ah. You just failed to realize its' meaning?
Originally Posted by MildSteel
This is where it is funny that you like to accuse others of having problems with reading comprehension.
And your statement was an admission that the purpose of Victoria Nuland's strong arm tactics in Ukraine was an attempt to dominate other countries
Here is what I said:
Juxtaposing perceptions by some that the US is dominating other nations (and their decrial of it) against their defense of the rights of other nations to do so. No where in it does that state that A) the perceptions are accurate or that B) they are accurate with particular regard to Victoria Nuland or C) that Victoria Nolands "Strong Arm Tactics in Ukraine" (which you have still yet to highlight or describe or define) was an attempt to dominate that nation.
Originally Posted by cpwill
He's quite versed. Astute? On some things. I read the Grand Chessboard and wasn't terribly impressed with anything except the well-received point that policy options exist in restricted ranges.
and IF you indeed follow foreign policy, as you claim, then surely you are familiar with Zbigniew Brzezinski's (surely there is no need to state who he is to someone as astute on foreign policy as you)
[quote]writing on Ukraine where he states:
Ukraine, a new and important space on the Eurasian chessboard, is a geopolitical pivot because its very existence as an independent country helps to transform Russia. Without Ukraine, Russia ceases to be a Eurasian empire.”
Yes, and? Is that supposed to be some kind of grand point about how therefore Saudi oil production decisions are being bent to the ruination of the Russians, rather than a response to American production?
I think you are just grabbing quotes and names and desperately waving them about, whether they fill the gaps you need or not.
I'm aware of the idea, and I'm somewhat familiar with how geopolitical pivots are described. I've read my Mackinder as well as my Brzezinski.
SO IF AS YOU CLAIM YOU ARE FAMILIAR WITH FOREIGN POLICY YOU ARE CERTAINLY AWARE OF THIS POSITION.
But seriously. If you are depending on the argument that the guy who ran foreign policy for Friggin Jimmy Carder is some kind of super-duper-brilliant mind and he says that Russia really really wants Crimea because it allows them to project Imperial power... and that that somehow means that therefore the Saudi's are not making oil production decisions in response to prices falling and American production...
So you betcha, I read the word PERCEIVED
, so there was no lack of reading skills whatsoever and my response stands.
As far as the "dominate", I saw that after I posted the response, but saw no need to edit it as the intent was clear.