Who Is Behind The Bloody Terrorist Attack In Moscow? Military Summary And Analysis For 2024.03.23
Military Summary
238K subscribers
Join
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
image: Michael C. Ruppert
***
Below are edited excerpts from an article by the late Michael C. Ruppert entitled “A War in the Planning for Four Years”. It was published on November 11, 2001, two months after 9/11 and one month after the October 7, 2001 invasion of Afghanistan.
Michael Craig Ruppert, former LAPD police officer, author and whistleblower: He is the author of “Crossing The Rubicon: The Decline of the American Empire at the End of the Age of Oil” (2004).
Michael Ruppert passed away in April 2014. His Legacy will live.
Ruppert reviews Zbigniew Brzezinski‘s book entitled “The Grand Chessboard, American Primacy And Its Geostrategic Imperatives. He describes with foresight the role of the 9/11 attacks:
“World events since the attacks of September 11, 2001 have not only been predicted, but also planned, orchestrated and — as their architects would like to believe — controlled.
The current Central Asian war is not a response to terrorism, nor is it a reaction to Islamic fundamentalism.
It is in fact, in the words of one of the most powerful men on the planet [Brzezinski], the beginning of a final conflict before total world domination by the United States leads to the dissolution of all national governments.” (Michael C. Ruppert, November 11, 2001)
Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research September 11, 2023
A War in the Planning for Four Years
by
Michael C. Ruppert
November 7, 2001
Introduction
The Grand Chessboard, American Primacy And Its Geostrategic Imperatives, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Basic Books, 1997.
These are the very first words in the book,
“Ever since the continents started interacting politically, some five hundred years ago, Eurasia has been the center of world power.” p. xiii.
Eurasia is all of the territory east of Germany and Poland, stretching all the way through Russia and China to the Pacific Ocean. It includes the Middle East and most of the Indian subcontinent.
The key to controlling Eurasia, says Brzezinski, is controlling the Central Asian Republics. And the key to controlling the Central Asian republics is Uzbekistan. Thus, it comes as no surprise that Uzbekistan was forcefully mentioned by President George W. Bush in his address to a joint session of Congress just days after the attacks of September 11 [2001] as the very first place that the U.S. military would be deployed.
As FTW [Ruppert’s Website From the Wilderness] has documented in previous stories, major deployments of U.S. and British forces had taken place before the attacks. And the U.S. Army and the CIA had been active in Uzbekistan for several years. There is now evidence that what the world is witnessing is a cold and calculated war plan – at least four years in the making and that, from reading Brzezinski’s own words about Pearl Harbor, the World Trade Center attacks were just the trigger needed to set the final conquest in motion.
The New World Order
There’s a quote often attributed to Allen Dulles after it was noted that the final 1964 report of the Warren Commission on the assassination of JFK contained dramatic inconsistencies.
Those inconsistencies, in effect, disproved the Commission’s own final conclusion that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone on November 22, 1963. Dulles, a career spy, Wall Street lawyer, the CIA director whom JFK had fired after the 1961 Bay of Pigs fiasco – and the Warren Commission member who took charge of the investigation and final report – is reported to have said, “The American people don’t read.”
Some Americans do read. So do Europeans and Asians and Africans and Latin Americans.
World events since the attacks of September 11, 2001 have not only been predicted, but also planned, orchestrated and — as their architects would like to believe — controlled.
The current Central Asian war is not a response to terrorism, nor is it a reaction to Islamic fundamentalism.
It is in fact, in the words of one of the most powerful men on the planet, the beginning of a final conflict before total world domination by the United States leads to the dissolution of all national governments.
This, says Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) member and former Carter National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski, will lead to nation states being incorporated into a New World Order, controlled
solely by economic interests as dictated by banks, corporations and
ruling elites concerned with the maintenance (by manipulation and war)
of their power.
As a means of intimidation for the unenlightened reader who happens upon this frightening plan — the plan of the CFR — Brzezinski offers the alternative of a world in chaos unless the U.S. controls the planet by whatever means are necessary and likely to succeed.
“The interests behind the Bush Administration, such as the CFR, The Trilateral Commission — founded by Brzezinski for David Rockefeller — and the Bliderberger Group, have prepared for and are now moving to implement open world dictatorship within the next five years. They are not fighting against terrorists. They are fighting against citizens.”
[quotation assigned to an interview with an alleged Dr. Johannes Koeppl, this statement is by Michael C. Ruppert]
Brzezinski’s own words — laid against the current official line that the United States is waging a war to end terrorism — are self-incriminating.
In
an ongoing series of articles, FTW has consistently established that
the U.S. government had foreknowledge of the World Trade Center attacks
and chose not to stop them because it needed to secure public approval
for a war that is now in progress [November 2001].
It is a war, as described by Vice President Dick Cheney, “that may not end in our lifetimes.”
What that means is that it will not end until all armed groups, anywhere in the world, which possess the political, economic or military ability to resist the imposition of this dictatorship, have been destroyed.
These are the “terrorists” the U.S. now fights in Afghanistan and plans to soon fight all over the globe.
Brzezinski and The Grand Chessboard
Brzezinski sets the tone for his strategy by describing Russia and China as the two most important countries, almost but not quite superpowers – whose interests that might threaten the U.S. in Central Asia. Of the two, Brzezinski considers Russia to be the more serious threat.
Both nations border Central Asia. In a lesser context he describes the Ukraine, Azerbaijan, Iran and Kazakhstan as essential “lesser” nations that must be managed by the U.S. as buffers or counterweights to Russian and Chinese moves to control the oil, gas and minerals of the Central Asian Republics (Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, and Kyrgyzstan).
He also notes, quite clearly (p. 53) that any nation that might become predominant in Central Asia would directly threaten the current U.S. control of oil resources in the Persian Gulf.
In reading the book it becomes clear why the U.S. had a direct motive for the looting of some $300 billion in Russian assets during the 1990s, destabilizing Russia’s currency (1998) and ensuring that a weakened Russia would have to look westward to Europe for economic and political survival, rather than southward to Central Asia.
A dependent Russia would lack the military, economic and political clout to exert influence in the region and this weakening of Russia would explain why Russian President Vladimir Putin has been such a willing ally of U.S. efforts to date [2001]. (See FTW Vol. IV, No. 1 — March 31, 2001)
An examination of selected quotes from “The Grand Chessboard,” in the context of current events [November 2001] reveals the darker agenda behind military operations that were planned long before September 11th, 2001.
“The last decade of the twentieth century has witnessed a tectonic shift in world affairs. For the first time ever, a non-Eurasian power has emerged not only as a key arbiter of Eurasian power relations but also as the world’s paramount power. The defeat and collapse of the Soviet Union was the final step in the rapid ascendance of a Western Hemisphere power, the United States, as the sole and, indeed, the first truly global power.” (p. xiii)
“But in the meantime, it is imperative that no Eurasian challenger emerges, capable of dominating Eurasia and thus of also challenging America. The formulation of a comprehensive and integrated Eurasian geostrategy is therefore the purpose of this book. (p. xiv)
“The attitude of the American public toward the external projection of American power has been much more ambivalent. The public supported America’s engagement in World War II largely because of the shock effect of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. (pp 24-5)
“For America, the chief geopolitical prize is Eurasia; Now a non-Eurasian power is preeminent in Eurasia and America’s global primacy is directly dependent on how long and how effectively its preponderance on the Eurasian continent is sustained. (p.30)
“America’s withdrawal from the world or because of the sudden emergence of a successful rival would produce massive international instability. It would prompt global anarchy.” (p. 30)
“In that context, how America “manages” Eurasia is critical. Eurasia is the globe’s largest continent and is geopolitically axial. A power that dominates Eurasia would control two of the world’s three most advanced and economically productive regions. A mere glance at the map also suggests that control over Eurasia would almost automatically entail Africa’s subordination, rendering the Western Hemisphere and Oceania geopolitically peripheral to the world’s central continent. About 75 per cent of the world’s people live in Eurasia, and most of the world’s physical wealth is there as well, both in its enterprises and underneath its soil. Eurasia accounts for 60 per cent of the world’s GNP and about three-fourths of the world’s known energy resources.”(p.31)
Two basic steps are thus required: first, to identify the geostrategically dynamic Eurasian states that have the power to cause a potentially important shift in the international distribution of power and to decipher the central external goals of their respective political elites and the likely consequences of their seeking to attain them; second, to formulate specific U.S. policies to offset, co-opt, and/or control the above” (p. 40)
“To put it in a terminology that harkens back to the more brutal age of ancient empires, the three grand imperatives of imperial geostrategy are to prevent collusion and maintain security dependence among the vassals, to keep tributaries pliant and protected, and to keep the barbarians from coming together.” (p.40)
“Henceforth, the United States may have to determine how to cope with regional coalitions that seek to push America out of Eurasia, thereby threatening America’s status as a global power.” (p.55)
“Uzbekistan — with its much more ethnically homogeneous population of approximately 25 million and its leaders emphasizing the country’s historic glories — has become increasingly assertive in affirming the region’s new postcolonial status.” (p.95)
“Thus, even the ethnically vulnerable Kazakhstan joined the other Central Asian states in abandoning the Cyrillic alphabet and replacing it with Latin script as adapted earlier by Turkey. In effect, by the mid-1990s a bloc, quietly led by Ukraine and comprising Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan and sometimes also Kazakhstan, Georgia and Moldova, had informally emerged to obstruct Russian efforts to use the CIS as the tool for political integration.” (p.114)
“Hence, support for the new post-Soviet states — for geopolitical pluralism in the space of the former Soviet empire — has to be an integral part of a policy designed to induce Russia to exercise unambiguously its European option. Among these states. Three are geopolitically especially important: Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan, and Ukraine.” (p. 121) “Uzbekistan, nationally the most vital and the most populous of the central Asian states, represents the major obstacle to any renewed Russian control over the region. Its independence is critical to the survival of the other Central Asian states, and it is the least vulnerable to Russian pressures.” (p. 121)
Referring to an area he calls the “Eurasian Balkans” and a 1997 map in which he has circled the exact location of the current conflict — describing it as the central region of pending conflict for world dominance – Brzezinski writes:
“Moreover, they [the Central Asian Republics] are of importance from the standpoint of security and historical ambitions to at least three of their most immediate and more powerful neighbors, namely Russia, Turkey and Iran, with China also signaling an increasing political interest in the region. But the Eurasian Balkans are infinitely more important as a potential economic prize: an enormous concentration of natural gas and oil reserves is located in the region, in addition to important minerals, including gold.” (p.124) [Emphasis added]
The world’s energy consumption is bound to vastly increase over the next two or three decades. Estimates by the U.S. Department of energy anticipate that world demand will rise by more than 50 percent between 1993 and 2015, with the most significant increase in consumption occurring in the Far East. The momentum of Asia’s economic development is already generating massive pressures for the exploration and exploitation of new sources of energy and the Central Asian region and the Caspian Sea basin are known to contain reserves of natural gas and oil that dwarf those of Kuwait, the Gulf of Mexico, or the North Sea.” (p.125)
“Kazakhstan is the shield and Uzbekistan is the soul for the region’s diverse national awakenings.” (p.130)
“Uzbekistan is, in fact, the prime candidate for regional leadership in Central Asia.(p.130) “Once pipelines to the area have been developed, Turkmenistan’s truly vast natural gas reserves augur a prosperous future for the country’s people. (p.132)
“In fact, an Islamic revival — already abetted from the outside not only by Iran but also by Saudi Arabia — is likely to become the mobilizing impulse for the increasingly pervasive new nationalisms, determined to oppose any reintegration under Russian—and hence infidel —control.” (p. 133).
“For Pakistan, the primary interest is to gain Geostrategic depth through political influence in Afghanistan — and to deny to Iran the exercise of such influence in Afghanistan and Tajikistan — and to benefit eventually from any pipeline construction linking Central Asia with the Arabian Sea.” (p.139)
Moreover, sensible Russian leaders realize that the demographic explosion underway in the new states means that their failure to sustain economic growth will eventually create an explosive situation along Russia’s entire southern frontier.”(p.141) [This would explain why Putin would welcome U.S. military presence to stabilize the region.]
“Turkmenistan has been actively exploring the construction of a new pipeline through Afghanistan and Pakistan to the Arabian Sea” (p.145)
“It follows that America’s primary interest is to help ensure that no single power comes to control this geopolitical space and that the global community has unhindered financial and economic access to it.” (p148)
“China’s growing economic presence in the region and its political stake in the area’s independence are also congruent with America’s interests.”(p.149)
“America is now the only global superpower, and Eurasia is the globe’s central arena. Hence, what happens to the distribution of power on the Eurasian continent will be of decisive importance to America’s global primacy and to America’s historical legacy.” (p.194)
“The Eurasian Balkans threatens to become a cauldron of ethnic conflict and great-power rivalry.”(p.195)
“Without sustained and directed American involvement, before long the forces of global disorder could come to dominate the world scene. And the possibility of such a fragmentation is inherent in the geopolitical tensions not only of today’s Eurasia but of the world more generally.”(p.194)
“With warning signs on the horizon across Europe and Asia, any successful American policy must focus on Eurasia as a whole and be guided by a Geostrategic design.” (p.197)
“That puts a premium on maneuver and manipulation in order to prevent the emergence of a hostile coalition that could eventually seek to challenge America’s primacy” (p. 198)
“The most immediate task is to make certain that no state or combination of states gains the capacity to expel the United States from Eurasia or even to diminish significantly its decisive arbitration role.” (p. 198)
“In the long run, global politics are bound to become increasingly uncongenial to the concentration of hegemonic power in the hands of a single state. Hence, America is not only the first, as well as the only, truly global superpower, but it is also likely to be the very last.” (p.209)
“Moreover, as America becomes an increasingly multi-cultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstance of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat.”(p. 211) [Emphasis added]
Towards a “World Dictatorship”?
Brzezinski’s book is sublimely arrogant. While singing the praises of the IMF and the World Bank, which have economically terrorized nations on every continent, and while totally ignoring the worldwide terrorist actions of the U.S. government that have led to genocide; cluster bombings of civilian populations from Kosovo, to Laos, to Iraq, to Afghanistan; the development and battlefield use of both biological and chemical agents such as Sarin gas; and the financial rape of entire cultures it would leave the reader believing that such actions are for the good of mankind.
“This is more than a war against terrorism.
This is a war against the citizens of all countries.
The current elites are creating so much fear that people don’t know how to respond. But they must remember. This is a move to implement a world dictatorship within the next five years. There may not be another chance”.
[quote assigned to interview with Dr. Koeppl, The above is Michael Ruppert’s statement]
*
Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Featured image is from New Eastern Outlook
The original source of this article is From the Wilderness
Copyright © Michael Ruppert, From the Wilderness, 2023
Blogger's note: Michael Ruppert later committed suicide. I myself do not know enough about the circumstances, and I do not have enough knowledge to claim otherwise. However I do suspect foul play. To many who have spoken out against the official narrative or speak out against the New World Order end up committing suicide, have a deadly accident, or die unexpectedly.
