Interview with RT on Kerry's remarks and NATO surrounding Russia. I regret that only a very small portion of the interview was aired. But I think it is important to reiterate several points -
Isaiah Bowman, a key figure in the Council on Foreign Relations wrote that “The measure of our victory will be the measure of our domination after victory." This was said in1941, but it became far more pertinent in 1991 and what we see the US do today - as it has been doing for decades - shooting for total domination.
True to this, after the Cold War, Prominent Americans such as Wolfowitz, Rustow opined that it was important to contain Russia (the Heartland – Defense Planning Guideline1992, later repeated by Rustow in 1993, and course the well-read Chess Board). It was felt that the domination of Heartland (Eastern Europe, Russia, Central Asia) would lead to domination of the World. 9/11 made this possible and many countries unwittingly cooperated to help America achieve its goal of global domination under its pretext of war on terror.
The renewed containment policy also explains the astronomical amount of US aid to Eastern Europe after the fall of the Soviet Union. This was in the same exact pattern as the Marshall Plan.
The creation of Marshall Plan in 1947 to give aid to war-torn Europe had already pumped $13 billion dollars. This deterrence was to “protect” Europe from falling to Communism, had the added benefit of helping American businesses. While showcasing American generosity, Europe had to turn to the U.S. for its goods which in turn had to be shipped on board American vessels. American economy prospered and communism was kept at bay.
Same concept here with Eastern Europe. The aid was to use these countries as a counter to Russian rise (contain) but also to build a buffer. The most immediate foreign policy objective for the British Empire (passed onto American Empire) was to prevent any kind of alliance or bloc between Germany and Russia, and to keep either one from dominating Eastern Europe. Hence strong buffer states needed to be formed between these two great powers.
Merkel would be foolish to follow America/NATO in yet another adventure as it did Afghanistan, etc. As we can see, NATO, or Western Europe NATO is reluctant to get involved with America’s expansionist agenda, so the Americans are relying on Eastern European countries they have bought. As Donald Rumsfeld said in 2003 (about Iraq), 'Old Europe' will be a problem.
I think and hope that “Old Europe” will be a problem with regard to Ukraine. No wonder Chuck Hagel visited Brussles in 2013 to ask NATO allies to contribute more and not rely on the US which has bought NATO with 75% contributions it makes. Less than a handful of countries have obliged America.
Not only does Kerry want to bolster the domestic image of the Obama administration, but to reassure Eastern Europeans who are aiding the US in its agenda. But Kerry’s huff and puff speech only reflects America’s weak position in this situation. As with Iraq, they love to show that this is a “multi-lateral” effort. Not exactly a strong union!
Perhaps the biggest fear I have, specially with Brennan visiting the coup regime in Ukraine, is false flag operations to win over the reluctant NATO allies.