Brzezinski: Obama should retaliate if Russia doesn’t stop attacking CIA’s Al-Qaeda in Syria



Editor’s Note…

Anyone who’s been following world affairs for a while should know by now that the Polish revanchist Brzezinski created Al Qaeda, that he created the Ayatollah regime in Iran as part of his grand strategy designed to establish the Islamic ‘arc of crisis‘ around Russia, and that he’s more than willing to fight the Russians to the last American drop of blood. We are way past the discredited “humanitarian bombing” paradigm now, as Brzezinski openly advocates a military clash with Russia on the grounds that Russia is attacking his Al Qaeda proxies in Syria (directly controlled by the CIA) instead of his second-hand ISIS proxies (controlled by subcontractors like Qatar and Turkey). Brzezinski was also the mastermind behind Obama’s deranged “Iran deal” recently, which can result only in a region-wide war, or possibly in a nuclear war later down the road. Since recent analysis suggests that America is in no shape to win the third world war, America should ask herself whether subversive oligarchs like Brzezinski should be allowed to continue dictating their foreign agenda to the American people. 



The United States should threaten to retaliate if Russia does not stop attacking U.S. assets in Syria, former national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski wrote in a Financial Times op-ed published Sunday, urging “strategic boldness,” with American credibility in the Middle East and the region itself at stake.

Moscow’s apparent decision to strike non-Islamic State targets and those of Syrian rebels backed by the Central Intelligence Agency “at best” reflects “Russian military incompetence,” and worst, “evidence of a dangerous desire to highlight American political impotence,” wrote Brzezinski, the national security adviser for former President Jimmy Carter and a strong supporter of current President Barack Obama.

And if Russia continues to pursue non-ISIL targets, the U.S. should retaliate, he added.

“In these rapidly unfolding circumstances the U.S. has only one real option if it is to protect its wider stakes in the region: to convey to Moscow the demand that it cease and desist from military actions that directly affect American assets,” he said.

“The Russian naval and air presences in Syria are vulnerable, isolated geographically from their homeland,” Brzezinski noted. “They could be ‘disarmed’ if they persist in provoking the US.”

The problem in the Middle East is bigger than Syria, Brzezinski wrote, and it would behoove Russia to cooperate with the U.S., who cannot as it did in the past, rely upon the United Kingdom and France to play a “decisive role” in the region.

“But, better still, Russia might be persuaded to act with the U.S. in seeking a wider accommodation to a regional problem that transcends the interests of a single state,” he added.

Instead of what he calls a “new form of neocolonial domination,” the United States, along with China and Russia, must act in concert to protect their mutual interests, he warned.

“China would doubtless prefer to stay on the sidelines. It might calculate that it will then be in a better position to pick up the pieces. But the regional chaos could easily spread northeastward, eventually engulfing central and northeastern Asia. Both Russia and then China could be adversely affected. But American interests and America’s friends — not to mention regional stability — would also suffer. It is time, therefore, for strategic boldness,” he concluded.