I'm an American and yet I find it hard to understand what the U.S. is doing. From what I've read, it certainly seems we blew up the pipeline between Germany and Russia. The question is why would we do that? My thinking is that this has to do largely with the CIA. I presume the CIA analysis of Russia leads them to conclude that Russia (though a much smaller economy) is still a threat because it knows how to overthrow governments and get pro-Russian ones installed (like they did in Ukraine and not unlike what we do as well), and secondly, its energy supplies means it has huge leverage over other countries. Thus, the CIA probably wanted to thwart the leverage Russia had over Germany.
To my thinking then, Russia is a threat to the Western elites that America rules over, and they figure it's best to deal with Russia now before it gets stronger. Assuming this is true, they can't exactly tell the American people that's what they're really doing, and so they use propaganda instead to maintain the support they need for the ongoing war.
What would you do if you thought Russia was slowly but methodically pushing to get countries to move into their orbit? Consider Vietnam and how America tried to stop Soviet expansionism, only to see popular support for the war eventually fall apart. Could they have decided they no longer can really tell us what they're doing? And could they be doing what they think is "best for the world", even though it seems pretty crazy looking in from the outside?
Worse, by going the secretive route, could they not be more subject to manipulation themselves?
Dean, fair points there. My thinking about the CIA has changed over the years. Now, I am more concerned about the "Deep State", like I mention, which I consider to be a much wider concept than just single agency. Who's running it? Well, that is the question. But, you're right that CIA needs an enemy, whether real or imaginary. Hard to motivate their existence (and funding) without. However, I am keen to think more about CIA's involvement in Middle East than in the European theather, but I could be wrong about this.
I'll start to write the scenarios for the Endgame today. Let's see how they turn out. :)
You are correct to be more concerned about the Deep State, but that needs to be broken down. All agencies and departments of government cover different areas and thus have different influences depending on the topic. The State department, of course, also has a lot of influence over foreign affairs. But a key player here is the CIA, because they not only acquire intelligence, they also analyze it, and manipulate it. Their analysis is supposed to be unbiased, but that's the problem. Each area of government has become increasingly biased.
But even if the CIA was unbiased, they can still be manipulated themselves. And here I am specifically thinking of what John Brennen has done. He was able to cherry pick the analysis and mold it to his agenda. I suppose all CIA directors do this to some extent, but he seems to have been more egregious.
You also have to consider that a very large part of the CIA for many years was focused on the containment of the Soviet Union. In affect, they are still at that. Only now, the lessons of Vietnam weigh heavily on them. This isn't all about budgets. This is the thrill of the most important game there is - geopolitical intrigue.
I'm an American and yet I find it hard to understand what the U.S. is doing. From what I've read, it certainly seems we blew up the pipeline between Germany and Russia. The question is why would we do that? My thinking is that this has to do largely with the CIA. I presume the CIA analysis of Russia leads them to conclude that Russia (though a much smaller economy) is still a threat because it knows how to overthrow governments and get pro-Russian ones installed (like they did in Ukraine and not unlike what we do as well), and secondly, its energy supplies means it has huge leverage over other countries. Thus, the CIA probably wanted to thwart the leverage Russia had over Germany.
To my thinking then, Russia is a threat to the Western elites that America rules over, and they figure it's best to deal with Russia now before it gets stronger. Assuming this is true, they can't exactly tell the American people that's what they're really doing, and so they use propaganda instead to maintain the support they need for the ongoing war.
What would you do if you thought Russia was slowly but methodically pushing to get countries to move into their orbit? Consider Vietnam and how America tried to stop Soviet expansionism, only to see popular support for the war eventually fall apart. Could they have decided they no longer can really tell us what they're doing? And could they be doing what they think is "best for the world", even though it seems pretty crazy looking in from the outside?
Worse, by going the secretive route, could they not be more subject to manipulation themselves?
Dean, fair points there. My thinking about the CIA has changed over the years. Now, I am more concerned about the "Deep State", like I mention, which I consider to be a much wider concept than just single agency. Who's running it? Well, that is the question. But, you're right that CIA needs an enemy, whether real or imaginary. Hard to motivate their existence (and funding) without. However, I am keen to think more about CIA's involvement in Middle East than in the European theather, but I could be wrong about this.
I'll start to write the scenarios for the Endgame today. Let's see how they turn out. :)
You are correct to be more concerned about the Deep State, but that needs to be broken down. All agencies and departments of government cover different areas and thus have different influences depending on the topic. The State department, of course, also has a lot of influence over foreign affairs. But a key player here is the CIA, because they not only acquire intelligence, they also analyze it, and manipulate it. Their analysis is supposed to be unbiased, but that's the problem. Each area of government has become increasingly biased.
But even if the CIA was unbiased, they can still be manipulated themselves. And here I am specifically thinking of what John Brennen has done. He was able to cherry pick the analysis and mold it to his agenda. I suppose all CIA directors do this to some extent, but he seems to have been more egregious.
You also have to consider that a very large part of the CIA for many years was focused on the containment of the Soviet Union. In affect, they are still at that. Only now, the lessons of Vietnam weigh heavily on them. This isn't all about budgets. This is the thrill of the most important game there is - geopolitical intrigue.
True, and very good points. I am a macroeconomist, you know. ;)