Towards a Second Cold War?

8 posts / 0 new
Last post
Cueball Cueball's picture
Towards a Second Cold War?


Cueball Cueball's picture

[url= Chomsky[/url]

Forgive me if this is posted elsewhere:


Aghast at the atrocities committed by US forces invading the Philippines, and the rhetorical flights about liberation and noble intent that routinely accompany crimes of state, Mark Twain threw up his hands at his inability to wield his formidable weapon of satire. The immediate object of his frustration was the renowned General Funston. “No satire of Funston could reach perfection,” Twain lamented, “because Funston occupies that summit himself… [he is] satire incarnated.”


That was the lead, and here is the close of Chomsky's essay:


Nonetheless, a new cold war seems unlikely. To evaluate the prospect, we should begin with clarity about the old cold war. Fevered rhetoric aside, in practice the cold war was a tacit compact in which each of the contestants was largely free to resort to violence and subversion to control its own domains: for Russia, its Eastern neighbors; for the global superpower, most of the world. Human society need not endure – and might not survive – a resurrection of anything like that.

A sensible alternative is the Gorbachev vision rejected by Clinton and undermined by Bush. Sane advice along these lines has recently been given by former Israeli Foreign Minister and historian Shlomo ben-Ami, writing in the Beirut Daily Star: “Russia must seek genuine strategic partnership with the US, and the latter must understand that, when excluded and despised, Russia can be a major global spoiler. Ignored and humiliated by the US since the Cold War ended, Russia needs integration into a new global order that respects its interests as a resurgent power, not an anti-Western strategy of confrontation.”

I'd agree if Chomsky is saying that a new cold war is the less likely possibility. I think saying "unlikely" is going too far. Especially since the US has taken several abre rattling steps since it's client decisively lost this round.

Mind you, it would be consistent with past practice for the US to do BOTH the stream of sabre rattling moves, and make the kinds of integrationist concessions to Russia being advised.

The reason I think a continuing cold war with more conflicts and more 'big time [global scale] danger' is a possibility is because of the combination that the US does the sabre rattling and encirclement, while Russia can afford to spurn the carrots of the inegrationist moves and live with the consequences of the economic stick.

Putin clearly wants to come to an accomodation, but not at any price- not at all.


There are two choices for a nation that has backed itself into a corner by quarterbacking a predatory financial system now threatening it's own economy - the petrodollar system where other countries purchase that nation’s debt to finance its multiple trade and fiscal deficits. When other nations begin to resist U.S. dollar hegemony, as some are doing now, the predatory imperialist nation with its 1929-32 do-over casino economy now threatening to slit its own throat can:

1) continue to repress subjugated nations through nuclear threats, open warfare, and CIA-NATO Gladio "black ops", as was done throughout the cold war to now, or

2) it can change its financial system to one that is non-predatory, and one that isn't based on "MAD" and threats of global economic collapse if other nations refuse to export their national wealth to the imperial master nation cannibalizing thirdworld natural resource wealth to feed an unsustainable economy based on voraceous levels of middle class consumption with political support and finite fossil fuel reserve donations of underdeveloped countries like Canada

[ 18 September 2008: Message edited by: Fidel ]

N.Beltov N.Beltov's picture

Here is some more substantiation that a new Cold War is unlikely. The source is the Head of NATO.


NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer has said the alliance will not consider adopting a new policy toward Russia despite Moscow's 'aggressive stance' on Georgia and uncertainties over Moscow's intentions.

"We may have to make adjustments in the way we approach Russia, but we do not need a new policy," he said on Thursday at the Royal United Service Institute in London before the start of an informal meeting of NATO defense ministers.

"Such a solution cannot be found and will not be found if we seek to punish Russia. NATO is not in the punishment business," he said.



"Georgia may remain a bone of contention between Russia and the West for some time to come. But this must not prevent us from seeking to cooperate with Russia wherever our interests converge," Jaap de Hoop Scheffer said.

"One key area where this is the case is Afghanistan."

Since the Taliban regime was overthrown in the 2001 U.S.-led campaign, Afghanistan has become the world's leading producer of heroin. Afghanistan's opium production increased from 6,100 tons in 2006 to 8,200 tons in 2007, according to the UN.

NATO's International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) has about 53,000 troops operating in the country under a UN mandate to help give security support to the Afghan government and stop the flow of drugs from the country.

Should we mention that the US (and its NATO truncheon) is happy to use Russian air space to fly their supplies through but has no interest in Russian advice about how to be more successful in Afghanistan?

No, let's not. NATO always knows best. Like when the Australians shot dead an Afghan Governor and former Chief of Police. It's all part of a clever NATO strategy to win hearts and minds. [img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img]

M. Spector M. Spector's picture


Originally posted by N.Beltov:
[b]NATO is not in the punishment business[/b]


N.Beltov N.Beltov's picture

Yea, I threw that in just for you.

BTW, for a small fee, say a couple of roubles, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer will sing

"May there always be sunshine
May there always be blue skies
May there always be Mama,
May there always be me."

and then roll over and play dead.



Originally posted by N.Beltov:
[b]Should we mention that the US (and its NATO truncheon) is happy to use Russian air space to fly their supplies through but has no interest in Russian advice about how to be more successful in Afghanistan? [/b]

Did U.S. hawks ever plan on winning a war decisively in the shortest amount of time possible? How could Pentagon capitalists ever profit by a short war? They need a convincing enemy, and what better way to create more VC/NVA/Taliban than the odd errant smart bomb and collateral damage? Afghans want to be thoroughly pissed off at the Yanks at all times. No one believes the Yanks actually desire to build up a nation and educate its people, build schools or hospitals. Their terrorist hirelings bombed and torched schools and hospitals in Nicaragua. Islamic gladios bombed and torched schools and hospitals in Afghanistan. Schools and health care are the seeds of socialism.

Yanks wanted a colder war, and that's what they have now. Only, how to fund upside-down socialism [i]and[/i] have private banks creating all of the money and credit at the same time? They couldn't do it with laissez-faire in the 1930's, so how can they do it now? By a petrodollar debt-driven monetary system now collapsing around their ears? It's on the wane as far as I can tell. I think hyperinflation is on the way or a new western world financial system, one or the other.

[ 19 September 2008: Message edited by: Fidel ]