“Religious conversion in war is rare today”
04 May, 2009, 17:59
Religious conversion is hardly ever used as a weapon in modern warfare, says RT’s military analyst Eugene Khrushchev.
Friendly Fire
Eugene Khrushchev's blog
Russia’s NATO strategy, part 2
I thought it would be a cake walk to napalm all residual confusion about the complexity of the Russia/NATO relationship – with a healthy bit of irony but without insulting simplification or pontification. Well, it didn’t work quite that way.
While nobody has questioned the reasons behind the Russian opposition to NATO expansion, nevertheless, I have encountered a stiff resistance from one spider hole – particularly, on the issue of Russia/NATO interaction in Afghanistan, and generally, on Russia’s wider foreign policy:
“I still do not see any logic in helping Nato in Afghanistan even if that is for a fee. Success by Nato in Afghanistan means colonization and permanent occupation... No logic in Russian foreign policy. Why nuclear Israel and Pakistan are not even part of any non-proliferation discussions???” John.
Dear John,
I hear your frustration, man – just hold your fire, put your gun aside, take it easy and follow my recommendations:
1. Take off your mind-resistant logic- protected helmet.
2. Tune in Radio 977 Country on your laptop, flip off nerve-soothing Samuel Adams and have a good time!
3. When you completely sink premeditated prejudice, log in and read again my arguments about RF/NATO Afghan interaction in previous blogs and your latest comment.
If you do everything right, don’t be surprised to realize that what you thought is a far cry from what I had written.
The punch line in your counterargument ‘I still do not see any logic in helping Nato in Afghanistan even if that is for a fee’ smacks of Reductio ad absurdum shtick.
You don’t have to be a John Grisham aficionado to know that the genuine help supposed to be for free not for fee, i.e. gratis, legally speaking. You can either charge or help, it’s that simple.
Industrious Uncle Sam had racked up a fortune in cold gold from the Allies, including the UK & USSR, for a land-lease ‘help’ during and after WW2. Nothing personal, but the Soviets had to fight Fritz for 5 years and to pay the Yankees at the same time – for more than a decade.
It used to be then, now Russia has truly helped Afghanistan big time by writing off multibillion dollar Soviet debt – I’m very glad that I had gotten a chance to partake in that Russian/American/Afghan team endeavor back in Kabul in ’06.
Read my lips & blogs:
• Afghanistan has proved NATO’s credibility for the United States as the lipstick pussycat in cowboy boots, ‘too fat to fight’.
• Pakistan will provoke catharsis & soul-searching in White House foreign policy that might result in dramatic re-evaluation of the friend-or-foe equation: NATO funeral march in favor of jump-starting US security partnership with Russia, China & Iran.
• Russia has never helped and never will help NATO to generate ‘collateral damage’ in Serbia, Afghanistan or elsewhere, period.
• Moscow is willing to partner with Washington to trap NATO in Afghanistan, until it will ‘do or die’ trying to accomplish peace-making, peace-keeping or nation-building.
• Despite the prophets of doom & gloom, the logic of history is inevitable: Russia & America are doomed to be partners in this century. RF strategic overwatch & US strategic overreach dovetail each other in a perfect match.
For the sake of intellectual honesty, please quote verbatim your opponent before you shoot. Are we clear on that?
No comments:
Post a Comment