Hegemony is as old as mankind!
September 05, 2008
© Project HumanbeingsfirstTM. Permission granted to use freely as per copyright notice.
Case Study: Surviving the Grand Chessboard
A Case Study in International Relations from the breaking events on the Russian-Georgian border in August 2008 to highlight the obvious solution space for interdicting the present unilateral terror on the Grand Chessboard – a return to real “balance of terror”!
“Hegemony is as old as mankind.” That pithy statement captures almost 100% of mankind's recorded history. It is either a struggle for, or against, hectoring hegemons – big and small. And as this pathetic history of mankind demonstrates, hegemony is only broken before its natural 'time-constant' with active resistance to it; never with platitudes or wishful thinking. At its natural 'time-constant' however, hegemony simply collapses (or dies its natural death) under its own weight of successes, expansions, or failure to maintain. This natural death of the hectoring hegemons and their systems of hegemony need not concern us here as their 'time-constant' today is long enough to destroy all or most of mankind leaving behind only their scurrying interests, and those of the cockroaches, to contend with each other.
Thus, the remaining history of mankind only teaches us one insightful lesson with respect to effective takedown of hegemony – hectoring hegemons only understand other hectoring hegemons. And, the effective resistance of fed-up victims with nothing more to lose and un-willing to take it anymore. Since the mass resistance of the peoples has been very effectively neutralized worldwide in the modern age, we are only left with hectoring hegemons battling each other. What Albert Wohlstetter in 1958 so elegantly captured as “Mr. Oppenheimer's simile of the two scorpions in a bottle”  to safeguard the fly between them via a precarious “balance of terror”. In this simile, either or both predators may be killed, or either may get the meal, or, in a most delicate balance, all may survive in peace! That is the theme of this report.
Until 08-08-08, there had been no apparent counter-hegemons bold enough, and courageous enough, to urgently standup to the unipolar superpower apocalyptically exercising its quest for “full spectrum dominance” of the entire planet and its outer-regions under the Orwellian cover of “war on terror”. No nation except the two without teeth, Iran and Venezuela, even dare to publicly 'call a spade a spade' and condemn the destruction of Iraq and Afghanistan or the pending American-Israeli primacy upon Iran. A handful of retired statesmen, like Mahatir Mohammed of Malaysia, and Nelson Mandella of South Africa, have occasionally added their anemic voices to this weak rumblings to exactly zero utility. The Georgia-Ossetia conflagration which was deliberately provoked by the hectoring hegemons under their own calculus of hegemony, can potentially change that – and only if the great-game is played with astute vigilance and full spectrum courage. But not with platitudes, moralizing, sermonizing, or wishful thinking, such as:
“For whatever reason, Brzezinski seems to have his own “personal obsession” with Russia. American hypocrisy and double standards will not solve anything. What the “west” and the “world” needs is for America to go home, withdraw its military from around the globe, and try participating in a multilateral world, using international institutions, rather than the “full spectrum dominance” it now uses for its global resource war (oil) now destroying the Middle East.” (Jim Miles, Deconstructing Brzezinski’s Russia )
Project Humanbeingsfirst's two-part report of August 2008, titled “Georgia-Russia: It's a Classic Brzezinski Project!”  has already identified this conflagration as a Zbigniew Brzezinski imprint. The pithy wisdom which titles this present follow-on report is also the astute observation of this same grandmaster. It is the very first sentence of Zbigniew Brzezinski's 1996 book “The Grand Chessboard” and aptly sums up the raison d'être of its entire content. That raison d'être in turn, is aptly summed up in the book's chauvinistic subtitle: “American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives”.
This essay fleshes out the theme of hegemony and its only practicable take-down by beginning with the question: is this “American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives” a uniquely Brzezinski thing?
It can be rather disconcerting to uncover that Zbigniew Brzezinski's thinking is very closely espoused in his predecessor neoconservative strategist, Albert Wohlstetter's 1958 Rand Report “The Delicate Balance of Terror”,  in which this old-timer, long-dead war-mongering, and evidently mentor to the latter day neo-cons, preached against the complacency of the “Balance of Terror” doctrine of the Truman Administration for containing any thermonuclear war with the USSR. Wohlstetter advocated more along the present day neo-cons' line of calculated “unilateral terror” as rationally, and pragmatically, the only effective mechanism of exercising hegemony. Wohlstetter complained that “balance of terror” in reality was rather a precarious and dynamic balance, but more importantly, unnecessarily limited the imperial “creativity” of the mighty United States into a stalemate. He argued: “If peace were founded firmly on mutual terror and mutual terror on symmetrical nuclear powers, this would be, as Churchill has said, "a melancholy paradox;" nonetheless a most comforting one.” That “melancholy paradox” was examined in Project Humanbeingsfirst's report of April 26, 2008 of the new world order post 9/11, titled: “From Balance of Terror to Unilateral Terror on the Grand Chessboard!” .
Resuming from where the grotesque reality-check of that report had left us, this breaking news of the forced intervention of Russia into Georgia, if played astutely by the Russian president Vladimir Putin, can lead to what the empire actually does not want in these times. That is, a return to “balance of terror”, which is arguably a far more desirable outcome on the Grand Chessboard from the untermenschen's point of view bearing the full brunt of the present day unilateral terror!
Mr. Putin perhaps does have this reality in mind, or at least appears aware of its power of equalization, especially if one carefully parses his measured statements in his interview of August 28, 2008  to CNN where he observed, in response to various pointed questions:
Vladimir Putin: We have serious reasons to believe that there were U.S. citizens right in the combat zone. If that is the case, if that is confirmed, it is very bad. It is very dangerous; it is misguided policy.
But, if that is so, these events could also have a U.S. domestic politics dimension.
If my suppositions are confirmed, then there are grounds to suspect that some people in the United States created this conflict deliberately in order to aggravate the situation and create a competitive advantage for one of the candidates for the U.S. presidency. And if that is the case, this is nothing but the use of the called administrative resource in domestic politics, in the worst possible way, one that leads to bloodshed.
[...] I have said to you that if the presence of U.S. citizens in the zone of hostilities is confirmed, it would mean only one thing: that they could be there only at the direct instruction of their leaders. And if that is so, it means that in the combat zone there are U.S. citizens who are fulfilling their duties there. They can only do that under orders from their superiors, not on their own initiative.
[...] A little victorious war is needed. And if it doesn't work, then one can lay the blame on us, use us to create an enemy image, and against the backdrop of this kind of jingoism once again rally the country around certain political forces.
I am surprised that you are surprised at what I'm saying. It's as clear as day.
[...] During my eight years as president, I often heard the same question: What place does Russia reserve for itself in the world; how does it see itself; what is its place? We are a peace-loving state and we want to cooperate with all of our neighbors and with all of our partners. But if anyone thinks that they can come and kill us, that our place is at the cemetery, they should think what consequences such a policy will have for them.
Matthew Chance: Let's go back to the assertion that the U.S. provoked the war. Diplomats in the United States accuse Russia of provoking the war by supporting the separatists in Abkhazia and South Ossetia by arming them, by increasing forces in the territories and by recognizing their institutions ... basically giving them the green light to go ahead and operate de facto. Wasn't it Russia that really caused this conflict?
Vladimir Putin: I can easily reply to this question. Since the 1990s, as soon as this conflict started, and it started in recent history because of the decision of the Georgian side to deprive Abkhazia and South Ossetia of the rights of autonomy. In 1990 and 1991, the Georgian leadership deprived Abkhazia and South Ossetia of the autonomous rights that they enjoyed as part of the Soviet Union, as part of Soviet Georgia, and as soon as that decision was taken, ethnic strife and armed hostilities began. At that time, Russia signed a number of international agreements, and we complied with all those agreements. We had in the territory of Abkhazia and South Ossetia only those peacekeeping forces that were stipulated in those agreements and never exceeded the quota.
The other side -- I am referring to the Georgian side -- with the support of the United States, violated all the agreements in the most brazen way.
Under the guise of units of the Ministry of the Interior, they secretly moved into the conflict zone their troops, regular army, special units and heavy equipment. In fact, they surrounded Tskhinvali, the capital of South Ossetia, with that heavy equipment and tanks. They surrounded our peacekeepers with tanks and started shooting at them point blank.
It was only after that, after our first casualties and after their number considerably increased, after tens of them had been killed -- I think 15 or 20 peacekeepers were killed, and there was heavy loss of life among the civilian population, with hundreds killed -- it was only after all that that President Medvedev decided to introduce a military contingent to save the lives of our peacekeepers and innocent civilians.
What is more, when our troops began moving in the direction of Tskhinvali, they came across a fortified area that had been secretly prepared by the Georgian military. In effect, tanks and heavy artillery had been dug into ground there, and they started shelling our soldiers as they moved.
All of it was done in violation of previous international agreements.
It is of course conceivable that our U.S. partners were unaware of all that, but it's very unlikely.
A totally neutral person, the former Georgian Minister of Foreign Affairs Ms. Zurabishvili, who is I think a French citizen and is now in Paris, has said publicly, and it was broadcast, that there was an enormous number of U.S. advisers and that of course they knew everything.
And if our supposition that there were U.S. citizens in the combat zone is confirmed -- and I repeat, we need further information from our military -- then these suspicions are quite justified.
Those who pursue such a policy toward Russia, what do they think? Will they like us only when we die?
That sarcastic concluding remark by Putin sums up the Russian comprehension of the grandmasters riding the sole superpower and arrayed against their giant nation on the Grand Chessboard! Thus Russia's quick actions to recognize the independence of the two appendages of Georgia on August 26, 2008  are predictable micro-moves:
“Bearing in mind the free expression of their will by the Ossetian and Abkhazian peoples, and guided by the UN Charter, the declaration of 1970 on the principles of international law regarding friendly relations between states, the Helsinki Final Act of 1975 and other fundamental international documents I have signed decrees on the recognition of the independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia by the Russian Federation.” (Russian President Dmitry Medvedev)
If Project Humanbeingsfirst's hopes for ordinary peoples of this planet to survive in peace are not to be dashed, Putin's next macro counter-moves are predicted in: “Georgia-Russia: It's a Classic Brzezinski Project!” .
The fact that the Russian leadership intimately comprehends such counter-play on the Grand Chessboard is further betrayed in the Russian President Dmitry Medvedev's August 31, 2008  articulation of the core-principles of Russia's foreign policy going forward: “While implementing the Russian foreign policy, I will be guided with five principles”. The three most revealing among them:
Secondly, concerning the unacceptability of the new world order: “the world must be multi-polar. Single polarity is unacceptable, ... Russia cannot accept a world order, in which any decisions will be made by a sole nation, even such a serious one as the United States. Such a world order will be unstable and fraught with conflicts.”
Fourthly, concerning protecting Russian citizens and Russian business interests being an absolute priority: “no matter where they live ... We will also stand up for the interests of our business community abroad. Everyone must know that an aggression will be deterred”.
Fifthly, concerning Russia's national security interests in the world: “The same as other countries, Russia has areas of privileged interests. These areas house countries, to which we are linked with friendly ties”.
Interestingly, the other two guiding principles (the first and third, quoted below) articulated by the Russian President also seem to be calculatingly constructed, but mainly for the world's public consumption no different than Zbigniew Brzezinski or the Project for the New American Century doing so by throwing in some Orwellian platitudes in their conquest doctrines on the Grand Chessboard. Witness the expected continuity of Orwell across continents, when primacy is the unhidden agenda behind “peace” platitudes, in chronological sequence:
“... the ultimate objective of American policy should be benign and visionary: to shape a truly cooperative global community.” (Brzezinski, Grand Chessboard, 1997)
“... we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;” (PNAC, Statement of Principles, 1998)
“... Keeping the American peace requires the U.S. Military to undertake a broad array of missions today and rise to very different challenges tomorrow, but there can be no retreat from these missions without compromising American leadership and the benevolent order it secures.” (PNAC, Rebuilding America's Defenses, page 76, 2000)
Russia's first foreign policy principle: “First of all, Russia recognizes the supremacy of international legal fundamentals, which define relations between civilized nations” (President Dmitry Medvedev, August 31, 2008)
Russia's third foreign policy principle: “Russia does not want isolation [or confrontation with any country]. We will develop as much as possible friendly relations with Europe, the United States and other countries of the world,” (President Dmitry Medvedev, August 31, 2008)
While the afore-stated latter two Russian aspirations of a resurgent non-ideological Russia may be genuine statement of principles in a perfect-world without any hectoring hegemons, self-interests and survival instincts in the real-world is as much a prime-mover for Russia as the earlier-cited Albert Wohlstetter's and his legatee Zbigniew Brzezinski's primacy proposals for “unilateral terror” are for America!
The first three American aspirations noted above are surely nothing but Orwellian, as empirically evidenced over the past 60 years for an undefeated continually war-mongering America, and as forensically analyzed elsewhere (here  and here ) and shown to be entirely self-consistent with George Kennan's 1948 Policy Planning paper for the U.S. State Department. America's foreign policy is entirely predatory, and has been so for at least a hundred years following upon the heals of the British Empire (see Rudyard Kipling's 1899 poem The White Man's Burden [11a]).
Perhaps it would do well to rehearse that Darwinian theme here, except that now, the insidious object of George Kennan's primacy prescription is the construction of an oligarchic world-government corporate-empire in a devilishly manufactured “unipolar” world in which, while initially, the “United States has overstepped its borders in all spheres -- economic, political and humanitarian and has imposed itself on other states”, eventually, it will come to mean only “one thing: one center of power, one center of force, one center of decision-making, a world of one master, one sovereign”:
“We have about 50% of the world's wealth, but only 6.3% of its population .... In this situation, we cannot fail to be the object of envy and resentment. Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity without positive detriment to our national security. To do so, we will have to dispense with all sentimentality and day-dreaming, and our attention will have to be concentrated everywhere on our immediate national objectives. We need not deceive ourselves that we can afford today the luxury of altruism and world-benefaction .... We should cease to talk about vague and – for the Far East – unreal objectives such as human rights, the raising of living standards, and democratization. The day is not far off when we are going to have to deal in straight power concepts. The less we are then hampered by idealistic slogans, the better.” (George Kennan, Policy Planning Study 23, 1948)
Considering that the eloquent description of “unipolar” world is from Putin's own candid tongue circa February 2007 , it is clear that the Russians already well understand George Kennan's imperial prescription quoted above.
The Russians also fully realize that only in a multilateral world is where the rights and privileges of the broad diversity of the peoples who inhabit this lonely planet, especially the vast majority of its 85% populations who live outside the shores of the Atlantic-powers, can be safeguarded, including their own!
And, not living in some fools utopian paradise that runs on lofty platitudes, they obviously also understand that effective multilateralism in the predatory Darwinian real world is only possible through a carefully constructed “balance of terror” – for after all, “hegemony is as old as mankind”. This unilateralist principle of all predatory empires, whether national, monarchic, or oligarchic, the Russians well understand, is not about to voluntarily change in the next 1000 years!!!
The CSTO  countries (Belarus, Armenia, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan) in Russia's backyard united in security guarantees with Russia since 1992, apparently fully comprehend this reality as demonstrated by their measured endorsement  of Russia's position on South Ossetia and Abkhazia as independent nations. The Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov further noted on September 04, 2008 :
“[Their] statement support Russia’s actions in the zone of the Georgian-South Ossetian conflict [and] the active role of Russia in contributing to peace and cooperation in the Caucasus and call for ensuring firm security for South Ossetia and Abkhazia on the basis of the UN Charter, the Helsinki Final Act and other fundamental documents of international law.”
At this time however, it is not entirely clear whether the Chinese also fully comprehend the time-criticalness of making hard new alliances and security pacts in Asia in order to safeguard their own national interests. Or, are they merely playing their own measured chess game on a different time-scale. The SCO countries (Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan) in China's Asiatic backyard, united in a difficult to comprehend and rather toothless economic alliance with China since 2001 (along with the nondescript Mongolia, Iran, Pakistan, and India superficially participating as observer countries), concluded their annual meeting on August 28, 2008  with a luke-warm response to the Russian move in its joint declaration:
“3. The member states of the SCO express their deep concern in connection with the recent tension around the issue of South Ossetia, and call on the relevant parties to resolve existing problems in a peaceful way through dialogue, to make efforts for reconciliation and facilitation of negotiations.
The member states of the SCO welcome the approval on 12 August 2008 in Moscow of the six principles of settling the conflict in South Ossetia, and support the active role of Russia in promoting peace and cooperation in the region.”
With merely its expression of “deep concern”, and lip-service support of the “active role of Russia in promoting peace and cooperation in the region”, China too must surely also realize that the systematic and devilish destabilization of Pakistan, the calculating American military occupation of Afghanistan with repeated forays into Pakistan's picturesque mountainous regions and the concomitant cold-blooded barbarous killing of Pakistani civilians in collusion with Pakistan's own military, are really the un-subtle prelude for the complete encirclement and orchestrated breakup of their own gigantic Chinese land-mass alongside Russia! They also cannot possibly be oblivious to the “carbon-credit” scam being orchestrated largely for their “economic” benefit. Why China and Russia persist in dragging their feet in making full spectrum alliances in Asia remains a major puzzle as already explored in “The Missing Link - Full Spectrum Deterrence”. 
Indeed, the remarkable kowtowing to the American definition of “War on Terror” in the same SCO  declaration, and not recognizing it as a crafty fabrication for “imperial mobilization” that it actually is, either betrays a lack of forensic skills and intelligence processing on the part of the Confucius mind, or a surfeit of wait-until-ready strategy that is still willing to operate under the global fiction of fight against terrorism:
“6. The member states of the SCO express satisfaction at the increased interaction in fighting terrorism, separatism and extremism in the framework of the Organisation, and intend to raise cooperation of the member states in the field of ensuring security to a qualitatively new level by using the means of the Regional Antiterrorist Structure of the SCO.
The member states of the SCO reaffirm their commitment to strengthening the central coordinating role of the UN in mounting an international response to the threat of terrorism, to consistent implementation of the UN Global Counterterrorism Strategy, earliest possible approval of the Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism.
The member states of the SCO are determined to counter the attempts of spreading terrorist ideology, stand ready to interact closely in implementing Resolution 1624 of the UN SC, as well as in promoting dialogue among civilisations and cultures. In this regard it is also essential to rely on the potential of civil society, business circles, mass media and non-governmental organisations.”
This is rather unfortunate for Asia because it means that the SCO is not in urgent sync with the Russian interests, at least publicly speaking, and is officially operating under the dominant paradigms du jour. Indeed, Russia too continues to carry forward the same fiction of “war on terror”!
When will both Russia and China come forward and announce that 9/11 was an inside job and that the “war on terror” is an oligarchic fiction to create revolutionary times across the planet?
The leaders of these two largest land mass of Asia cannot be unaware of the impetus for one-world government in baby-steps.
Their own national survival as sovereign states depends on this fictitious war being terminated and America being forced to retreat from their borders!
Or, America stays put encircling them, and further acquiring military bases in the remaining countries of the world in the on-going pretext of fighting the evil “terrorists” which both Russia and China are helping perpetuate themselves!
These egregious acts of omission and commision therefore can lead to the only inescapable rational conclusion possible. That both the Russian and Chinese political and economic leadership are in on the one-world government agenda. That today, they are as fictitious a combatant of the West as during the Cold War. And they certainly stand to benefit in this first of its kind global hegemony, as that new concoction of world government is the final merging of super-capitalism and super-communism. In this New World Order, the oligarchy own the world, and administer it as they have learnt in their previous experiments in communism and despotism over the past century. It is today a well known fact that the financiers of both fascism and communism in the twentieth century were the Western capitalists. Some of the tortuous characteristics of the coming world order are already visible to the farsighted, but for those who enjoy good cinema and learn about the world vicariously, may be glimpsed in the two allegorical cinematic depiction based on 1984 by George Orwell and A Brave New World by Aldous Huxley. 
It is hard to accurately gauge the Russian and Chinese geostrategic mind in the long term. One might remain cognizant though that while Zbigniew Brzezinski may have written the modern bible on primacy, The Grand Chessboard, in America, chess was invented in Asia.
For the near term, i.e., within our lifetime, only in the twain secondary Asiatic superpowers immediately uniting in their mutual self-defense against the marauding sole superpower to immediately create a formidable “balance of terror” (both military and economic), can both nations today provide relative security, peace, and a fair treatment for their respective peoples. Only in their concerted strategic full spectrum alliance can they prevent the genocidal slaughter of their populations under the population reduction regime which will surpass what was grotesquely witnessed in the two world wars of the twentieth century.
And, in their attempted full-spectrum self-defense of their own nations, also end up securing the rest of humanity in Asia and Africa for a more robust periphery, guaranteed access to natural resources, and equitable trade! Instead of the fictitious Cold War of the last half of the twentieth century, a real multilateral “balance of terror” can ensure the survival of mankind.
What an insanity – only the diligent and un-ending pursuit of selfishly securing one's own survival against all Darwinian predators through a “balance of terror” encourages the securing of the otherwise dispensable weaklings in one's neighborhood, in a perpetual full-spectrum check on the Grand Chessboard!
What prophet Moses could not accomplish with the Ten Commandments, equitable co-existence with others, “balance of terror” does! Even the lowly buffalos  know it! Surely so must nationalistic Russia and China! And in this clash of the super-titans where “safety will be the sturdy child of terror and survival the twin brother of annihilation” , the smaller nations can perhaps harvest some cunning breathing space for themselves in order to exist peacefully in precarious balance without becoming a tasty meal of the hectoring hegemon!
These smaller nations can of course also act as moronic patsies and remain front-line surrogate battle grounds for the titans! Or, they can conclude rational treaties with other nations which are, first and foremost, in their own public's best interests!
If mere platitudes, or ardent appeals to reason or compassion, could ever bring about fairness in international relations (or in the wielding of hegemonic power through its modern day instruments of “international institutions” like the World Bank, IMF, the United Nations), there should have been heaven on earth for the past 3000 years, at least ever since the advent of the Ten Commandments and the Biblical Golden Rule “do unto others as you others do unto you”! And certainly since the founding of the United Nations in mankind's blood after two world wars amidst new platitudes of peace, security, and human rights. The passage from Kennan's PPS 23 quoted earlier lends only partial insight into the reality behind those platitudes. The agenda of these “international institutions” has all along been the gradual usurpation of national sovereignty and vesting all legal authority in these supra-national institutions as the baby-steps towards one-world government.
This being the unvarnished reality-space of international relations behind all the Newspeak and obviously understood by the actual international players (as opposed to by the public for whose benefit their Newspeak exists), what then must have been the primal American hegemons' motivation to engage Russia at this time, even before their oft stated goal of destroying Iran is launched? As observed by this scribe in “Georgia-Russia: It's a Classic Brzezinski Project!”:
“The one forensic explanation which wholly and rationally explains this (mis)adventure by Georgia is that from the Anglo-American perspective, it was a trap set for the Russians to behave exactly as they did. The Georgians and Ossetians are just disposable canon fodder – patsies like the Afghanis before them.
... Additionally, keeping Russia busy on its flank while engaging Iran – if indeed Iran is actually to be bombed by Israel and/or the massive US naval armada now besieging her – makes short term military sense.”
Why is “keeping Russia busy on its flank” in order to decimate Iran necessary? The only forensic explanation that continues to make any strategic sense, is that Russia was effectively preventing the American-Israeli attack on Iran. It matters little precisely how, so long as it remains a covert Russian move that the hectoring hegemons have been made well aware of.
One however overtly observes the Russians easily neutralizing Israel's supposed setting up of Georgia as their (Israel's) recon-refueling launch-pad for attacking Iran. Was this neutralizing just a side-effect of the Russian intervention? Is such a launch-pad even essential for attacking Iran? How about Western news headlines  like “Russia threatens to supply Iran with top new missile system as 'cold war' escalates”? Or Russian public denials  like “No covert Russian arms sales to Iran, other region”?
I think all these are red-herrings for public consumption which are at best, mere posturing moves. And at worst, sacrificial pawns at the expense of Georgia-Ossetia and Iran! Apart from the overt Anglo-American policy of Russian-Chinese full encirclement which has no urgent immediacy to warrant precipitating such a deliberate crisis, the key raison d'être for engaging Russia in Georgia in this gratuitous war appears to be Russia's behind-the-scenes effective obstruction in preventing American-Israeli decimation of Iran!
In effect, if one reflects on real deterrence with teeth, it hardly matters where the Russian 'S-300' self-defense missiles are physically located, if Iran and Russia have concluded a covert security agreement! Israel also clearly does not require any intermediate launch-pad capability in Georgia solely to decimate Iran!
Therefore, logically speaking, and without any actual receipts in hand but knowing that “Deception is the state of mind, and the mind of the State” and therefore, whatever is made manifest by the Mighty Wurlitzer in the newsmedia is but a public-relations shadow-play of the far more grotesque reality of behind the scenes power-play, manufacturing this unnecessary crisis now has one rational purpose. Enabling the long-planned attack on Iran which propaganda warfare alone is evidently not enabling!
And because of Russia's obduracy, her direct engagement has apparently become urgently necessary! No other geostrategic reason, while arguable, can display this timeline of urgency!
Putin's plausible conjecture that it may have been American Presidential election related is arguable because both the presidential candidates serve common masters and have common advisors! There is, after all, even a Brzezinski in each camp! Thus, this un-imaginative Brzezinski project in Georgia is mainly to divert Russia from Iran in a high-stakes game of poker, with a quid pro quo as the immediate anticipated reward. Namely, we'll back off from your backyard if you stop interfering in the attack on Iran! Otherwise, we'll foment more of the same!
Nothing else makes military or strategic sense, despite the fact that there are some analysts who feel that a different behind-the-scenes power faction, the so called “Brzezinski” faction, has already taken over the reins of power in Washington at the expense of the Dick-Cheney centered neo-cons who were largely fixated with the Middle East and oil. These analysts mistakenly conclude that the new mandarins would rather use Iran to fight Russia in a global proxy war and thus destroy them both in a conflagration on a much larger geopolitical canvas. I don't believe this mild differentiation to be true, or even relevant, because the documented evidence in the architects' own hand-writings suggest that there is little difference in the 'ubermensch' imperatives outlined by George Kennan in 1948, Albert Wohlstetter in 1958, Brzezinski in 1997, PNAC in 1998, all the documents from AEI and other think-tanks in the interim, the White House's own Nuclear Posture Review in 2002 which simultaneously targeted Russia and China alongside Iran and Syria for preemptive nuclear warfare, and the barbaric hegemonic conquests empirically displayed by the United States since 2001 until today, all of which together are merely pretexts to create the “revolutionary times” needed to cement one-world government. It is apt to remind oneself of the famous protocol statement of David Ben-Gurion: “what is inconceivable in normal times is possible in revolutionary times”. Any hair-splitting in tactics is only that – evolving “revolutionary times” to match the state of the game on the Grand Chessboard without any fundamental difference in overarching objective! And its antidote therefore, also remains the same – full spectrum alliance! Everything else are planted red herrings!
The full-spectrum conquest strategies of the hectoring hegemons are formed and fleshed out at Pentagon surrogates like the private Rand Corporation, and in the privatized covert-ops rooms of tax exempt foundations and non-profit think-tanks led by the private Council on Foreign Relations whose membership comprises the who's who of American military-industrial-financial-media complex. The story of the role of CFR in synthesizing both domestic and international policy which is simply rubber-stamped by Congress and signed by the President can be read in Eustace Mullins, Gary Allen, Douglas Reed, Antony Sutton, Carroll Quigley, etceteras (see Recommended Reading at the end of The Poor-Man's Guide To Modernity). These conquest strategies are no longer individual-centric even though they are led by prominent individuals in every generation, but rather, have been made institutional-centric. And quite bipartisan, with common financiers who fund all sides in every generation. Which explains the uncanny longevity of these hegemonic aspirations for world government and persistent similarities in policy articulations across generations of conniving planners and political leaders regardless of which political party they belong to.
Unlike the empires of yore, anyone brilliant and skilled enough is invited (or coerced) to join this new world order enterprise in the lower hierarchies so long as they are agreeable to play by the imperial rules and can help extend 'empire'. Participants are offered rich rewards and glorification. Detractors are easily co-opted into acquiescence. A former FBI agent rightly observed of this state of affairs: 'Of course we should be quick to recognize that no small group could wield such gigantic power unless millions of people in all walks of life were “in on the take” and were willing to knuckle down to the iron-clad regimentation of the ruthless bosses behind the scenes. As we shall see, the network has succeeded in building its power structure by using tremendous quantities of money (together with the vast influence it buys) to manipulate, intimidate, or corrupt millions of men and women and their institutions on a world-wide basis.' (W. Cleon Skoussen, The Naked Capitalist, pg. 6)
The differing aspects which gain prominence at different times with new front-faces representing them, are but sub-facets of the same overarching strategic goal: world-government! By any other name, empire! Not a nationalistic one, but a global oligarchic one where independent nation-states are made obsolete in preference for geographic administrative domains as in “Mafioso territories”, and all implementing the same “rule of law” handed them by the financing “families”! The modern vernacular “International Relations” is merely the refined Newspeak to bring about this state of affairs.
It matters little which 'ubermensch' tactical facet of conquest is realized in which order, except to the victims – some “feel the pain” of extortion and death sooner than others! Russia must surely recognize this after the 1990s  neo-liberal looting of its precious national assets by its magnanimous IMF “friends”. The former chairman of the IMF in Moscow had even sanguinely noted: “It was the price which Russia paid for moving forward”. The second round for further “moving forward” in the 21st century is just around the corner!
Even if Russia has recognized this blatant reality and is willing to play aggressively in self-defense as demonstrated by their public statements and acts in this crisis, can a geostrategically rich but quite defenseless Iran continue to informally count on Russia in the complex calculus of geostrategic alliances without any overt security and bilateral economic treaties as envisioned by Project Humanbeingsfirst?  
If Russia in fact continues to play its own self-defense game astutely and her independent behavior during this crisis intervention in Georgia is not a temporary aberration, then the answer is YES. For Russia has no other rational choice but to unequivocally attempt to secure Asia from the predatory impulses of the Anglo-Saxons and their new European Allies seeking world-government to be run by the global oligarchic elite!
So what can Iran do to help nudge this rational tide urgently in its own favor?
Offer the Persian Gulf, and the Caspian, to the Russians, or to the Chinese – perhaps a hundred year lease of all its riches, patrolling rights, transit rights, and parts of its territories for military bases, to the highest bidder between them! If the Americans and Israelis can be present in Georgia, Poland, and in all the NATO countries by making legal treaties, why can't Russia and China be in NATO like treaty arrangement with Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Africa, and South America? While Pakistan is already lost to the hectoring hegemons, Iran is the next target.
Even grandmaster Zbigniew Brzezinski had outlined a plausible scenario for the United States to launch an attack on Iran in his bizarre testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on February 1, 2007, for the first time publicly admitting that the United States government can conduct false-flag operations and tell bold myth-making lies to fabricate “doctrinal motivation” in order to pursue his previously outlined “imperial mobilization” agendas on The Grand Chessboard: 
'If the United States continues to be bogged down in a protracted bloody involvement in Iraq, the final destination on this downhill track is likely to be a head-on conflict with Iran and with much of the world of Islam at large. A plausible scenario for a military collision with Iran involves Iraqi failure to meet the benchmarks; followed by accusations of Iranian responsibility for the failure; then by some provocation in Iraq or a terrorist act in the U.S. blamed on Iran; culminating in a “defensive” U.S. military action against Iran that plunges a lonely America into a spreading and deepening quagmire eventually ranging across Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.
A mythical historical narrative to justify the case for such a protracted and potentially expanding war is already being articulated. Initially justified by false claims about WMD’s in Iraq, the war is now being redefined as the “decisive ideological struggle” of our time, reminiscent of the earlier collisions with Nazism and Stalinism. In that context, Islamist extremism and al Qaeda are presented as the equivalents of the threat posed by Nazi Germany and then Soviet Russia, and 9/11 as the equivalent of the Pearl Harbor attack which precipitated America’s involvement in World War II.
This simplistic and demagogic narrative overlooks the fact that Nazism was based on the military power of the industrially most advanced European state; and that Stalinism was able to mobilize not only the resources of the victorious and militarily powerful Soviet Union but also had worldwide appeal through its Marxist doctrine. In contrast, most Muslims are not embracing Islamic fundamentalism; al Qaeda is an isolated fundamentalist Islamist aberration; most Iraqis are engaged in strife because the American occupation of Iraq destroyed the Iraqi state; while Iran—though gaining in regional influence—is itself politically divided, economically and militarily weak. To argue that America is already at war in the region with a wider Islamic threat, of which Iran is the epicenter, is to promote a self-fulfilling prophecy.'
That chutzpatic bold admission carried on CSPAN was watched by this scribe in amazement – blaming the Bush Administration for their self-serving myth-making demagogic narratives to enable wars of aggression as “self-fulfilling prophecy”, when the sole superpower in every government is only following his own recipe for “American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives”, was outright disingenuous (like Hitler blaming his generals for following Mein Kampf and Goebbels for propaganda). And it never made it to the 7 o clock evening news!
As Congressman Ron Paul had rightly opined about Iran on the House floor in January 2007 :
'The truth is that Iran, like Iraq, is a third-world nation without a significant military. Nothing in history hints that she is likely to invade a neighboring country, let alone America or Israel.'
And realistically, as a rather un-industrialized third-world country on its economic tethers with the only real indigenous expertise being manufacturing of fine carpets, collectible handicrafts, and delicious pistachios – a sweet peoples with a sweet tooth and fine tastes – Iran can ill afford, and is ill capable of building its own effective military deterrence against a first-world nuclear predator in the short or any foreseeable term. Especially with strangulating economic sanctions limiting its capacity in all aspects of industrial, economic, and high-tech development – despite Iran's long bravados  which only seem to rival Sadaam Hussein's in their infantility! Iran can hardly even respond  effectively to the systematic destabilization covert-ops upon its vast territories being run out of neighboring Baluchistan, in Pakistan!
Without internationally proclaimed, and legally ratified full spectrum alliances that equitably benefit all parties in the pact – and in which all are stake-holders who equally stand to lose something valuable to them if the treaty is violated – Iran awaits the fate of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan!
Covert assurances and unilateral secretive guarantees are ephemeral and can vanish in a twinkle on the Grand Chessboard. Just as the famous American Sixth Fleet did in 1971 in the Bay of Bengal when West Pakistan, as member of SEATO/CENTO and under verbal assurances of security guarantees, expectantly awaited American military assistance to counter the Indian intervention in what was then East Pakistan.
Failure to accurately gauge, and astutely play the great game on the 'Grand Chessboard' in one's own self-interest like virtuoso maestros caught between “two scorpions in a bottle”, albeit even as lowly pawns, can trivially lead to pawn-sacrifice. And empiricism betrays that a single scorpion is always worse than two or more competing ones held in perpetual stalemate.
Iran and Russia make natural Asiatic allies with common enemies to get a real Asian Military-Economic Alliance kick-started against the primacy of the financiers from the Global North. What are they waiting for? What is their public waiting for?
 Quoted in Albert Wohlstetter, 1958, “The Delicate Balance of Terror”, P-1472, 6 November 1958, Revised December 1958, http://www.rand.org/publications/classics/wohlstetter/P1472/P1472.html
 Jim Miles, http://www.atlanticfreepress.com/content/view/4900/81
 Zahir Ebrahim, http://humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2008/08/georgia-russia-its-aclassic-brzezinski.html
 Wohlstetter 1958, op. cit.
 Zahir Ebrahim, http://humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2008/04/balanceof-terror-tounilateral-terror.html
 Zahir Ebrahim, http://humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2008/08/georgia-russia-its-aclassic-brzezinski.html
 Zahir Ebrahim, http://prisonersofthecave.blogspot.com/2007/04/chapter-1.html
 Zahir Ebrahim, http://humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2007/03/dialog-among-civilizations-whytalksfail.html
 Speech at the 43rd Munich Conference on Security Policy 02/10/2007, https://web.archive.org/web/20070222134415/http://www.securityconference.de/konferenzen/rede.php?sprache=en&id=179
 Dushanbe Declaration of Heads of SCO Member States, 28 August 2008, https://web.archive.org/web/20080917042734/http://www.sectsco.org/news_detail.asp?id=2360&LanguageID=2
 Zahir Ebrahim, http://humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2007/12/missing-link-full-spectrum-deterrence.html
 Movie Nineteen Eighty-four https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJL3pSiC1uc
Movie Brave New World https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hn5yUgci5Zg
 Video Battle at Kruger, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LU8DDYz68kM
 Winston Churchill, quoted by Douglas J. Feith, Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, in his Hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee on February 14, 2002 in the aftermath of 911. See Zahir Ebrahim, http://humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2008/04/balanceof-terror-tounilateral-terror.html
 Zahir Ebrahim, http://humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2008/08/georgia-russia-its-aclassic-brzezinski.html
 Project Humanbeingsfirst Press Release May 15, 2008 http://pressreleases-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2008/05/pr-full-spectrum-alliances-may152008.html
 SFRC Testimony -- Zbigniew Brzezinski, February 1, 2007 cached at: https://sites.google.com/site/humanbeingsfirst/download-pdf/cacheof-us-sfrc-brzezinskitestimony070201.pdf
 Zahir Ebrahim, http://humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2008/05/letter-to-iranians-press-tv.html
 Zahir Ebrahim, http://humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2008/04/ap-covertwar-imperial-mobilization.html
Source PDF: https://sites.google.com/site/humanbeingsfirst/download-pdf/hegemony-is-as-old-as-mankind.pdf
First Written September 05, 2008
Footnoted and subtitled it a Case Study for inclusion in the 5th Edition of Poor-Man's Guide to Modernity, August 28, 2012. Appears as Chapter 66 in the September 2015 9th Edition.
08/31/2012 13:22:38 7858 | Links fixed April 12, 2016 7767
Hegemony is as old as mankind! 21/21 Project Humanbeingsfirst.org