[Allan from Fallbrook]

arraya: Quoting Brezinski is problematic, and for three major reasons: (1) His obsession with the Soviets has made subsequent pronouncements suspect, largely because many of them are revisionist in nature and stand at odds with memoranda, letters and policies from the Carter Administration, most notably the recollections of Cyrus Vance, Secretary of State under Carter, (2) His claim to have either duped the Soviets into invading Afghanistan, or pushed them into it (as part of a grand geopolitical strategy on his part) is also at odds with history, especially the part which ignores the Soviet’s co-optation of the Kabul government in the months leading up to the 1979 invasion (this was well covered in the book “Charlie Wilson’s War”) and (3) His unwillingness to admit to his part in the formation of the muj, al-Qaeda and the Taliban, all of which he financed, armed and supported in their struggle against the Soviets in Afghanistan.

These would be those same “stirred up Moslems” that he gives such short shrift to in his interview. Note the juxtaposition to the “Greater Good” argument of putting the Soviets out of business. Also remember that the Afghan War was simply one event in the larger Cold War. What ultimately put the Soviets under was the massive monetary expenditures and econcomic exertions necessary to keep pace with the US, especially during the Reagan years.

As much as Brzezinski would love to take credit for much of this, history tells a different story.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

arraya: Quoting Brezinski is problematic, and for three major reasons: (1) His obsession with the Soviets has made subsequent pronouncements suspect, largely because many of them are revisionist in nature and stand at odds with memoranda, letters and policies from the Carter Administration, most notably the recollections of Cyrus Vance, Secretary of State under Carter, (2) His claim to have either duped the Soviets into invading Afghanistan, or pushed them into it (as part of a grand geopolitical strategy on his part) is also at odds with history, especially the part which ignores the Soviet’s co-optation of the Kabul government in the months leading up to the 1979 invasion (this was well covered in the book “Charlie Wilson’s War”) and (3) His unwillingness to admit to his part in the formation of the muj, al-Qaeda and the Taliban, all of which he financed, armed and supported in their struggle against the Soviets in Afghanistan.

These would be those same “stirred up Moslems” that he gives such short shrift to in his interview. Note the juxtaposition to the “Greater Good” argument of putting the Soviets out of business. Also remember that the Afghan War was simply one event in the larger Cold War. What ultimately put the Soviets under was the massive monetary expenditures and econcomic exertions necessary to keep pace with the US, especially during the Reagan years.

As much as Brzezinski would love to take credit for much of this, history tells a different story.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

arraya: Quoting Brezinski is problematic, and for three major reasons: (1) His obsession with the Soviets has made subsequent pronouncements suspect, largely because many of them are revisionist in nature and stand at odds with memoranda, letters and policies from the Carter Administration, most notably the recollections of Cyrus Vance, Secretary of State under Carter, (2) His claim to have either duped the Soviets into invading Afghanistan, or pushed them into it (as part of a grand geopolitical strategy on his part) is also at odds with history, especially the part which ignores the Soviet’s co-optation of the Kabul government in the months leading up to the 1979 invasion (this was well covered in the book “Charlie Wilson’s War”) and (3) His unwillingness to admit to his part in the formation of the muj, al-Qaeda and the Taliban, all of which he financed, armed and supported in their struggle against the Soviets in Afghanistan.

These would be those same “stirred up Moslems” that he gives such short shrift to in his interview. Note the juxtaposition to the “Greater Good” argument of putting the Soviets out of business. Also remember that the Afghan War was simply one event in the larger Cold War. What ultimately put the Soviets under was the massive monetary expenditures and econcomic exertions necessary to keep pace with the US, especially during the Reagan years.

As much as Brzezinski would love to take credit for much of this, history tells a different story.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Sympathy for the Russians? Interesting. Putin has a game plan and is executing it flawlessly. Between cowing the Europeans with an overt lesson in power projection and using the “soft power” persuasiveness of controlling a large chunk of their energy supplies, he has managed to stop the eastern thrust of NATO and simultaneously restore Russian primacy in Eastern Europe.

You have to wonder how the Latvians, Lithuanians and Estonians feel about this latest “Soviet” jaunt. Or the Poles, for that matter.

Cold War redux indeed. Cowboys and Cossacks all over again.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Sympathy for the Russians? Interesting. Putin has a game plan and is executing it flawlessly. Between cowing the Europeans with an overt lesson in power projection and using the “soft power” persuasiveness of controlling a large chunk of their energy supplies, he has managed to stop the eastern thrust of NATO and simultaneously restore Russian primacy in Eastern Europe.

You have to wonder how the Latvians, Lithuanians and Estonians feel about this latest “Soviet” jaunt. Or the Poles, for that matter.

Cold War redux indeed. Cowboys and Cossacks all over again.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Sympathy for the Russians? Interesting. Putin has a game plan and is executing it flawlessly. Between cowing the Europeans with an overt lesson in power projection and using the “soft power” persuasiveness of controlling a large chunk of their energy supplies, he has managed to stop the eastern thrust of NATO and simultaneously restore Russian primacy in Eastern Europe.

You have to wonder how the Latvians, Lithuanians and Estonians feel about this latest “Soviet” jaunt. Or the Poles, for that matter.

Cold War redux indeed. Cowboys and Cossacks all over again.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Sympathy for the Russians? Interesting. Putin has a game plan and is executing it flawlessly. Between cowing the Europeans with an overt lesson in power projection and using the “soft power” persuasiveness of controlling a large chunk of their energy supplies, he has managed to stop the eastern thrust of NATO and simultaneously restore Russian primacy in Eastern Europe.

You have to wonder how the Latvians, Lithuanians and Estonians feel about this latest “Soviet” jaunt. Or the Poles, for that matter.

Cold War redux indeed. Cowboys and Cossacks all over again.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Sympathy for the Russians? Interesting. Putin has a game plan and is executing it flawlessly. Between cowing the Europeans with an overt lesson in power projection and using the “soft power” persuasiveness of controlling a large chunk of their energy supplies, he has managed to stop the eastern thrust of NATO and simultaneously restore Russian primacy in Eastern Europe.

You have to wonder how the Latvians, Lithuanians and Estonians feel about this latest “Soviet” jaunt. Or the Poles, for that matter.

Cold War redux indeed. Cowboys and Cossacks all over again.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Dan: Kundalini wants his hand back.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Dan: Kundalini wants his hand back.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Dan: Kundalini wants his hand back.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Dan: Kundalini wants his hand back.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Dan: Kundalini wants his hand back.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

XBox: I used to work for a large insurance brokerage, Willis Corroon, and we wrote surety and insurance for FATCO (First American Title) and Chicago Title.

At first blush, I would imagine a loss like this would be covered by either their general or professional liability (Errors and Omissions) policy, depending on how the loss occurred. Or it would be covered under one of their surety programs, and by something like a fidelity bond or a financial guarantee bond. Can’t recall ever coming across something like this, but both FATCO and Chicago Title had extremely robust risk management, loss and insurance programs (which you’d expect, given the nature of their business).

Probably doesn’t answer your question, but I thought I’d take a whack at it.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

XBox: I used to work for a large insurance brokerage, Willis Corroon, and we wrote surety and insurance for FATCO (First American Title) and Chicago Title.

At first blush, I would imagine a loss like this would be covered by either their general or professional liability (Errors and Omissions) policy, depending on how the loss occurred. Or it would be covered under one of their surety programs, and by something like a fidelity bond or a financial guarantee bond. Can’t recall ever coming across something like this, but both FATCO and Chicago Title had extremely robust risk management, loss and insurance programs (which you’d expect, given the nature of their business).

Probably doesn’t answer your question, but I thought I’d take a whack at it.

[Author]

Posts