@eisai @11112011 @FreedoingVlad @Grandtheftautism @Senator_Armstrong @animeirl @dicey @icedquinn

Well, that is certainly interesting; I'm not sure England was able to project that kind of power that far inland for a lot of that time. (The Holy Roman Empire, for example, was fairly close to Russia compared to England, and both sides of that deal had a vested interest in keeping England from interfering with their trade, or that they were able to keep Europe fighting other European countries.) I think there's a lot of uncertainty in the continuity also: it seems like a stretch to draw a connection between England hundreds of years back and people setting foreign policy in the US nowadays, Clinton and Nuland. I can see trying to contain Russian expansion (as trade with Europe is a bigger deal to the US than trade with Russia), but there's a lot of weird provocation that doesn't make a lot of sense.

Kissinger's strategy was to contain Russia without starting a war, and then to maintain the Sino-Soviet split (even after there was no more Soviet). China's a bigger threat than Russia at present: Russia doesn't like the water, but China's started building aircraft carriers. A long way from Kissinger's strategy, these people right now seem more interested in antagonizing Russia, even to the extent they're willing to lose ground in the trade war with China in order to cause trouble for Russia.

> musix1200.jpg

She looks familiar.