The warrior ethic of the American Imperial elite, embodied in its fullest measure by Zbigniew Brzezinski, has been rejuvenated momentarily by
His first statements are clearly indicative of someone living in a fantasy geopolitical environment created by neocon morality:
The end of the Cold War was supposed to usher in a new age in which the major powers would no longer dictate to their neighbours how to run their affairs.
Will it continue to rely on coercion to achieve its imperial aims, or is it willing to work within the emerging international system that values cooperation and consensus? 
One has to blink several times in wonderment at these strange statements. First of all there was only one major power, looking for “full spectrum dominance” militarily in order to support their overwhelming economic consumption of the global resources, the major item being oil. They had some assistance:
When the Soviet Union collapsed, the
It has been the
has made it clear over and over that it is prepared to obey international law and treaties. It is the Americans who have thrown international law and treaties into the trash can, not the Russians. 
Brzezinski then asks if
the global community can demonstrate to the Kremlin that there are costs for the blatant use of force on behalf of anachronistic imperial goals.
Again I shudder in disbelief. How can Americans (Brzezinski is not unique in this, just one of the more powerful and vocal elites) not recognize the weirdness of this statement when their own troops have invaded and occupied Afghanistan and Iraq, their government has supported Israeli threats and attacks on its neighbours with billions of dollars and other military aid all for its own mini-imperial purposes while controlling millions in concentration camp conditions in Gaza, threatened Pakistan with a return to the stone ages, and built military bases throughout the world in a full out attempt to contain and destroy Russia and contain and control resources. This certainly does not fit my definition of anachronistic, but a rather contemporary example of American imperialism seeking global hegemonic control.
The article follows from that introduction with its grand flow of big lies and double standards and hypocrisy. He resorts to innuendo via psychology, saying that Georgian President Saakashvili “has seemingly become a personal obsession” with Putin, fully reminiscent of Bush’s theoretical (?) obsession with getting Saddam Hussein.
The idea of a “pretext” for confrontation enters his arguments. This of course is probably a lesson learned from the U.S. and its many historical pretexts for imperial expansion ranging all the way from the Mexican (Alamo) and Spanish wars (Maine) through to Vietnam (Gulf of Tonkin), and Iraq (WMDs, terrorists) – although the latter hardly required a pretext under the idea of pre-emptive military action.
The Georgian offensive opened with an infantry assault against South Ossetia’s capital Tskhinvali…after a preparatory artillery attack…with fire support capabilities including target-oriented and concentrated fire…including a mortar barrage and launch of notoriously imprecise truck mounted GRAD multiple-barreled rocket launchers. 
But even FOX media provided a strong description of what could only be an aggressive invasion:
Rash indeed, a mini ‘shock and awe’ against a civilian based community.
The hypocrisy continues with the statement “Putin and his associates in the Kremlin don’t accept post-Soviet realities.” The real post-Soviet reality is that the Russians suffered immensely under the rapacious greed of Washington consensus methods applied to their country with Yeltsin in control but then under the leadership of Putin were able to not only regain control of their resources, but also gain significant financial support from them as well as increasing their own geopolitical prospects in Central Asia and elsewhere. It is the
The double standards go on. Is
The more global perspective for Brzezinski is a combination of morality and geopolitics – strange bedfellows for sure. Moral because
Trying to find solutions gives Brzezinski some difficulty. He thinks
I have to admit that Brzezinski does avoid the true neocon response that envisions a winnable nuclear war with
Finally, the concluding statements support his introductory statements in their obvious and absurd hypocrisy/double standards:
[The West’s] objective has to be a democratic
Also, the Brzezinski “world” needs to tell
a stridently nationalistic
In turn, I have to reiterate that it is the
For whatever reason, Brzezinski seems to have his own “personal obsession” with
 Brzezinski, Zbigniew. “Staring Down the Russians,” TIME,
 Roberts, Paul Craig. “The Mindlessness is Total – Are your Ready for Nuclear War?” Counterpunch, August 19, 2008. www.counterpunch.org/
 Giragosian, Richard. “Georgian planning flaws led to failure,”
 FOX News cited in Neuman, Michael. “Proportion and Disaster –
- 30 -
Jim Miles is a Canadian educator and a regular contributor/columnist of opinion pieces and book reviews for The Palestine Chronicle. Miles’ work is also presented globally through other alternative websites and news publications.