CIA's Al Qaida as terrorist wedge between Germany and Russia?

[Paul Rigby]

Back in Mackinderland - from which, as we know, Zbig, among others, never really escapes - there's more than the odd hint that the beardy wing of Langley is planning mass death in Germany, the better to produce the right kind of Right, one that won't do so much business with with Russia.

Aangirfan recently offered the following thoughts on the subject:

http://aangirfan.blogspot.com/2009/09/ci...rmany.html

[Nathaniel Heidenheimer]

Paul, as we know Casey had plans to use the Afghan Jihad to penetrate the "soft underbelly" of the USSR from the very beginning of the CIA's sponsorship of the Afghan resistance. These objectives continued after the Russians left, as evidenced by the CIA and ISI working to shatter a truly multilateral peace agreement in 1992, when there was a chance of one.

At that point it became clear that the US preferred a shattered Afghanistan with no chance of ending the bleeding if the alternative was a more unified Afghanistan that might have eluded CIA-ISI control. The Comments of Baker as early as 1988 make it clear that the concern was to prevent an Afghanistan that might prove friendlier to Iran and Russia than to the US and Pakistan.

Given earlier attempts of the British and US Seven Sisters to prevent Germany, Italy and Russia from uniting to form alternative sources of oil, it is clear that the current Afghan strategic objective for the US remains British and US hegemony over international oil, and the blocking of any possibility of an alliance between the CARs and Iran, and Russia as a new source of oil beyond the very broadly conceived "price controls" of the US and British oil alliance.

As you suggest, there are many different ways that the "embrace" btw. Russia and Germany (and potentially others in Western and central Europe) can be avoided.

[Paul Rigby]

Paul, as we know Casey had plans to use the Afghan Jihad to penetrate the "soft underbelly" of the USSR from the very beginning of the CIA's sponsorship of the Afghan resistance. These objectives continued after the Russians left, as evidenced by the CIA and ISI working to shatter a r truly multilateral peace agreement in 1992, when there was a chance of one.

At that point it became clear that the US preferred a shattered Afghanistan with no chance of ending the bleeding if the alternative was a more unified Afghanistan that might eluded CIA-ISI control. The Comments of Baker as early as 1988 make it clear that the concern was to prevent an Afghanistan that might prove friendlier to Iran and Russia than to the US and Pakistan.

Given earlier attempts of the British and US Seven Sisters to prevent Germany, Italy and Russia from uniting to form alternative sources of oil, it is clear that the current Afghan situation remains British and US hegemony over international oil, and the blocking of any possibility of an alliance between the CARs and Iran, and Russia as a new source of oil beyond the very broadly conceived "price controls" of the US and British oil alliance.

As you suggest, there are many different ways that the "embrace" btw. Russia and Germany (and potentially others in Western and central Europe) can be avoided.

Interesting to see how the Anglo-Americans seek to disrupt the Sino-Russian oil supply lines. Is that what Sinkiang was all about?