that direction with regards to Kosovo and Syria. Could you point me to where you've read or heard about these?

These claims were made about Afghanistan, of course, and I would argue that they had some extremely limited amount of substance to them - several pipeline projects (for petroleum and natural gas) had existedfor the region since the fall of the USSR, but the primary reason why that one never got off the ground was Afghanistan's own endemic instability.

So if NATO presence there had actually created the kind of democratic stability wild-eyed idiots like Francis Fukuyama had envisioned, that would have provided the necessary foundation to give the go ahead to these projects. And indeed, it seems that with the Taliban consolidating power, people were hoping that some of these projects would finally get off the ground.

As I have argued in another thread, war is never "about" any single thing in particular. These kinds of heavy handed policies tend to be the product of a convergence of several different interests - and in Afghanistan and Iraq both, it seems clear to me that while the initial justification for war had very little to do with economics, there were a lot of people with their own pet projects (be they ideological or economic in nature) who were just waiting in the wings to implement their ideas with US military backing.

Yet the people promoting it never notice that their predictions never matched a pipeline reality.

I would argue that we should investigate claims individually on their own merits, rather than engaging in thoughtless knee jerk reactions for sheer entertainment, but maybe that's just my stick-in-the-mud, no-fun approach to debates on geopolitics.

 

[Stevicus]

If you ask me, I think the average American is not even curious about European geopolitics.
Whereas we Europeans watch American media (and movies) 24/7.

I can tell you that in Europe we love the US, and we idealize the US. And sometimes idolize them.

But when it deals with war, everything changes.
I can talk about my country. War is really disliked because it is a notion that belongs to prehistory , almost. It is uncostitutional too.
And so it saddens us that some countries still have the notion of war.

One thing to consider about America is that many of us are descendants of Europeans who left Europe under less than ideal circumstances. I don't think it's due to a lack of curiosity, but there's been a long-term sense of geographical isolation and the negative circumstances of our ancestors' departure. Moreover, America's Founders considered that we would be better off remaining detached and uninvolved in European affairs, as much for our own protection and benefit as anything else.

But there are plenty of Americans who have been interested in Europe. Many of the wealthier Americans travel there extensively and seem to think that makes them more sophisticated than the great unwashed. My grandfather used to think of Europeans as aristocratic, where they like classical music, ballet, and opera - and they're not like us down home country folk.

 

[kaninchen]

Is that why your view of history is so one-sided?

Says the man desperately trying to vindicate his side's imperialism.

I think we're done with one another.

 

[Stevicus]

Says the man desperately trying to vindicate his side's imperialism.

"Desperately"? My goodness you're full of assumptions. Which side's imperialism do you think I'm trying to vindicate. I'm an American.

I think we're done with one another.

Gee, you give up pretty easily. I guess that means I win.

 

[Augustus]

I'm not familiar with any claims made in that direction with regards to Kosovo and Syria. Could you point me to where you've read or heard about these?

Just have a quick Google, you'll see them.

I would argue that we should investigate claims individually on their own merits, rather than engaging in thoughtless knee jerk reactions for sheer entertainment, but maybe that's just my stick-in-the-mud, no-fun approach to debates on geopolitics.

And when someone makes a decent case, then we can look at its merits.

Being contemptuous of war for Oil/pipelines/about to undermine the petrodollar/didn't have a Rothschild central bank aren't "knee jerk reactions for sheer entertainment" though.

Claiming these are the reason for war on the other hand...

 

[Augustus]

But the bottom line seems to be that they felt they could agree with the other powers vying for Africa, but for whatever reason, they didn't think they could make any agreements with Russia. That Britain felt her empire was at risk from Russia, which was very remote and far away, geographically, seems quite a bit of speculation and imagination.

They came to numerous agreements with Russia over the years. Just as they at times were allies or enemies of other powers.

That there was no rational reason to perceive a threat seems based on an overestimation of knowledge and ability to respond in short term.

In the not too distant past, Britain had severely impacted the Spanish empire with a handful of ships, it didn't take that much to cause harm to a global empire.

 

[Kooky]

Is that why your view of history is so one-sided?

Sorry, but in this particular case, you're just ignorant of the history in question. The British Empire cared enough about the threat of Russian incursions into Central Asia to invade the only country between that place and their "crown jewel" of India, Afghanistan - not once, not twice, but three times, the last time briefly after WW1.

First Anglo-Afghan War - Wikipedia
Second Anglo-Afghan War - Wikipedia
Third Anglo-Afghan War - Wikipedia

The Great Game was not some conspiracy theory or propaganda, but a very real geopolitical constellation of the mid-to-late 19th century, blowing up into a major European war in the form of the Crimea War, and was only resolved when the German Empire began to be seen as a greater threat to both Russia and the UK.

 

[Kooky]

Being contemptuous of war for Oil/pipelines/about to undermine the petrodollar/didn't have a Rothschild central bank aren't "knee jerk reactions for sheer entertainment" though.

Believing that the war could be at least in part motivated by an ongoing decades-long dispute over access, control and revenue related to existing gas pipelines is hardly a conspiracy theory worthy of that thoughtless knee jerk reaction.

It certainly has greater explanatory power and is supported by more evidence than the currently mainstream theory of "Putin's just crazy lol".

 

[Stevicus]

Sorry, but in this particular case, you're just ignorant of the history in question. The British Empire cared enough about the threat of Russian incursions into Central Asia to invade the only country between that place and their "crown jewel" of India, Afghanistan - not once, not twice, but three times, the last time briefly after WW1.

First Anglo-Afghan War - Wikipedia
Second Anglo-Afghan War - Wikipedia
Third Anglo-Afghan War - Wikipedia

The Great Game was not some conspiracy theory or propaganda, but a very real geopolitical constellation of the mid-to-late 19th century, blowing up into a major European war in the form of the Crimea War, and was only resolved when the German Empire began to be seen as a greater threat to both Russia and the UK.

No, I can understand the Great Game, but it seems there were two sides to that, and the person I to whom I was responding clearly took sides. The individual implied that they were British, so obviously they took the British side. That explains their one-sided view.

As an American, I'm neutral on that whole issue.

I still maintain that there is no evidence, no historical documentation outlining any secret plan or intention that Russia had any desire to invade or occupy India. (If you're saying there is such documentary evidence and I'm just ignorant of it, then I'd be interested in seeing it.)

It's just something that the British feared, without any evidence whatsoever. Kind of like how the Reagan Administration feared that the Sandinistas of Nicaragua were planning to conquer the United States.

 

[Stevicus]

They came to numerous agreements with Russia over the years. Just as they at times were allies or enemies of other powers.

That there was no rational reason to perceive a threat seems based on an overestimation of knowledge and ability to respond in short term.

In the not too distant past, Britain had severely impacted the Spanish empire with a handful of ships, it didn't take that much to cause harm to a global empire.

My point is that it seems clear that they evaluated who was a threat or non-threat by very subjective and inconsistent criteria.

The French, for example, were far more expansionist and occupying places in close proximity to the British Empire and had the industries, manpower, and sea power to be a serious material threat to Britain - not just the Empire but the British home islands. But the British were allied with the French in the Crimean War, and they forged further alliances with that country later on.

Russia was far more distant and remote, and were sorely lacking in industries and any real sea power to be much of a threat at all. Their expansionism was land-based, for the most part. They had no real projection power beyond their own borders.

So, it seems that Britain judged threats or non-threats not by what other countries actually do, where they're located, or the size of the armies or navies. It seems just based on how they feel about the country or its government or any other highly subjective evaluations. What kind of way is that to run a foreign policy? Among other things, it led to two world wars, near bankruptcy, abject dependence upon the United States, and in the end, you still lost the Empire you were trying to save.

 

[Kooky]

I still maintain that there is no evidence, no historical documentation outlining any secret plan or intention that Russia had any desire to invade or occupy India. (If you're saying there is such documentary evidence and I'm just ignorant of it, then I'd be interested in seeing it.)

Desires are not subject to record, so you are asking me to prove the unprovable. The Russian Empire made moves to occupy parts of Afghanistan in its drive South towards Persia, however. Note that at the time, the Amir of Afghanistan was a British ally.

Panjdeh incident - Wikipedia

The Panjdeh incident (known in Russian historiography as the Battle of Kushka)[1] was an armed engagement between the Emirate of Afghanistan and the Russian Empire in 1885 that led to a diplomatic crisis between the British Empire and the Russian Empire caused by the Russian expansion south-eastwards towards the Emirate of Afghanistan and the British Raj (India). After nearly completing the Russian conquest of Central Asia (Russian Turkestan) the Russians captured an Afghan border fort, threatening British interests in the area. Seeing a threat to India, Britain prepared for war but both sides backed down and the matter was settled by diplomacy.