Russia's behavior and statements re: Georgia echo Hitler's justification of invading the Czech republic. Merkel's support of Georgia has all sorts of historical reverb. Billmon's piece regarding how Russia would naturally view the NATO actions as a threat also echo. Switch a few words--German with Russian, "Airbase" with "Defensive Missiles", and the speech could have been made yesterday, in Moscow.

Hitler's speech March, 1939, WILHELMSHAVEN, immediately following the invasion:

Despite this, however, we would have had nothing against an independent Czech State if, first, it had not suppressed Germans, and, second, if it had not been intended as the instrument of a future attack on Germany. When, however, a former French Air Minister writes in a newspaper that on the basis of their prominent position it is the task of these Czechs to strike at the heart of German industry with air attacks during war, then one understands that this is not without interest to us and that we draw certain conclusions from it.

It would have been up to England and France to defend this airbase. Upon us fell the task of preventing such an attack at all events. I sought to accomplish this by a natural and simple way.

When I first saw that every effort of that kind was destined to be wrecked and that elements hostile to Germany again would win the upper hand, and as I further saw that this State had long since lost its inner vitality - indeed, that it already was broken to pieces - I again carried through the old German Reich. And I joined together again what had to be united because of history and geographical positions, and according to all rules of reason.

Not to oppress the Czech people! It will enjoy more freedom than the suppressed people of the virtuous nations.

I have, so I believe, thereby rendered peace a great service, because I have rendered innocuous in time an instrument which was destined to become effective in war against Germany. If they now say that this is the signal that Germany now wants to attack the entire world, I do not believe that this is meant seriously: such could only be the expression of a bad conscience.

Perhaps it is rage over the failure of a far-flung plan, perhaps it is an attempt to create tactical preconditions for a new policy of encirclement.

Be that as it may: it is my conviction that thereby I have rendered peace a great service and out of this conviction I decided three weeks ago to name the coming party rally the 'Party Convention of Peace.'

For Germany has no intention of attacking other people. What we, however, do not want to renounce is the building up of our economic relations. We have a right thereto and I do not accept any condition from a European or a non-European statesman.

The German Reich is not only a great producer but also a gigantic consumer, just as we as a producer will be an irreplaceable trade partner, so as a consumer we are capable of honorably and fairly paying for what we consume.

We are not thinking about making war on other peoples. However, our precondition is that they leave us in peace.

In any case the German Reich is not ready everlastingly to accept intimidation or even a policy of encirclement.

How long before neo-cons suggest arming and training the restive and rebellious Muslim populations Russia has problems with? You know, the "mujaheddin"? I think that has already happened, actually.

Yes indeed. An excellent point, and nicely put too. According to some, bleeding the Russians on the mujaheddin was Brzezinski's brainchild--Obama's foreign policy man.

For those who haven't seen 'our own private bin laden', I think the segment below is the one in which Zbigniew Brzezinski comments on his role in that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQEuHGRHp3U