Thursday, 21 August 2008


“The Monroe Doctrine means what it has meant since President Monroe and
John Quincy Adams enunciated it, and that is that we would oppose a foreign
power extending its power to the Western Hemisphere, and that is why we oppose
what is happening in Cuba today. ..That is why we worked in the Organization of
American States and in other ways to isolate the Communist menace in Cuba. That
is why we will continue to give a good deal of our effort and attention to

Thus John F. Kennedy in 1962. The Invasion of Grenada followed in 1983.
Codenamed Operation Urgent Fury, it was an unspoken, if perfectly illegal
invocation of the same doctrine. The United States, and members of the
Organization of Eastern Caribbean States landed troops on Grenada, defeated Cuban resistance and overthrew the military government.

Throughout the history of Empires, superpowers have always adopted local client regimes, each of which rivalled its opposite in viciousness and provocation. History will come to realise, as many contemporary Americans did not, that John F. Kennedy, too, was a dangerous imperialist, whose egomania almost precipitated a catastrophe. In the event it was but an interlude of maritime confrontation and, one supposes, of mutual discomfort. For the history of the next thirty years
turned on the attempts to solve this discomfort. Finally, in 1991 came the total
abrogation of the Soviet Union. Its collapse was so complete, that even America
was uncertain of how to proceed...

Today, history has been stood upon its head for the victim is Russia.

As if to underline the change of status, Americans have been invading her traditional spheres of influence, entering into dangerous political alliances which blatantly contradicted the very principles for which, in their own case, the Monroe Doctrine stood. Recriminations haven
taken the place of facts. And finally to top it all, a US-educated lawyer, aged
40, and President of Bush’s client state of Georgia, has became a swaggering
agitator in Cuban heels.

Two fingers to the Russians!

To court Mikhail Saakashvili - a man of wildly inventive statements - without at least
neutralizing his belligerent fervour, would, in my view, be a terrible calamity.
The move to arm Baltic subs with nuclear warheads is just one of Russia’s
responses to American plans for a missile defence shield in Eastern Europe.
Another is the threat of nuclear retaliation, directed at Poland, for agreeing
to host US rockets on its soil. An act which nothing can justify, and which
simply increases Russia's efforts to prevent Soviet successor regimes from
joining the Western Alliance. Indeed, the consensus on the part of Nato for the
inclusion of Georgia into the Western defence system is nothing but farce. As an
unproductive, not to say insane idea - and let’s cut to the chase on this, shall
we? - it is rather like suggesting Alabama should have become part of the Warsaw
Pact, some twenty years ago.

And I‘m being conservative here!

In truth, the man who presides over all this has already been dismissed as a moron, a
cowboy, a bigot, and hailed as a dedicated advocate for the war on terror. A
statesman of no vision, of little wit and a buffoon, little more than first
cousin to a mule. A post-modern man in his ignorance and freedom from
imagination. A madman in an age dominated by political extremists. Whereas
Vladimir Putin has been justly described as “the most effective leader in the
world today”. Determined, decisive, and direct, he has made his point.


Selena Dreamy said...

Well poppets, no comments, then?!

That was more or less a foregone conclusion. Understandably, you don’t want to end up being referred via extraordinary rendition to Guantanamo Bay for a spot of waterboarding. You prefer to play schtumm! You also, consequently, prefer to end up with a Stalinorgan up your tight delectable little bottoms. High colonic irrigation administered by a Soyuz rocket - ooops that hurts.....

Well enjoy the enema, Selena’s going for lunch...


All Shook Up said...

There's always room in the world for conflict.. one might have thought the Fall of the Soviet Empire could have removed a cause of friction, sadly no. I can't imagine Putin giving much of a toss for what the EU and US think... the right to an inviolate democracy in Georgia is hardly cause for us to go to war. I expect though, that in capitals across the continents, people are working out where the nearest oil is, ready for when it starts to run out. Russia looks best placed, doesn't it?

Selena Dreamy said...

As ever ASU you put your finger on it.

And then, of course, there is the following to be considered. 9/11 was seen by Cheney and Bush not simply as a catastrophe but as an opportunity. Not since Pearl Harbour has America experienced such a national revival. 9/11 has been a blessing in disguise.

That’s what I call national resolve.

The iron has entered her soul. Though ostensibly at loggerheads with one another, these ideological powers sustain each other, exerting a mutually invigorating influence - and that’s what the Cold War is all about!

Jonathan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jonathan said...

The world grumbles and rumbles on as usual (yawn). The boredom of this all is matched only by its base capacity to intrigue.

What is conflict? It is the interaction of opposites in a dysfunctional, disharmonious manner.

People recoil from the absence of conflict because they fear an end to the interaction of opposites, conceiving that to be a kind of death.

But what about the interaction of opposites on a different background, in a different framework. In this way can 'global unity' be reconciled with the assertive needs of the finite, the contingent and the local. As usual in life regarding such matters, wisdom is not the path of either/or. But this is easier said than done. Yet both sides without a higher transcendence indeed debilitates, casting miasmas of unclarity, tending to generate bureaucratic quagmires of 'compromise'.

Interesting that you give the Russians the Agincourt-Anglo two fingers and yet she gives us the simpler American riposte. Haven't they got a gesture of their own I wonder?

Selena Dreamy said...

They do, Jonathan - it consists of exceptional cunning, total shrewdness, and a complete lack of moral scruples...


Anonymous said...

You are quiet mad in my view. The old answer I guess... If you are so keen on Russia and Putin go and live there... it stinks by the way..

Anonymous said...

...oh and the one thing indubitably proven by this whole Georgian episode is that the Russian armed forces are completely laughable and kaput..did they buy anything since 1991? Some of the tanks and trucks deployed were 1950-s antiques..a aircraft carrier and a flock of Euro fighters could have won the war in about 20 minutes

Bob said...

[Vladimir Putin has been justly described as “the most effective leader in the
world today”. Determined, decisive, and direct, he has made his point.]

Are you sure that the fact that he looks good with his shirt off did not influence your opinion?

IGNOTAS said...

¨the victim is Russia¨ - Victim? How long? From bombing in its own cities? From killing innocent citizens of Chechenya? And who is enemy of Russia? May be Europe, who uses Russian gas for money which goes into modernization of war machinery of Russia? Or may be its Russian militaristic government which uses its power to suppress freedom of thought, economical freedom and to crush political opposition?

Selena Dreamy said...

Russia’s repressive efforts to prevent former Soviet countries on its borders from joining Nato are directly proportional to American plans for a missile defence shield in Europe.

That’s basic physics, Ignotas.

Which is why I see diplomatic engagement with Russia as one of Europe’s most vital obligations - not political provocation!