Comments by "Ralph Bernhard" (@ralphbernhard1757) on "The New Atlas"
channel.
-
4
-
The "divide and rule"-strategy or technique has a pretty long history in the Levant, which had been a desirable crossroads of civilizations ever since ancient times (land route connecting continents/systems) with changing POWERS implementing the strategy as time passed. If one wishes to understand history, one first has to familiarize oneself with strategies of power. If not, one WILL get misguided, distracted, and fooled into cheering for "imperialism", even whilst thinking one is cheering for "freedom and democracy", or something else. Note that in order to play the game of "divide and rule", it needs a geographical/physical advantage, and POWER.
No POWER, no games...
In a more worldly sense. As far as systems and strategies are concerned. The 15 million people initially injected as "anchor state" (strategy) into the Levant, by an empire after WW1, are not going to rule/dominate the Levant.
Such a small number is always a "tail", and not the "dog".
The tail (lesser power) does NOT wag the dog (greater power). That is just an easily chanted slogan, created by the dividers, in search of scapegoats for the slogan chanters/banner wavers. It is a myth and a tool of deception and misdirection, by those who truly wish to rule by division. The ruling class. The elites, or the "1%-ters", the "$uperhubs", or whatever one wishes to call such a headless mass, united by their interests (§§§footnote).
In the real world, it is the "dogs" of POWER, who "wag the tails".
Modern Israel is a tool, once created by an Empire for a specific purpose, just like every other ME country was created for a purpose.
The sooner ALL these divided Semites in the Levant realize this, the better it will be for ALL Semites. They are ALL tools.
As a guideline how the "divide and rule"-strategy can be defeated, the first tentative examples of African leaders finally realizing the POWER of the "divide and rule"-technique is out there. This technique, same as 100 and 200 and 2,000 years ago uses a multitude of "carrots and sticks": the outside POWER mis/uses differences in race, religion, ethnicity, and uses the appeals to the leaders here in the form of "greed", personal advantages, or promises, or using the "shame game", etc. Whatever works in the desired area in which "disunity" is the goal. The example of African leaders standing united, and repulsing such outside attempts, can be studied. The initial positive observation, is not final though: the "dividers" will return. They will come back, and push, and push, and push until the first weakness appears, which will then be exploited...
"Divide and rule" is in politics and international relations, what nukes are in warfare.
AGE OF EUROPEAN IMPERIALISM
Israel, the artificial entity, had never been created by a god, never mind what the idealogues proclaim. In antiquity it was created by strategists, employing amongst other strategies, the "divide and rule"-technique to inch forward towards the "milk and honey"-land belonging to others already living there, while being the favorites of a god in an ideology. Thousands of years later during WW1 it was recreated by a very worldly empire, Great Britain, employing the "divide and rule"-technique. The goals and aims of this empire, acting in conjunction with France, tacidly nodded of by Washington DC, were very earthly: to rule, and keep the POWER it had amassed as a result of a previous lucky GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE vis-a-vis its European neighbors. For the British Empire starting around 1917: to use mass-immigration as a tool of division as they did all over their empire. Lines were drawn, and rulers imposed onto the people living here, who were never asked as a collective. Whether it was the White Highlands (Kenya) or Palestine, these white immigrants brandished their newly found power (as the favorites of an empire). In other cases (Fiji, for example) mass-immigration of other subjects were used to cause disruption within the original indigenous power structures. This power of the hegemony was transformed into pieces of paper (deeds) granting CHOSEN FAVORITES property in a promised land, and these new favorites/best friends in the form of mass-immigration would then, in return, protect the British Empire's interests. In the Levant, it was the very precious Suez Canal from the threat of potential attacks by land armies, from the north...because the British Empire did as it always did. Create useful tools in a "barrier state" (strategy), for its own perceived potential future gain. That of the automatic ally (strategy). If the Levant was attacked by a northern empire on the way to Egypt/Suez as per Heartland Theory (1904), via land routes where the mighty Royal Navy was useless, the "poor little friends" which had previously been strategically set up as homelands/states, would be defended. Of course, because the Empire cared so much about "poor people"...
The motivations for empires in the beginnings at this watershed of history for the Levant (1917) can be linked to the motivations for empires today.
TODAY
Whatever the outcome in Israel/Gaza in our immediate future might be, the dividers in Washington DC have already achieved their aim. The last "gift" these dividers in Washington DC gave their favorites, was East Jerusalem (Trump admin), simply handed over without asking the people who actually lived here what they wanted for themselves. Eurasia is divided into multiple "teams", all arguing with each other and pointing fingers, playing the blame game, unable to unite into greater powers. Today: The sooner ALL these "divided" people realize this, the better it will be for ALL the people. War is a great divider. Such divisions last generations. "Divide and rule" extends into each and every mind. Line-drawing does not only take place on maps, but it also goes straight though your Limbic system (brain/appeal to emotion) and from there straight through entire societies.
THE DAWN OF MODERN CIVILIZATIONS
In the Bible, the original divider of mankind in the Levant, was the figure God (Old Testament).
Whether one believes in this god or not, doesn't matter. In a systemic analysis, Jesus the philosopher (New Testament) actually OPPOSED his (so-called) father's form of authoritarian and often brutal rule (Old Testament). In antiquity, the figure God had used the "divide and rule"-strategy on and over the rest of mankind in the Levant. From the position of ultimate POWER, God had chosen favorites, and throughout the Old Testament (as a historical series of events) continued to make rulings and grant miracles in the favor of his chosen. Yikes, God even nuked Sodom and Gomorrha in order to make living space for his chosen (lol, just kidding). On a sideline, also the invention of propaganda: These inhabitants were the collective "evil outgroup", who also collectively "deserved to die".
Whatever...
Further indicators: God favored "ruler types" (Old Testament/top down rule) like Moses. No doubt, in a realist analysis, strategists like Moses were most likely the inventor of the SINGLE HEGEMONY as a SOLE God with the all seeing eye, to create unity. To avoid people from creating a miriad of depictions and minor gods, and get constantly distracted by a plethora of personal favorite foreign gods in the lands they were dispered into, and who would end up dancing around idols...
Poor Moses must have been frustrated by his followers' insatiable appetite for entertainment, divisive squabbles, tribal infighting, family fueds, and other distractions from the endsieg: the land of milk and honey they all dreamed of as settler colonists on the move.
THE ROMAN EMPIRE
According to the legacy, Jesus approached commoners (New Testament/bottom up unity).
The polar opposite of God of the Old Testament (see above).
Around the year "0", The Roman Empire had the POWER in the Med, and it had amassed this power as a result of a previous lucky GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE vis-a-vis its neighbors in the Mediterranean. A technological and organisational edge gave it that slight advantage of reach: While it could "reach" all neighbors in the Med, these neighbors could not "reach" Rome, at least for the time being. That would change later as the balance of power shifted.
Around the year 0, one can consider Jesus as the "prototype Hippy" teaching love and charity, in other words the Monty Python take on the observed events, or one can see him as a talented strategist who intended to take on the might of the Roman Empire. Actual evidence then favors a combination of both (the "peaceful revolution" against the Roman Empire): crimes against the state, like sedition, were usually punished by crucifiction. The irony of the Roman Empire killing Jesus, is that they later took the resulting religion as a state religion, in efforts to bring unity to the crumbling empire, by replacing a miriad of gods and resorting to the "one god" as single hegemony over all (state religion). The intention to use an ideology to create unity was too little, too late to save a crumbling empire...
Whether such events mentioned on clay tablets, or scrolls, were actual events, or inventions by philosophers to explain strategies, or simply true at some core and then added onto as the ages passed, to become the well-honed stories we read today, is not even important in any systemic analysis. As I always say, historians and politicians can hardly agree on what happened last week, let alone 2,000 years ago, or 4,000 years ago.
Therefore, best to reduce everything to the tier of "systems/strategies" in order to discover what really happened.
THE END
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
Meanwhile, after more than two years Boris Johnson has admitted that the war in the Ukraine is a proxy war for US/collective Western interests, and Vladimir Zelensky has stated that "there are those in the West who don't mind a long war [in Ukraine]" to extend Russia, using his peoples as tools for the gain of outsiders who drool over the profits (Mitch McConnell), or lust after the systemic expansion possible as result of great upheavals amongst human beings. Does this take the wind out of the sails of the "paid Putin puppet"-screamers, blindly chanting their MSM narratives against those who have said this from day 1? Not at all. In order to fit their world views, these tools will deny reality, rattle down the narrative to a point of making total fools of themselves. They would now have to believe that Boris Johnson, or Vladimir Zelensky are "paid Putin puppets", in order to square a circle...
This is exactly what is meant with fools arguing their way into the trenches their own leaders have deceived them into.
The Atlanticists' strategists and world views, far away from the divisions they foster and pay for by proxy, the constant crises they instigate, the cold wars they lay the foundation for, or the hot wars they avoid avoiding (double negative); and whose navies give them access to the world's resources (incl. "human resources") have always wanted long wars, if there was prospect of systemic gains using a geographical advantage (distance from warring states) or if there was any danger of unity formatting in Europe/Eurasia.
The marching route of the empire, which started when the USSR economically faltered in the late-1980s.
Systemic/ideological expansion into.
Eastern Europe.
Balkans.
Black Sea.
Caucasus region.
Keep on marching, marching, and when there is resistance, start "pointing fingers" (narrative control).
How old is this game called "marching empire"? Old, very old....
3
-
3
-
How our leaders avoid "avoiding war", and then fabricate a racket...in three easy steps.
Step 1:
Engineer a situation, or take on a standpoint one would never accept as "acceptable", if placed in the same situation oneself, and refuse to budge. Ignore all warnings.
Step 2:
Watch on as the situation deteriorates.
Find a few "good fwiends", who "see things the same way", and refuse to budge.
Send around a few good guys, who will try their best...
Ignore all further warnings.
As "crisis" turns to gloom, do as little as you can possibly get away with.
Especially, don't sign anything worded in such a way that it would actually avoid war.
Step 3:
When the guns start firing: Here comes the most important step. Do as the Bible says (lol) and point the finger everywhere else, and wash own hands in innocence (using the easy "Pontius Pilate"-way out).
3
-
3
-
Divide and rule.
Maybe "rule" is the incorrect word in regards to the USA, and divide and "gain an advantage" if others struggle, fight, and then lose, is closer to what happened. The word "rule" also constitutes a "trigger", or natural aversion, which would mean psychologically oposing a theory, simply based on the words used.
At the turn of the previous century ("around 1900") Washington DC set out to "divide (Europe)" and "gain" (from collective European madness).
Note how such a policy doesn't necessarily have to be co-ordinated politically.
So no "your a conspiwacy theowist"-allegations please, lol.
In regards to Europeans, the policy basically carried itself, and today still carries itself, because Europeans are already sufficiently divided on multiple levels. Any actions by a strong enough 3rd party wishing to gain simply needs to avoid any form of unity in Europe, or to "nip in the bud" any signs of formal/informal agreement between Europeans (the Cold War was of course an exception, when Western European unity was useful to stand up to Eastern European Communism/SU/Warsaw Pact).
One of the key strategies in "divide and rule" is to fund and support both sides in a world full of rivals for dominance, influence and markets.
Once "divided", and kept divided, there is no "single voice" to stand up to a stronger entity.
From wiki, and regarding the theory: "Divide and rule policy (Latin: divide et impera), or divide and conquer, in politics and sociology is gaining and maintaining power by breaking up larger concentrations of power into pieces that individually have less power than the one implementing the strategy."
Elements of this technique involve:
- creating or encouraging divisions ...
- to prevent alliances that could challenge ...
- distributing forces that they overpower the other
- aiding and promoting those who are willing to cooperate
- fostering distrust and enmity
Historically, this strategy was used in many different ways by empires seeking to expand their territories."
[editted for clarity re. the states/empires level of things]
"Divide and gain" would work exactly the same way.
There is an entire palate of examples of "dividing Europe" on multiple levels, and gain an advantage (see below comments thread for a few). These multiple examples are not "anecdotal", or "cherry picked", but form a pattern in a political game (in geopolitics/grand strategy = avoid the unity of "others", because unity = strength).
Regarding this policy, it needs a keen sense of observation by a nation's gatekeepers, so as not to inadvertently become a part of it.
"Defeat Them in Detail: The Divide and Conquer Strategy. Look at the parts and determine how to control the individual parts, create dissension and leverage it." - Robert Greene
And "observe the details" and "leverage" is what the American Internationalism fans (US corporatism) in Washington DC did, opposed by the ever-waning forces of US Isolationism, re-inspired by Donald Trump ("Trump Doctrine") and others...
All of these terms can be googled for more context.
Note that in order to play this game, the "divider" must have some form of advantage. In regards to Washington DC, this advantage which it could use to attract suitors was their own rapidly increasing power. Ever important markets acting like a lighthouse for capitalist ventures. But with a geographical advantage which made it virtually impossible to invade by the late-19th Century (grand strategy), the USA already had little to fear militarily.
What was "in it" for Washington DC in her favoratism of mostly Paris and London?
London was Europe's only power that could effectively unite Europe, by acting as a unifying power as a matter of policy, rather than as an aloof divider herself.
Regarding any form of united Europe, by whomever or for whatever reasons, the "gatekeepers of Empire" sat in London. A "united Europe" either with or without GB/Empire could only go through London and with London's approval. Ask Napoleon I. He knows what it resulted in when "gatekeepers" stepped forward to avoid any form of single continental unity or hegemony. These "gatekeepers" followed policies which made any form of unity impossible (per treaty, political, or as a result of wars between continental powers). At the first signs of unity/friendship on the continent, London would step in and divide using a variety of age-old, trusted and well-honed political skills up to the point of declaring preventive wars.
A divided continent also suited London just fine: the newly united Germany, was wedged in between her two main historical rivals for territory and gain: France and Russia (geopolitics/grand strategy).
The above is also known as the "avoid a single hegemony on the continent"-narrative, and is not disputed by most historians.
A disunited Europe at this point, also suited Washington DC just fine.
It should not have "suited" London, because the world was changing.
The USA's first really big attempt at expanding beyond the limits of the own Monroe Doctrine, and the "promises made" not to meddle in European affairs was Spain. With the Monroe Doctrine Washington DC stated: "Don't worry Europe, we are satiated..."
A declaration which would not last long.
LOL, no. They were not satiated.
After a period of strategic consolidation, leaders here were looking for easy targets whose spheres of influence could be expanded into with the formula "little ventured/a lot gained", and excuses which could be made for expanding which could be sold as "acts of benevolence".
The rapidly sinking Spanish Empire offered the territories as a "gateway to China" in the form of already annexed Hawaii, the Philippenes and Guam and protection for the seaways in between. The 1898 Spanish American War was then simply the torero sticking a sword into the neck of the dying bull...a fitting allegory. Obviously "triggered" by the Japanese annexation of Formosa in 1895.
To achieve all of this Washington DC needed European indifference for the cause of "weak failing empires" (Darwinism/Spain), and divided Europe happily complied...
How to succeed here if Europe decided to unite and stand up to US expansion, by offering political support to Spain?
Answer: favoratism.
"Favor" one "empire" (in this case France and GB) above others...temporarily.
It would be a mistake to think that these "divide and rule/conquer"-strategies and tactics started with the Roman Empire, and ended when the British left India in 1947 (Two examples usually referred to when historians examine this as a political practice). It is alive and well.
It surrounds every aspect of power politics and has been ever-present on all levels of society and politics ever since the dawn of mankind.
Today the US military doctrine of "Flexible Response" is nothing else but "divide and rule" in the disguise of "divide and gain": Divide Europeans, to enable the continued US domination of world affairs. It is the same strategy London/British Empire used as it tried to hang on to Empire. A flexible response = "hopping" onto a crisis or war without having to have done much to avoid it. Some of the rare historical anomalies are Chamberlain (Munich 1938) or Boris Jonson (Finland/Sweden 2022) because try as one might, one cannot find any other strategic incentive for these missions, other than the noble cause and an effort keep the peace, in the face of previous total failure.
Notice that one of the key strategies in "dividing" others is to take opposing positions in political issues, without these positions being based on moral standards or principles. Simply strengthen the position of one side in an issue at one time, then make a 180 degree about turn and support the other side another time. An example here is for the two Moroccan crises (1905 vs. 1911). In 1905, Washington DC actually tacidly supported the German position and insisted on Morrocan independence, protecting it from being carved up by France/Spain. In 1911, the USA chose the side of the colonial powers against Berlin's position, and signed Moroccan independence away to "the wolves" of colonialism.
Divide and gain: Historically the funding of opposing European ideologies, leaders and states. For example, US private funding of European dictators in the 1920s and 1930s, and at the same time supporting Stalin's Five-Year Plans, was a strategy which carried through to today.
A geographical advantage meant that whatever happened in Europe would be a "win" for Washington DC power mongers.
Or, one could state that if one is far enough away, one can "sit on the fence and await the outcome" when the shtf somewhere else.
Strategists can always count on a plethora of enablers who carry out such division, mostly for entirely independent causes: from "humanism" to "big business", one can become a tool of strategists. Politicians, business elites, journalists, historians, teachers...they can all contribute, without even being aware
3
-
3
-
Keeping Germany as "down" as possible, and keeping Russia as "out" of any comprehensive European solution as possible, for mutually agreed upon comprehensive security agreements is a recurring issue in European systems interacting. It mainly turned out as very beneficial for outside powers, especially the USA.
Not only logically, but also statistically, should Western continental Europe and Eastern continental Europe ever unite, with shared good relations to China, it would overpower the USA as world hegemon. Basically, keeping Central European "brains" (innovation and technology) and Russian "muscle" (manpower, strategic location, plus raw materials) apart, has a long history which spanned two empires. The British Empire before World War 2, as stated in Mackinder's Pivot of History (1904) and the new American Century after 1945.
It started a long time ago, with the British Empire setting out to avoid more unity, and breaking up the Three Kaiser League as a stated goal. "Disraeli also achieved a hidden objective. Beaconsfield revealed to Henry Drummond Wolff that the British mission to the Congress of Berlin had two major objectives. Next to making a tolerable settlement for the Porte, *our great object was to break up, and permanently prevent, the alliance of the three Empires, and I maintain there never was a general diplomatic result
more completely effected. Of course, it does not appear on the protocols; it was realised by personal influence alone, both on Andrassy [the Austrian representative] and Bismarck. The members of the Three Emperors' League were Austria, Germany, and Russia. The Congress of Berlin drove a wedge between Russia and the other two members. Germany formed the Dual Alliance with Austria in 1879 to protect one another from possible Russian aggression. The treaty remained in effect even after Russia requested a renewal
of the Three Emperors' League in 1881. "The Dreikaiserbund [Three Emperors' League] never did recover from the Eastern crisis while Disraeli was in office, and its later revival after Gladstone put *Beaconsfieldism' into reverse took a different and less stable form." from THE FOURTH PARTY AND CONSERVATIVE EVOLUTION, 1880-1885 by KEITH RICHMON OWEN, B.A., M.A. A DISSERTATION IN HISTORY Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Texas Tech University in August, 2000 (p.25)
Therefore, speaking about the post-2000 attempt of keeping Russia "out" of Europe, by encroaching on it with NATO expansion might well not be a "mistake" as stated by David T. Pyne, but a geopolitical strategy, and it has a long history.
It it were a mere "mistake", it would be amazingly recurring:
- attempts to break up the Three Kaiser League (by London)
- attempts to break up Treaty of Bjorko (by London)
- Versailles (Limitrophe States as a barrier in Eurasia, by London in conjunction with Washington DC)
- The quasi "declaration" of the Cold War (Churchill/Akron University)
- Truman Doctrine (by Washington DC)
From wiki, and regarding the theory:
"Divide and rule policy (Latin: divide et impera), or divide and conquer, in politics and sociology is gaining and maintaining power by breaking up larger concentrations of power into pieces that individually have less power than the one implementing the strategy."
Elements of this technique involve:
- creating or encouraging divisions ...
- to prevent alliances that could challenge ...
- distributing forces that they overpower the other
- aiding and promoting those who are willing to cooperate
- fostering distrust and enmity
Historically, this strategy was used in many different ways by empires seeking to expand their territories."
[editted for clarity re. the states/empires level of things]
From wiki: "By mid-1992, a consensus emerged within the (Washington DC) administration that NATO enlargement was a wise realpolitik measure to strengthen American hegemony.[20][21] In the absence of NATO enlargement, Bush administration officials worried that the European Union might fill the security vacuum in Central Europe, and thus challenge American post-Cold War influence.[20]" Or as the old insider joke went: NATO's function was "to keep the USA in, Germany down, and Russia out." (Lord Ismay)
Whether these are real "mistakes" (sic.) or a concerted strategy lurks behind as ulterior motive, remains hidden.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
THE FULL CIRCLE
Regarding any criticism today, about "Germany not doing more" to "stop Russia", for example the hesitation to deliver Leopard II MBT's against Russian objections, which could force Russia into a (own perspective): humiliating retreat from the Ukraine."
Why should they?
The "deceivers and manipulators" in the background had already schemed for it before, and Berlin had fallen into the trap of "doing more than the alpha" and "doing more than everybody else" before.
Why should they fall for it again and again?
Re. the long-standing habit Berlin had to "force Russia to withdraw in humiliation", by not strengthening the Russian position of more expansion for the benefit of Russia:
A prophecy by an old Russian general from the memiors of Wilhelm II: "It's that nasty congress of Berlin. A serious mistake by the Chancellor (edit: Bismarck the "honest broker" had stepped forward to avoid a war between Russia and Great britian, the alpha at the time). It has destroyed the old friendship between us, planted distrust in the hearts of Court and Government, and furnished a sense of grave wrong[Pg 17] done to the Russian army after its bloody campaign of 1877, for whom she wants her revenge. And here we are together with this accursed French Republic, full of hatred against you and filled with subversive ideas, which in the event of war with you, will cost us our dynasty."[1]
Re. "prophecies", how right he was.
Critical question re. the Ukraine today: Why should Germany step forward, and do more than the self-proclaimed alpha Washington DC, or any other state?
(Strategy: setting up the "fall guy", to "throw under the bus").
Conclusion:
Not for the first time in history, the actions of a German leader would result in Russia forced to "withdraw in humiliation": The first time had been Bismarck, whose "just honest broker"-intentions were misused by outside powers (British "saber rattling" and "war scare") to achieve exactly the same effect.
A rift between Russia and Germany.
Crises or wars...same effect.
Create an eternal rift between Russia and Germany...
War.
The Ukraine, 2022.
A great way to "make the megabucks" (see the Rand Report of 2019) while creating a rift between Germany (and other European states) and Russia...
The "keep Germany down and Russia out"-crowd had been at it before.
As early as 1878/1879 (San Stefano).
Lord Ismay was not stating a conclusion based on recent history when NATO was formed, stating the reason why NATO was necessary for defence, but was actually hinting at what had been a long-term London policy standpoint.
Keep Germany as "down" as possible, and Russia as "out" as possible, for ALL time...
That was the "recipe of success" of the ones who wanted to rule ze world.
Divide Europeans.
Create division.
Stick the dagger of dissent in the "heart" of the Heartland, and avoid any kind of unity.
The only thing that unfortunately changed for the scheming London lords orchestrating the setup, was the alpha...
Lord Ismay: "NATO's intention is to keep the USA in, Germany down, and Russia out."
"To establish any mode to abolish war, however advantageous it might be to nations, would be to take from such government the most lucrative of its branches." - Thomas Paine
That was not only true when he stated it.
The revolving door between industry and government (or as Eisenhower said the Military Industrial Complex), will keep on sending...
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
“Who controls the food supply controls the people; who controls the energy can control whole continents; who controls money can control the world.” — Henry Kissinger (attr.)
The beauty of "history", is that the "control freaks" of history tell you exactly what they aim to do. Whether Kissinger actually said this or not, is not important. What is important is that it is one of those age-old truisms known to the average history fan as the "siege" of towns and fortresses, as the "naval blockade" (military strategy) as technology improved, or in modern times the "political/economic sanctions", all with a host of variations as our world became more and more complex.
When these few have the MONEY, they CONTROL the resources, and that includes human beings all over the globe as potential PROXIES as "human resources".
Summary generated by ChatGPT from the video description of the UCLA video:
"The 1994 discussion between Henry Kissinger and Jack Matlock revolved around the contentious issue of NATO expansion and its implications for U.S.-Russia relations and Eastern Europe's stability. The debate was set against the backdrop of Russian opposition, articulated by President Boris Yeltsin, who warned that expanding NATO could lead to a "cold peace" and further isolate Russia. Kissinger supported NATO expansion as a necessary step to ensure the security and sovereignty of Central European countries like Poland and Hungary. He argued that delaying expansion could create a geopolitical vacuum, leaving these nations vulnerable to influence from both Germany and Russia. Kissinger viewed NATO as a stabilizing force and an "insurance policy" against future uncertainties, emphasizing that such moves need not antagonize Russia if managed through diplomatic and military assurances. Matlock, however, cautioned against hasty expansion, noting that Russia's current weakness did not pose an immediate military threat. He believed that NATO expansion might inflame nationalist sentiments within Russia, complicating its internal politics and its path toward democracy. Instead, he argued for prioritizing economic integration of Eastern European nations into the European Union and maintaining diplomacy to address Russian concerns. The conversation highlighted differing perspectives on balancing security, diplomacy, and the risks of escalating tensions in post-Cold War Europe."
Arguing "two sides of the same fence", which was systemic expansion into Eastern Europe, using Russia's weakness after the fall of the USSR.
The use of millions of people as tools to cause friction in Eastern Europe with NATO expansion in order to overpower a weakened Russia, was the set path in order to assure US "primacy" per strategy (Wolfowitz Doctrine, 1991). The smokescreen as cover was provided by the parallel running promises of comprehensive security agreements, OSCE, Partnership for Peace, et al...
The goal? Carve Russia up, and use the pieces left over to encircle on China, the next in line after Germany (Treaty of Versailles/WW2), and siphon off the riches for own gain.
Divide-and-rule/destroy/control simply moved further east.
Re. the strategies our leaders follow.
They have not changed much over time.
Age-old strategies to advance own interests, which do not exclude cheating their "friends" and Christian "brothers" in the Caucasus.
Taiwan, Georgia, and others, take note.
"Friendship" does not exist on the ladder to success, or to stay on top of the pyramid kicking down.
A tale as old as the Bible.
Esau and Jacob is of course a cautionary tale to beware of brothers who come to you with a GIFT which has morphed over time and now means "winning means everything". Note that in this biblical "tale" about eternal deceit and "cheating own brothers out of their inheritance", that the deceiver is the hero of the story.
Those who end up with the RICHES under your feet, are the heroes. The deceiver's name and slimy ways continue.
Esau the inheritor and his father's favourite, as a name has sorta died out...
Just remember, wherever you live, that you just a "dog" in a "manger" (Churchill), and that the RESOURCES intended to be passed onto you as natural inheritance, belong to the OUTSIDERS, in the OUTSIDERS heads, and according to the strategies of these OUTSIDERS. The "smooth talking good guy", the spiffy clean deceiver, scamming his own brother, whilst arguing like a woman creating division within unity and creating the BLACK LEGEND of his brother (the "bad guy"), is the "hero" of history. Very telling indeed.
"If you want the present to be different from the past, study the past." - Baruch Spinoza
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@9863-k2k What you consider as a priority, is not relevant in the "big games" power politicians play. What Washington DC wants, is people with different political concepts, which Washington DC can then steer against each other.
Washington DC does not care what you think, and I can prove it. When the "two peoples" in the Ukraine, as a "pro-West vs. pro-Russia" factions, desired a peaceful solution for the Ukraine after the year 2010 or so, Washington did not consider them "two people." Washington said: YOU, are all ONE.
Washington DC did not advocate for the creation of an autonomous region, or a seperate state for those who wished to be "pro-Russia." Suddenly, the border was THE only thing important, for Washington DC. People did not matter. LINES mattered. The political views of millions did not matter. Strategists saw the opportunity to set these two people up against each other, and that is what they did.
You think these people care about YOU?
These Washington DC players play with money (interests), their priorities matter, Taiwan is the casino, and YOU are the "chips."
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
How our leaders avoid "avoiding war", and then fabricate a racket...in three easy steps.
Step 1:
Engineer a situation, or take on a standpoint one would never accept as "acceptable", if placed in the same situation oneself, and refuse to budge. Ignore all warnings.
Step 2:
Watch on as the situation deteriorates.
Find a few "good fwiends", who "see things the same way", and refuse to budge.
Send around a few good guys, who will try their best...
Ignore all further warnings.
As "crisis" turns to gloom, do as little as you can possibly get away with.
Especially, don't sign anything worded in such a way that it would actually avoid war.
Step 3:
When the guns start firing: Here comes the most important step. Do as the Bible says (lol) and point the finger everywhere else, and wash own hands in innocence (using the easy "Pontius Pilate"-way out).
3
-
It is Israel which denies the Palestinians the right to exist as an equal.
They chant, "Palestine was never a state..." because Israel never intended for Palestians to ever live in full sovereignty.
Netanyahu, quoting Yitzhak Rabin, “We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank ... We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, [aka/edit: the "Apartheid dependency, of a Bantustan"] and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority. The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.”
“The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.”
“Jerusalem,” Rabin said in his speech, would be “united as the capital of Israel under Israeli sovereignty,” and “will include both Ma'ale Adumim and Givat Ze'ev”.
“We came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth.”
Even at this point in the 1990s, the last real chance of peace, Israel wanted Arafat to "sign away" millions of Palestinians in East Jerusalem, and some areas in the West Bank, to fall under Israeli control.
What that would have meant, we see today.
Settler colonists, protected by the guns of the IDF, have been using this concept of the "Bantustan" to raid and occupy one house at a time, making the original inhabitants homeless in their own city...
2
-
Asking the wrong questions on a limited scope and timeline will not reveal the divide-and-rule technique.
The empire set off on the "G-G Line" from Germany to Greece, during the First Cold War after declaring war ("cold" war/1947).
It advanced to the "B-B Line" from the Baltics to the Black Sea (see footnote) after the "peace" was declared to the plebs after the 1990s, and a bright new future pwomised to all the children of history, believers...
How long do you think it will take for the empire, wriggling and writhing about ("divide-and-rule"), hopping over here and there ("pivoting") before they reach the "A-A Line"?
The goals of the "dividers" who wield the power, is simply that their politics is the continuation of war by other means...
‐-----------
The "B-B Line".
When people start thinking in terms of dichotomies like winning/losing, left/right wing, us/them, right/wrong, unity/division, they are already all "losers."
Think in terms of a desirable outcome. If not, lose.
Outsiders fabricate the "crescent of crises" around your heartland.
"The primordial interest of the United States – over which for a century we have fought wars (the first, second, and Cold War) - has been the relationship between Germany and Russia. Because united they are the only force that could threaten us. And to make sure that that doesn't happen. … For the United States … the primordial fear is German technology, German capital, and Russian natural resources, Russian manpower as the only combination that has for centuries scared the hell out of the United States. So how does this play out? Well, the US has already put its cards on the table. It is the line from the Baltics to the Black Sea." - George Friedman, Stratfor, Feb 2015
If outsiders come from outside and start drawing lines on the map, through your homelands without asking the people who live there.
Today, Eurasian leaders are too weak to unite. They allow outsiders to play the cards FOR them.
Endless wars, constant dissent.
Insert "levers" of lies, mistrust using POWER PLAYERS. Create favourites: favouritism for the PROXIES who bow down. Point the finger, everywhere else using the POWER of the MSM.
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Who wields the POWER? Who has had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organisational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
Rome. London. Washington DC.
Different Empires. Different eras. Same games.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The question posed to Asians (mainly Chinese and Indians/citizens within these borders) remains the same as during the era of imperialism 200 or 300 years ago.
The obfuscators and dividers will use the same techniques in reasoning as they use in politics: they will "hop around" on criteria, causing dissention in debates on the micro level (society), in the same way the power players "hop around" on entire countries/governments/capital cities/key politicians in geopolitics on the macro level...
The technique of "divide and rule"...
Hop over here, hop over there, whatever standpoint brings the own short-term advantage, because THE POWER has the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of not having to suffer consequences from it's own actions.
The question posed to all Asians remains.
Whether they can see that they are in the same positions they were in 200 and 300 years ago.
The dividers come with "promises" which they mostly don't intend keeping, or offer "treaties" (in which these dividers themselves hold the geographical advantage of distance), make all kinds of excuses why the dividers don't keep their promises, or why the dividers don't suffer the same percentage of harmfull effects in times of crisis/war as the "chosen ones", just like 200 or 300 years ago. These promises are very enticing to power players, and offer the prospect of glory and achievement to the side the promises are made to, just like 200 or 300 years ago...
Anthony Blinken making some Indians FEEL (§§§, see footnote) very proud with repeated offers of NATO membership, just like previous US admins made such promises to the Ukriane, which no doubt made many Ukrainians FEEL very proud, and then the dividers with the geographical advantage, subsequently citing all kinds of "difficulties" why such "pwomises" then cannot be effected in a short timespan.
Meanwhile, exposing the "Ukraine"/proxy to extreme danger as the feet were dragged and dragged and dragged...
Of course, in the game called divide and rule, it is not the fact THAT it is a ridiculous offer, in view of recent events in the Ukraine exposing the danger of such folly, but rather the fact THAT such an offer is repeated. The fact THAT the offer is on the table, already causes mistrust/dissention amongst ASIAN neighbors.
Of course, if India refuses, the divider (of Asia), Washington DC can simply go to China and "promise Taiwan" to Beijing (signed away) in return for a deal, to surround Russia. The potential for "divide and rule" rests on the side with the geographical advantage, as long as the targets for division do not unite, specifically with a comprehensive Asian security agreement.
The question to Asians remains the same.
What are they going to do to create a SINGLE HEGEMONY (alliance) in East Asia, in order to speak with a united voice, against the POWER of division.
BRICS is not enough.
Any other deal or treaty, or the SCO in the current setup, or even the "UN's" laws and the "rules based order" cannot stand up to the POWER of divide and rule.
It needs a comprehensive security agreement for all of those in the FRACTURE ZONE 4 (stretching from North Pole, via Japan, Taiwan, through Thailand, the Indian subcontinent, towards the Middle East).
If no comprehensive security agreement is achieved, mutually beneficial for all, then simply wait for 200/300 year history to return ("rhyme")...
Or are Indian leaders like... first they came for Russia, but I did not care because I was not Russian. Then they came for China, but I did not care because I was not Chinese, and even saw an advantage for myself (economy) if China got "carved up" and weakened...
Indian leaders: It'll be great, if WE can CONTROL the WATER flowing into China, from Tibet...such tempting "offers" and promises...
"Around 1900" repeating for Tibet.
Finally though, if everything is burning, divided, in quagmire of revolution and war, and Asia the "new Middle East" as unfolded after the 1882 British invasion, followed up closely by the "Sir Lawrence"-types as the dividers of Arabs". The modern day version of that being the "Anthony Blinkens" of the world, finger pointing, and harsh language between neighboring states, and a tumbling towards "quagmire"-status, then who will speak up for India when the dividers come for you?
DESIRABLE OUTCOME in any divide and rule system: The dividers will subsequently have the "upper hand/higher ground" (leverage) of POWER for all future negotiations with the resulting "statelets", just like the ME after World War 1.
The secret towards more Indian "power" lies in the continued "power" of its neighbors, not these neighbors' weakness.
§§§Footnote: The appeal to emotion
Setting up the emotions generated by billions of minds, to set these minds up against each other, just like 200 or 300 years ago...
2
-
2