very interesting statement, but I think that gives too much credit to U.S. Actions but ignores the unsustainable soviet economic strategy.
Do you honestly think governments don't plan years ahead? General Wesley Clark speaks of a meeting he had in the halls of the Pentagon, where he's told by another individual about the decision to destabilize the Middle East and the decision to take down various countries in the region. Iran, Libya, Somalia, Iraq, Lebanon were mentioned. That was in 1991 and ten years before 9/11.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5q9PYy1NoA So any suggestion that 9/11 was the catalyst for American involvement in the ME is highly suspect.
As for the Soviet Union, Ronald Reagan pointedly took aim at the communist Soviet Union. He created the Star Wars program and this was a catalyst for forcing the USSR into a costly arms race that they couldn't afford and that bankrupted the country to the point where in 1991, the system collapsed (and Natalie was in the American embassy in Ukraine from 1992 on).
Then for a time, the crushed country now known as Russia, was an aid recipient until they started getting their economy onto better footing, at which time they began to help other countries with smallish aid packages. They're referred to as an 'emerging donor'.
Personally, I think the turning point in the American attitude towards Russia (whom your administration was keeping tabs on throughout via NGO's) was in 2012 when Russia kicked out all foreign NGO's (non-governmental agencies) out of fear that those groups were clandestinely trying to influence the people/politics in that country. And if I'm not mistaken, the Ukraine's unrest began later in 2013 although Ukraine had been working on a free trade agreement with the EU since 2007. On the verge of signing in 2012, one of the criteria was that Ukraine must free Tymoshenko and one other ex-Ukraine government official, both of whom had been convicted of fraud and embezzlement by Ukrainian courts.
Now I ask you, why would a governing body insist on freeing two criminal government officials who had been convicted of fraud and embezzlement (while in office)? And coincidentally at least one of them (Tymoshenko) was subsequently, intimately involved in 2013-14 with the destruction of the government that she'd been defrauding and then working hand in hand with the coup leaders and America as the restructuring of the government was taking place? I haven't looked since the recent election but maybe she's even still part of the new government.
The Pentagon is neither Republican nor Democrat. It is of little consequence who is in power to the military machine. What is of consequence is that they have 'jobs to do' and in order for that to happen to justify the hoped for promotions, purchasing power, and healthy retirement packages for the top officials.....there must be war. Not only that but there is a support industry that makes the weapons, ammunitions, troop facilities, etc, that has brought to the investors, increase to the tune of 27,000% over the past 50 years. A steady source of 'income' for investors who have no compunction about investing in 'death'. All the lobbyists have to do is make sure that they inoculate ignorant politicians with enough fear and frightening possibilities while holding out the carrot of 'hegemony', and you have a recipe for conflict.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-so...-soaring-costs-of-military-casualties/5388393
So do I think that planning takes place years in advance for conflicts? In some or most cases yes.
'....Ronald Reagan’s determination to destroy communism and the Soviet Union was a hallmark of his eight-year presidency, carried out through a harsh nuclear policy toward Moscow that softened only slightly when Gorbachev came to office.
He is vividly remembered in Russia today as the force that precipitated the Soviet collapse....' http://www.nbcnews.com/id/5145921/n...helping-bring-down-soviet-union/#.VNYH_lpRpcx
