Putin having expansion on his mind is evident by the Russian actions in Georgia, Ukraine, and elsewhere. Syria has been an ally to the Soviets and then Russia for a long time. And I doubt that he wants to see a radical Islamic regime take over there.
Obama abandoned Iraq, is barely responding to ISIS, wants to do the same in Afghanistan, trying to pull back the military everywhere and cut troop strength. Does that sound anything like what Putin's goals are? Because I just don't see it.
Feel free to share what you consider evidence to the contrary. Though if it comes from Alex Jones I'm liable to not bother replying. The chess-versus-checkers headline is amusing, just not apt. If anyone thinks that Putin is some grand strategist, they need to find a news source other than RT.com. He's just another in a long line of Russian autocrats. Obama and Putin are both playing checkers, just not against each other.
Never mind that the evidence shows Putin was reacting to provocations from the west in those instances.
The only game Obama is playing is golf. He doesn't dream up our foreign policy. The corporate sponsored think tanks do. There is no Democrat or Republican foreign policy. There's only the corporate sponsored think tank foreign policy.
All Obama does is act on the plans drawn up by these think tanks. Turn off the propaganda box and read the think tanks papers for yourself.
They don't hide them. Start with PINAC and the Brookings Institute. The whole idea that the president creates our foreign policy is a fantasy perpetuated by the media.
You want to know who one of these corporate sponsored "chess masters" are? Read the "
The Grand Chess Board".
The Grand Chessboard
Brzezinski sets the tone for his strategy by describing Russia and China as the two most important countries - almost but not quite superpowers - whose interests that might threaten the U.S. in Central Asia. Of the two, Brzezinski considers Russia to be the more serious threat. Both nations border Central Asia. In a lesser context he describes the Ukraine, Azerbaijan, Iran and Kazakhstan as essential "lesser" nations that must be managed by the U.S. as buffers or counterweights to Russian and Chinese moves to control the oil, gas and minerals of the Central Asian Republics (Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, and Kyrgyzstan).
He also notes, quite clearly (p. 53) that any nation that might become predominant in Central Asia would directly threaten the current U.S. control of oil resources in the Persian Gulf. In reading the book it becomes clear why the U.S. had a direct motive for the looting of some $300 billion in Russian assets during the 1990s, destabilizing Russia's currency (1998) and ensuring that a weakened Russia would have to look westward to Europe for economic and political survival, rather than southward to Central Asia. A dependent Russia would lack the military, economic and political clout to exert influence in the region and this weakening of Russia would explain why Russian President Vladimir Putin has been such a willing ally of U.S. efforts to date. (See FTW Vol. IV, No. 1 - March 31, 2001)
An examination of selected quotes from "The Grand Chessboard," in the context of current events reveals the darker agenda behind military operations that were planned long before September 11th, 2001.
Continue . . .
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/zbig.html
Which Path to Persia?
Options for a New American Strategy toward Iran
Deconstructing Syria: A new strategy for America’s most hopeless war
I'm sure some people will say Poncho you're a nutcase. Just because Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton, Bush 2 and Obama have been following the same foreign policy outlined by these corporate sponsored think tanks and we can see (if we open our eyes) that things have been happening according to these plans doesn't mean the corporate sponsored think tanks control our foreign policy.
It's all just a big coincidence that events have been unfolding according to these plans. The corporate sponsored TV talking heads all tell us that the corporate sponsored think tanks are just experts in their field that advise the corporate sponsored government in policy matters. So there! You're wrong!
Yep those who never bother to read the think tanks policy papers, ask questions, investigate the media's sources or check primary sources and compare them to the unfolding events will say . . .
"Poncho, it's all a big conspiracy theory. We know the truth because the corporate owned and controlled media told us what the truth is. It's Putin's fault, it's China's fault, it's Iran's fault, it's Assad's fault . . . it's all someone else's fault. We know because that's what the corporate owned and controlled media all told us. We don't have to read all those policy papers. We're to smart for all that because we're media educated folks here!"
And to that I say, whatever. Believe what you want but the evidence still tells a very different story than what the corporate owned and controlled media has been telling you.
