Jack F. Matlock, former legendary US Ambassador to the Soviet Union, says that the US now has an "aggressive ideology like communism".

This is the full text (which I 100% agree with):

"The United States seems to have replaced what had been before simply a defensive [alliance for] countries against an aggressive ideology like communism with an aggressive ideology of its own.

We are now saying we must protect human rights, what we define them as. We change the definition at times of which ones are important… And [we say] that it is our duty and destiny to spread democracy in the world.

Now there are two things to be said about that.

First of all, on traditional international law, sovereign countries are sovereign in terms of their internal politics and external interference, particularly by coercion, whether military or our economics is not permissible.

Second, the idea that one country can spread its system. We call it democracy, now whether it is or not, we can debate. But the point is that if democracy is ruled by, for, with the people, then an external country can't create it. It can only be created by people in that country.

And furthermore, if an external country begins to favor and support certain factions in another country, which is seen as a threat to the power that is there, it is going to be a damage to that. Something Americans should understand because we have also been incredibly sensitive to what we consider interference in our own elections.

So in effect we we're trying to extend our jurisdiction over certain things and we can see that particularly in our sanctions program where we sanction other countries over all sorts of things. And the way of compelling them to, you know, to do certain things that are politically important.

I might say in terms of trade, sometimes sanctions are necessary to get fairness in trade, but to use economic sanctions to bring political results, particularly those that are viewed as assaults on sovereignty, I think, not only fail, they simply make the situation worse.

So I think that the American policy of applying either military force or not quite as bad, but also bad, economic sanctions to achieve political ends, particularly to change the nature of internal governments is going to fail, just as Brezhnev's doctrine failed during the Soviet Union."

This is the full video on The Duran channel, which is very much worth watching in full

https://youtu.be/moEDnjH0sWU?si=1AbCZBokBCz4RYZa

>>20858381

Also Matlock gave one of the best masterclasses you'll ever listen to on the causes of the Ukraine war. Especially valuable considering he was actually in the room during some of the most crucial moments.

He said that the reason why NATO was kept at the end of the cold war was "to keep Germany from dominating all of Europe as it had done before and to legitimate some American military presence in Europe". But he confirms there were "assurances that NATO would not expand to the East".

This promise was broken, which he believes was a major mistake because "if you start expanding a military alliance into areas which at once were controlled by another, you are going eventually to be seen as threatening the sovereignty and independence of those other states. Just as the United States, for example, went to war in Europe in the First World War, when we learned that the Germans were trying to recruit the Mexicans into an anti American alliance."

And the perspective of expansion into Ukraine was the final straw because "anybody who's intimate with Russian and Ukrainian history would understand that that would be totally unacceptable to Russia." He also says it "could only be seen as an offensive thing, particularly when NATO began first of all to establish bases in Eastern Europe", like "the establishment in the second decade of this century of ABM Systems in Eastern Europe", which "was considered a particular threat".

His conclusion: "[At the end of the cold war] the task in Europe was to make Russia also a part of Europe and not trying to wall it off and threatening it, because that combined with NATO expansion was bound to create a reaction by Russia."