The Great Game: Part II

In a prequel to the twentieth century's Cold War shenanigans between East and West, the world witnessed a lengthy period of tension between the Russian Empire and the English Empire over control of Central Asia.  That conflict has been labeled by historians as "The Great Game."  Now that the Soviet "experiment" has collapsed, Russia appears to have reacquainted itself with its old Tsarist roots and once again taken on the trappings of empire.  Its opponent in the region is now the American rather than the British empire.  The conflict between the two empires appears far more dangerous, a far greater threat to world peace, than what now seems the cozy Cold War standoff (MAD or "Mutually Asssured Destruction") whereby the two opponents agreed not to totally annihilate the planet in a nuclear conflagration.  Of course, both empires continue to warehouse thousand of ICBMs, missiles that are still targeted on such places as Moscow and New York.
     RT.com, the Russian news outlet, is daily full of stories chronicling the growing tension between Russia and the U.S. replete with arms build-ups, CIA machinations and op-ed pieces tearing the veil from the United States' presumed preoccupation with human rights and democracy in the region.   While these stories, many of them quite lurid, have been coming out of Russia for months now, the U.S.'s major propaganda outlet, the New York Times, can go for days without drawing much attention to the crisis. 
    Many see the move to destabilize and to bring about regime change in Syria as a necessary preliminary to making a move on Iran.  As far as this game goes, we may well be approaching the endgame.  All that we have seen since the turmoil in Tunisia initiated what came to be called the Arab Spring seems to suggest that the phenomenon should more accurately be called the "Arab Springboard" to the West's ultimate goal of accomplishing its two primary foreign policy goals: the complete domination of the oil-producing world and the encirclement of our two most estimable opponents, Russia and China.

     No effort has been spared in this campaign.  If it meant abandoning old friends like Mubarak in Egypt, delivering humanitarian aid to Libya via "no-fly" zones, (actually zones in which U.S. fighter jets can bomb a nation with impunity), and initiating a sustained propaganda campaign in which Syrians armed by the U.S. were portrayed as non-violent protesters, these were small prices to pay for such lucrative rewards.
     The apparent unanimity in the West (How can one disagree when even formerly pesky France and the venerable Kofi Annan seem to be on board?) blithely flies in the face of any concept of national sovereignty or international law.  The U.S. has claimed for itself--in a psychedlic expansion of the concepts of manifest destiny and the Monroe Doctrine--the absolute right to install regimes compatible with its interests.
     The suspicion arises that one explanation for the appearance of unanimity among our client states is that we have held their feet to the fire, in this case the economic conflagration brought about by Nobel Prize-winning derivatives geniuses.  It is not just the PIGS (Portugal, Italy, Greece and Spain) that teeter on the edge of financial ruin.  England and France live with daily protests against the austerity measures they require to avoid bankruptcy.  At the long conference tables at which national leaders periodically gather, U.S. economists no doubt remind skeptics that half a quadrillion dollars in derivatives out there represent, to use a favored phrase, an existential threat.  We had best show a united front, circle the wagons, and be ready for the worst.  Should the Russians or the Chinese--or even nascent India--achieve parity with regard to assets like oil, the sun may set on the two-century long domination of the West.