Glazov Gang: Illarionov on ‘A CIA Director’s Haunting Visit to Moscow’

Comments

1. ࿗Infidel࿘ says

   Aug 16, 2023 at 8:23 am

   Last night, I was watching Tucker’s new RFK interview, and in that, RFK mentioned that Burns was one of the people who argued against inviting Ukraine to join NATO

   https://twitter.com/TuckerCarlson/status/1691228480556429312

   He went through the history of Gorbachev going out on a limb and offering to pull Soviet troops out of East Germany & other East European countries, on the condition that there was no further NATO expansion, and Jim Baker promised him “not one inch”. Gorby’s mistake was not insisting that such a commitment be in writing, and an actual treaty, and not tying the former Warsaw Pact countries to the agreement that they too would not join NATO if asked. But he didn’t, and as RFK pointed out, NATO not only expanded thousands of miles eastwards, but found itself on Russia’s border via Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland (the latter 2 bordering Kaliningrad)

   In that context, there is a difference b/w what Illarionov pointed out about countries like Bulgaria, Romania, Slovakia… joining NATO, vs Ukraine (or Belarus) joining NATO. He pointed out that all the past invasions of Russia had gone through Ukraine, so that Ukraine joining NATO was a non-starter even w/ past leaders like Yeltsin. The only way that might have been acceptable would have been Russia itself being accepted into NATO

   The other thing RFK pointed out was how Zelansky’s landslide victory in Ukraine was a result of him committing to abide by the Minsk agreement. However, pressure came on him from Victoria Nuland and others to not go that way. He also pointed out how the 2014 coup that removed Viktor Yanukovich from power made it look like Russia would lose Sevastopol (RFK mistakenly said Vladivostok, but that’s on the Sea of Japan), which was its only warm water port and the headquarters of the Black Sea Fleet, which was until then shared b/w Russia and Ukraine. Not just that, the new government made Ukrainian the sole official language, thereby disempowering the people of the Donbas, who are largely Russian speaking, but even Russia’s occupation of those 2 provinces just required that they be made autonomous republics. (Only thing I don’t like is those 2 being branded as “people’s republics”, as though they are now neo-communist states).

   Also, the rationales being spewed by warhawks in the US are now different. He mentioned some who claimed that the idea is to destroy Russia’s military ability to wage war anywhere, while the official claim is to want regime change in Moscow. First of all, it’s not our job to defang another country, particularly when we’re not at war w/ them. Second, there is no telling that a replacement regime in Moscow won’t be worse than what we have now, particularly given that Putin’s popularity is at 90%. Third, by making Ukraine another country where NATO nuclear missiles could be installed, we’re just provoking war w/ Russia

   There is also the issue of the ? losing its place as the world’s reserve currency, as several of the world’s leading countries have happily been flocking to alternatives. I don’t think a BRICS currency will materialize, b’cos India is never gonna accept a currency controlled by Beijing, w/ whom it has multiple border disputes, and who are suspected of being behind the insurgency in Manipur. But instead, we are headed to a new commercial reality where any two countries that are trading will do so in their own currencies, and save the ? only for US trade. That is gonna go way beyond crashing our currency than the current endemic of printing trillions, or going to a Central Bank Digital currency, where they’ll have powers that currently only Beijing has

   I’m just hoping that we’re not in a war w/ Russia by the time this administration ends