The Destabilization Game

[Peter Presland]

Thanks for drawing attention to that David. It's an impressive piece. I vaguely recall the original (and updated Cohen piece(s) in The Nation too. I don't recall them making quite the same impression at first blush but subsequent events are certainly vindicating their central thesis of ruthless anti-Russian activity veiled in a for public consumption miasma of studied reasonableness.

I rate Tom Englehart too. But frankly I think he overplays the 'US confounded by how their military adventures are turning out' point at the end of the piece.

The central fact for me is the absolutely overwhelming power projection and surveillance capabilities of the US/NATO block (even official figures indicate that it accounts for around 75% of the entire global military expenditures - and they have the brass-necked bloody gall to call it defence!). Things may not (or possibly may) be going to plan but, quite apart from the nightmare scenario of a full on strategic nuclear exchange, there appears little anyone can do about the thrust of US/NATO policy, globalised economic meltdown notwithstanding.

I struggle to see a good outcome to the relentlessly escalating militarisation of US/NATO activity. If it is 'successful' on the terms of its current power structures, it will at the very least cement existing gross inequalities and population exploitations but more likely make matters far far MORE tyrannical and unjust; if it is unsuccessful??? - well, short of that strategic nuclear exchange, how might the indicators of such lack of success manifest themselves? Has ANY empire and its leadership (apart from Gorbachov as Tom points out) EVER surrendered its power gracefully? Is there ANY prospect of US/NATO leaderships acknowledging their folly - or rather the pure Machiavellian evil of their purposes?

They are rhetorical questions that frankly fill me with foreboding.