To build a real Eurasia: few juridical ideas

Marius Vacarelu

 

Ex: http://www.geopolitica.ru/

Trying to speak about continental political constructions, we need to understand their limits. Inside all human institutions there is a limit, because the possibility to create something able to satisfy always all interest is impossible.

In this case, we must look to the theories. All of them underline that in the moment when few great people want to introduce big ideas on public debate, a lot of critics will appear, not trying to accept and correct the positive aspects of these activities, but only speaking about the limits (economics, politics, human relations, etc.).

Eurasia is a big idea only if we want to thing to it; more than that – is a big idea if someone will try to explain this to the world. However, the dimension of these continents is huge, and a scientist will see easier the limits of this construction. And, when human society will be prepared, it could be a possibility to create a new European, maybe, after European Union model.

Inside all of these facts, Eurasian idea must be analyzed sine ira et studio (without hate and with morality), and few important aspects are brought by the national legislations and by the people who believe in them. Our text tries to describe some problems of this important equation, between ideas and legal possibilities to fulfill them.  

 1. The question of Eurasia is an Eurasian question or only a single country question?

Why this?

Because, as always, when we analyze “the political constructions”, we must note the difficulties to have a single vocabulary for every person who have access to the concept – as the main obstacle to construct … something.

Thus, out text will speak about Eurasia. It’s a concept with great socio-politic importance, and – following this idea, we’ll use to describe it two important search engines and its documents, to present “popular” (in fact, public) access to information about the concept.

Google reports 15,500,000 notes about Eurasia, and 8,500,000 to the question: What is Eurasia?

Wikipedia has its own page about Eurasia[1], where it can be read:

a)                  Eurasia is a continent or super-continent covering about 52,990,000 km² (20,846,000 mi²) or about 10.6% of the Earth's surface (36.2% of the land area) located primarily in the eastern and northern hemispheres. Physio-graphically, it is a single continent, comprising the traditional continents of Europe and Asia (with Eurasia being a portmanteau of the two); the concepts of Europe and Asia as distinct continents date back to antiquity and their borders are geologically arbitrary. Eurasia, in turn, is part of the yet larger landmass of Afro-Eurasia, whereby Eurasia is joined to Africa at the Isthmus of Suez. Eurasia is inhabited by almost 4 billion people, more than 72.5% of the world's population (60% in Asia and 12.5% in Europe);

b)                 Eurasia is also sometimes used in geopolitics to refer to organizations of or affairs concerning the post-Soviet states, in particular Russia, the Central Asian republics, and the Transcaucasian republics. A prominent example of this usage is in the name of the Eurasian Economic Community, the organization including Kazakhstan, Russia, and some of their neighbors, and headquartered in Moscow and Astana. The word "Eurasia" is often used in Kazakhstan as the name of the continent or region in which that country is located. Numerous institutions in that country use it in their name, e.g., L. N. Gumilev Eurasian National University, the Eurasian Media Forum, the Eurasian Culture Foundation, the Eurasian Development Bank , or the Eurasian Bank. In 2007, Kazakhstan’s President Nursultan Nazarbayev proposed that a “Eurasia Canal” be built to connect the Caspian Sea and the Black Sea via the Kuma - Manych Depression in Russia, providing Kazakhstan and other Caspian-basin countries with a more efficient access path to the ocean than the existing Volga-Don Canal. This usage is somewhat analogous to the U.S. usage of the term Western Hemisphere when referring to the concepts and organizations dealing with the Americas (e.g., Council on Hemispheric Affairs or Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation)[2].

These texts are public and very easy to be found by anyone. The last site with great importance for our question (What is Eurasia) is www.eurasiancenter.org, an important site from Unites States of America. We present it here, because today it is considered the US as the single global power, so, we must be concern about the initiatives started from this part of the word.

2. On the other part, the main wisdom in Eurasian problems belongs o both continents – because the common history speaks louder. In the same time, on this big scientific and concept map the main role of debate belongs, naturally, to Russia and to Russian specialists.

In this case, we must note also few ideas:

a)                  Russia is the country to have the biggest part of its territory on both continents[3][4], but its position is not perfectly favorable to develop a total discourse on Eurasia, because the most emergent part of it is situated in Europe[5];

b)                 Russia represents a perfect roof for the world – in this case, its Eurasian idea represents a correspondence with a human body with two special arms: the body is settled in northern Siberia, near the Arctic Ocean. In the same time, the arms has a double significance: a left arm who keep a shield in the Asian direction (mainly China – for extension, yellow race people), and the right one, the most efficient and productive, is stretched to the Europe. In this case, we must note something special: the left had defended Europe from the Vladivostok to the Pamir Mountains, and the right one is over the Moscow and Petersburg. So, a logic question: where is situated the sight of Russia? In our opinion, this is settled to a big area, with a fragmented history: Central Asia – Caspian Sea – Black Sea, as always in the history of humanity, from the North (Sever) to the South (Yugo);

c)                  Eurasia is a new concept for history – it appeared in the 19^th century, and only because it was on that time two empires who were important position on both continents: Russian and Turkish one. In this case, we must note an analogy: Christian Russia was opposed to Muslim Turkey on the same logic met after 1945 between Soviet Union and United States;

d)                 Eurasia is an old concept related to European union, because the unionist ideas on Europe was blocked always by the presence of Muslim Constantinople, and, more than that, by the internal battle between main European land powers (with a “big brother” behind – Great Britain);

e)                  If Russia is the main territory for this idea, we must note that in the 21^st century ideas must be kept by a stronger population[6]; thus – the future of Eurasian ideas in Russia must be accompanied by a better demography.

3. Our opinion about Eurasia is expressed in a very “scholar language” for a correct order of ideas.

Eurasia is a great political concept, but not completes, because the map limits are not always well understand.

Looking to the world map, we must note that the human land is separated between two big parts, understood as Old World and New (Columbus) World. All scientists have a great problem when the want to separate the Old world, because:

a)      Western Europe is more or less catholic, protestant or atheist and is strong separated by the eastern Europe (history and economy, mainly after European Union creation;

b)      Eastern Europe don’t have a real limit, because Russia is situated on both continents;

c)      Southern Europe is presented much more as part of Western Mediterranean Sea;

d)      Southern Europe is related – because of Gibraltar and the same sea to Northern Africa;

e)      Northern Africa is separated by a big desert (Sahara) to the rest of African continent (which is much richer with mineral resources than the Maghreb and Egypt);

f)        Near East or Proche Orient[7] means Turkey (the other state with double Eurasian continental dimension), Caucasus, Jordan river territory and Egypt (a country belonging mainly to another continent (African), with a step in Asia (by territory and history) and ho was occupied and created as modern state by European powers of 19^th century;

g)      Near East is separated by the main Arabic population and energy resources by another strong desert;

h)      Middle East has two important borders (mainly because of history): Central Asia – where the Russian influence is the main actor for the last almost 200 years – and the Chain Mountains Pamir – Himalaya;

i)        India is separated by big rivers and big chain mountains to Pakistan (Indus), South East of Asia (yellow race) and China;

j)        China is the Middle Empire, with one hand related to the south and with the other one to the north. Today we are not sure where Beijing looks straight: to Pacific Ocean or to Middle East, Russia and India[8] in the same time. Last years show us that both directions are possible; in our opinion, always the middle position obliged the state claiming this position to watch more carefully inside;

k)      South East of Asia is related more with Australia, where an important position is kept by the United Kingdom (the same chief of state In Australia and New Zealand);

l)        Japan represents – somehow – a padlock for almost all Asian powers with interests of Pacific Ocean: here, the key belong to Washington sea power (on Mahan admiral doctrine).       

Thus, we cannot consider that the actual dimension of Eurasia is correct, related with the geography and mainly to the history. Despite all innovative technology, the desert is still a desert, a big chain mountain remain on the same position.

It is true: maritime ships can transport a lot of products (it is very interesting to observe the Chinese offensive in weak Europe’s ports[9]) and pipe-lines create a faster way to transport energy resources, but we must understand another limits:

a)                  Pipe-lines represent land states, land powers cooperating or in a perpetual competition (the differences between two attitudes is not always clear). In this case, we must note few moments when tensions can create bigger problems, as blocking of oil transport in Ukraine or terrorist attacks on pipe-lines. In the same time, it is very easy to control a pipe-line, because it is stable on the land for kilometers, and no one can pay guards for every 100 meters to have a perfect safety of them;

b)                 Maritime transport means to control the straits, and for Eurasia there are four very important ones: Skagerrack, Gibraltar, Malacca and the sea in the front of Arabian Peninsula, to control Red Sea and the Persian Gulf. We see here a strong position of United Kingdom, USA and to the sea powers by excellence. Inside this perimeter, there is Bosporus, Suez channel and a lack of military fleet for the “land powers of Eurasia”.

As conclusion: the author believe that Eurasia is a small concept, we need to add here Africa too – minimum the northern part, from French part of Senegal to Bab-el-Mandeb strait near the Ethiopia and Somalia; today Chinese politics introduce in the geopolitical equation whole Africa … and, in our opinion, soon we must be extend with Australia.

In this case, every state must understand its political dimension and its role on the Eur-Asi-African (our tri-continental proposal), named EAA, and to play well its card.

Following this idea, we must note the words of Professor J.L. Granatstein, on April 2011, at the reunion of Canadian Forces College[10]: “can a small or middle power have a Grand Strategy? Former diplomat Daryl Copeland defined Grand Strategy as a unifying, long-term vision of a country’s global values and interests; an expression of where the country is, and where it wants to go in the world; and an analysis of its potential and capacity to achieve its objective. I consider it a core element of statecraft.

That sounds difficult to derive for most nation-states, but to me it does not sound like Grand Strategy, at least not for smaller powers. Smaller countries can fight wars against other smaller powers or maneuvers to avoid them. They can join Great Power alliances or not. They can follow particular economic policies or decide not to. But they do not have Grand Strategies because they lack the human, industrial, and military resources to sustain them. In other words, the God of Grand Strategy is only found on the side of the big battalions. But small countries do have, like every other state, national interests, and their policies are (or should be) focused on advancing or protecting these interests and on their national survival.”

4. If we analyze Eurasia in this dimension, we must express another idea about the legal concept of Eurasia.

Legal concepts exist as it is written. In this scientific branch, words are words, and they cannot be understood in different senses. For any word it is a clear definition and a complex base for any different sense regarding any legal institution[11].

Eurasian is not a concept for legal sciences; we need international treaties to proclaim the existence of this new legal institution. Thus, the author will analyze briefly only few ideas, because the potential for this scientific debate is huge and we don’t have here enough space for it.

First of all, we must underline that inside Eurasia there are many legal systems, with many traditions – to create a real, single and unite Eurasia as concept and political entity, we need to harmonize these differences. For that, we can use only the legal principles, but …

“Although confirmed by Article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice, the idea that there exist general principles of law that are recognized by civilized nations has lost ground in recent years. This fact raises the question of whether such general principles have any order-providing meaning or value beyond the State. If compared to the apparently “natural” systematic structure of state legal orders, the global legal space appears to lack a body of general rules and seems dominated by sectionalism and fragmentation. Indeed, it resembles the medieval legal order, characterized as that was by the simultaneous presence of various legal orders competing with each other. In reality, studies of legal history have led to a different understanding. We now know that that systematic structure was not natural. It was an integral part of a general pattern of morphological transformations undergone by the legal orders of states.”[12]

In this case, we don’t know which legal principles must be fulfilled, because there are many differences between European continental law and religious Islamic law; between Chinese system law and the Britain law. For this debate we can write books, but, of course, in national parliaments it will be a complicate debate, because no one wants to renounce to the history (at least).

Second question: if we want a single Eurasia, where it might be the capital of the state? Any political entity without a center (capital) collapse in less than 5 years: thus, where it must be!

Logics speak: at the middle of the distance, because it is necessary to offer equal access to all persons to all services which are ruled from this big center. So, we can look to Caucasus, maybe to the Near East: Damascus – or Baghdad? … Islamic capital means a different kind of administration of it, because here it was in the last two decades the most important military conflicts – it is need to a new urban architecture, for a capital of almost 4 billion inhabitants!

A lot of new institutions must be settled in this new capital: a Eurasian parliament, which must be able to adopt important, ethic laws, with a great availability for flexible interpretation, because:

a)             These laws cannot be applied from the first moments, because it will be a great problem with internal constitution of the states, and with all secondary (administrative) legislation;

b)             Looking to European Union constitutional treaty of 2006 and to the Lisbon Treaty of 2007, we can see the huge dimension of the texts[13]: if this it was possible for a group of 27 states with common legal tradition (Roman Empire, in fact), can we predict the legal dimension of a Constitution for Eurasia?

c)             In that moment it must be start a global educational change, not only in Law faculties, to understand and to apply new law, but also in every state, because the complexity of changes cannot be seen in one day.

In this context, we have a single question: the loyalty of every person of Eurasia will belong to whom? Because the history never must be forgotten[14]!

Another question is related about the administrative organization of the territory – now, only one big state, but what kind of internal autonomy inside every small part of every state who compose the Eurasian state, because without a strong centralization is impossible to build a functioning state.

The last question is about the justice – where it must be The Supreme Court of Justice? Where it must be The Constitutional Court?

Regarding this; we must note that:

a)      How many procedural steps (appeal, recourse and more) a person must do to be judged by the Supreme Court of Justice?

b)      How it must be invoked the control from The Constitutional Court?

c)      Who are the administrative institutions who shall fulfill the decision of the Eurasian justice? Only one example: in one state a person is affected by the behavior of another state. He claims the state, but this state is too strong to be punishing easily … ca we have equality between states?      

 

Conclusion

In this case, Eurasia is a seductive idea. However, it can be tried to create such a state, but, in our opinion, legal problems are the “big stone”, in front of any political ideas. In fact, we must note the process of negotiations – it is not simple, and, of course, somebody negotiate in a big state, but national parliaments must accept, and, after that, because the dimensions of Eurasia are too big for today human society, it must be approved on referendum by citizens. And today we are not sure about their political opinions …          

---

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurasia.

[2] This description is used at the bottom of the page, so, we can understand the option of the page author (and of a lot people, because this site is created by “everyone”).

[3] Turkey has less.

[4] In a lot of European institution (as football or music) Israel is included in Europe.

[5] Despite the land reality.

[6] The catastrophic demography of Russia is not always positive to implement big ideas abroad.

[7] A French concept.

[8] India is an “obstacle for a perfect seeing” to the South African rivers and mineral resources.

[9] In a famous report: Global trends 2025 – A transformed world made by National Intelligence Office (Washington, 2008), there are few observations about Chinese limit of economic development related to export of goods (p. 29 – 31).

[10] J.L. Granatstein: Can Canada Have a Grand Strategy?, Canadian Defence & Foreign Affairs Institute, p. 2 – 3.

[11] E. Balan: Institutii administrative (Administrative institutions), CH Beck, Bucharest, 2008, p. 8

[12] E. Chitti, B.G. Matarella: Global administrative law and EU administrative law, Springer, London, 2011, p. 89

[13] 300 pages or more, it depends by the editor.

[14] Title of a famous book about World War II. 

 

Poutine veut un BRICS stratégique, vite…

Poutine veut un BRICS stratégique, vite…

Ex: http://www.dedefensa.org/

Le président russe Poutine annonce qu’il proposera à la prochaine réunion du BRICS, les 26-27 mars à Durban, en Afrique du Sud, une extension décisive du rôle de ce regroupement jusqu’ici essentiellement économique de cinq puissances de ce qu’on a coutume de nommer un peu vite “le monde émergent”. Poutine prend garde d’identifier le BRICS comme “un élément-clef du monde multipolaire émergent”, ce qui a une toute autre signification, quasiment opposée, à l’expression “monde émergent”. L’expression “monde émergent”, avec sa connotation dégradante ou implicitement méprisante rappelant l’expression “Tiers-Monde”, implique évidemment le suprématisme anglo-saxon étendu au bloc BAO, conduisant à considérer le modèle BAO comme la Lumière du monde en tous points mais essentiellement économique et moral pour satisfaire les convictions de la modernité, le “monde émergent” évoluant avec comme destin fatal de s’intégrer au bloc BAO. Poutine voit le BRICS comme un élément d’une alternative à la structure du monde actuel régentée par le bloc BAO, alternative fondée sur la multipolarité contre l’unipolarité arrogante, ex-USA et désormais bloc BAO. (Selon notre rangement, nous qualifierions les puissances du BRICS, effectivement selon une vision multipolaire, comme déterminant un “monde se constituant aux marges du Système”, disons “un pied dedans, un pied dehors”, ou encore “dans le Système d’une certaine façon, avec un œil critique et éventuellement réformiste sur le Système d’une autre façon”.)

Cette annonce est faite dans une interview de Poutine à l’agence ITAR-TASS, avec le texte retranscrit le 22 mars 2013 sur le site de la présidence. En préliminaire, Poutine rappelle ce qu’est le BRICS, et surtout les principes sur lesquels est fondée ce regroupement. On retrouve l’accent sur le respect de la légalité internationale et sur le principe de la souveraineté… «BRICS is a key element of the emerging multipolar world. The Group of Five has repeatedly affirmed its commitment to the fundamental principles of the international law and contributed to strengthening the United Nations central role. Our countries do not accept power politics or violation of other countries' sovereignty. We share approaches to the pressing international issues, including the Syrian crisis, the situation around Iran, and Middle East settlement.»

Puis une des questions porte sur le rôle géopolitique du BRICS : «Does it go beyond the purely economic agenda and should the BRICS countries accept greater responsibility for geopolitical processes? What is their policy with regard to the rest of the world, including its major actors such as the United States, the European Union, Japan… What future do you see for this association in this regard?» On trouve dans la réponse de Poutine la présentation et l’explicitation de son initiative.

«At the same time, we invite our partners to gradually transform BRICS from a dialogue forum that coordinates approaches to a limited number of issues into a full-scale strategic cooperation mechanism that will allow us to look for solutions to key issues of global politics together.

»The BRICS countries traditionally voice similar approaches to the settlement of all international conflicts through political and diplomatic means. For the Durban summit, we are working on a joint declaration setting forth our fundamental approaches to pressing international issues, i.e. crisis in Syria, Afghanistan, Iran and the Middle East.

»We do not view BRICS as a geopolitical competitor to western countries or their organisations — on the contrary, we are open to discussion with any country or organisation that is willing to do so within the framework of the common multipolar world order.»

Notre ami M K Bhadrakumar a repris instantanément la nouvelle sur son blog (Indian PunchLine), le 22 mars 2013. Manifestement, il juge extrêmement importante la proposition russe. Par ailleurs, selon son scepticisme habituel pour la direction indienne qu’il tient en piètre estime, il se demande quelle va être l’attitude de l’Inde… M K Bhadrakumar note que Poutine envisage cette transformation du BRICS comme graduelle et étendue sur un laps de temps.

«What stands out is the stunning suggestion Putin has made to reorient the BRICS. He said, “we invite our partners [Brazil, India, China and South Africa] to gradually transform BRICS from a dialogue forum that coordinates approaches to a limited number of issues into a full-scale strategic cooperation mechanism that will allow us to look for solutions to key issues of global politics together.” [Emphasis added.] Putin acknowledges that such a profound transformation will take time. Aside across-the-board harmonization of foreign policies amongst the BRICS members, a fundamental reorientation of the foreign-policy doctrines may also be required.

»How India responds to the grand idea remains to be seen. To be sure, a ‘leap of faith’ is required. India has been comfortable with the fact that the leitmotif of BRICS is economics. Putin’s proposal would fundamentally readjust the BRICS’ orientation…»

… Justement, nous différons quelque peu de M K Bhadrakumar sur l’appréciation du tempo que Poutine voudrait voir suivre pour la transformation du BRICS. Il nous semble que sa proposition, loin de n’être que théorique et laissée au temps pour mûrir, est d’ores et déjà basée sur des propositions spécifiques de prises de position sur des problèmes précis («…a joint declaration setting forth our fundamental approaches to pressing international issues, i.e. crisis in Syria, Afghanistan, Iran and the Middle East»). Cela peut aussi bien signifier que la Russie aimerait voir, dès le sommet de Durban, le BRICS prendre position sur les problèmes spécifiques identifiés, – on verra cela d’une façon concrète la semaine prochaine. Cette perspective signifierait que les Russes voudraient au contraire aller très vite. La position de l’Inde paraîtrait sans aucun doute parmi les plus incertaines vis-à-vis d’un tel projet, quoique les Indiens, comme l’avait signalé M K Bhadrakumar lui-même, ont été les premiers à prendre l’initiative de réunir les conseillers de sécurité nationale des pays du groupe (voir le 7 janvier 2013), ce qui va évidemment dans le sens prôné par Poutine.

Quoi qu’il en soit et si l’on s’en tient à une appréciation objective, il serait évidemment logique de penser que les Russes veulent aller vite, parce que la situation générale des relations internationales et des crises continue à se détériorer à une très grande vitesse et demande la mise en place de forces, soit pour contenir cette descente dans le désordre, soit pour équilibrer les autres forces (le bloc BAO, principalement) qui alimentent ce désordre. Il paraît également très probable que les Russes ont le soutien de la Chine pour ce projet. (Le président chinois commençait sa visite à Moscou le jour où cette interview de Poutine était diffusée, ce qui ne peut être tenue pour une coïncidence, et au contraire doit être apprécié comme un signe puissant dans le sens d'une communauté de vues Russie-Chine.) D’une façon générale, on pourrait apprécier que la proposition russe vient à son heure, qu’il existe autour du BRICS une urgence d’évolution et d’intervention, selon laquelle un tel rassemblement peut difficilement restreindre sa propre dynamique au seul champ économique ; c’est notamment, voire essentiellement par le champ économique que le Système active son travail de déstructuration et de dissolution, et par conséquent des acteurs de cette importance, regroupés autour du champ économique dans la situation pressante qu’on connaît, ne peuvent pas ne pas considérer tous les effets engendrés par ce domaine.

Le projet russe n’a rien à voir, à notre sens, avec la constitution d’un pôle de puissance pouvant éventuellement concurrencer d’autres pôles de puissance (le bloc BAO, évidemment), – comme le dit justement Poutine et, selon notre approche, en exprimant sa véritable pensée. Le BRICS, s’il était réformé dans le sens voulu par Poutine, ne constituerait pas une partie prenante dans la situation actuelle, mais bel et bien une tentative de stabilisation de la dite situation. De ce point de vue, les Russes cherchent des partenaires capables de les épauler, ou au moins de les soutenir, dans cette même entreprise de “tentative de stabilisation”, comme ils font en Syrie, et leur initiative vers le BRICS est une démarche naturelle.

Continuant à considérer objectivement la situation, le BRICS n’apparaît en aucun cas assez puissant et assez organisé pour bouleverser complètement la situation générale. Il est vrai qu’il n’a pas affaire seulement à d’autres groupes dont la plupart sont déstabilisateurs, mais, au-dessus, à une tendance générale de déstructuration-dissolution qui dépasse évidemment les capacités humaines d’organisation ou de désorganisation. Le BRICS transformé-selon-Poutine, serait une saine et juste réaction face à cette tendance, mais absolument insuffisante pour espérer la stopper de quelque façon que ce soit. Par contre, et sans que ce soit justement le but conscient et élaboré de Poutine, cette évolution du BRICS apparaîtrait au bloc BAO comme un défi, ou bien une pression nouvelle et menaçante, – même faussement apprécié mais peu importe, le bloc BAO vit dans ses narrative, – et l’effet général serait d’accentuer le trouble et l’inquiétude au sein de ce même bloc, c’est-à-dire d’y attiser un désordre dont les effets seraient bienvenus, au moins pour la raison évidente que le bloc BAO est le principal relais des forces de désordre qu’on a identifiées.

Aucune force politique n’est aujourd’hui capable de stabiliser la situation générale du monde et, encore moins, d’en restructurer les composants pour transformer cette restructuration temporaire en une structure nouvelle et solide. La marche du désordre dépend de forces hors du contrôle humain et disposent donc d’une complète immunité sur l’essentiel du mouvement. Le véritable apport d’un BRICS renforcé serait, justement, de renforcer les puissances qui le composent et de les conduire à rassembler leurs forces ; et, ce faisant, d’accentuer la pression sur le bloc BAO qui est le principal vecteur de désordre, donc d’accélérer les pressions qui l’affectent du point de vue de sa situation intérieure. L’effet net d’une telle évolution serait alors d’accroître le désordre interne, et donc le processus de déstructuration-dissolution des forces du bloc BAO. Objectivement, il s’agirait d’une accélération supplémentaire du désordre en cours, – mais, bien entendu, d’une accélération vertueuse puisque le désordre se développerait dans un champ éminemment défavorable au bloc BAO, et influant directement sur la cohésion et la solidité interne des membres de ce bloc.

Interview with Mr Leonid SAVIN

 

Interview with Mr Leonid SAVIN of the International Eurasian Movement

 

- Could you describe in a few key words the essence and goals of your movement? Does it place itself in an existing sociopolitical-historical trend of Russian politics? Does it lobby in Russian government circles to achieve its goals?

 

The main idea and goal of the International Eurasian Movement is to establish a multipolar

world order, where there will be no dictatorship of the U.S. anymore or of any other country or actor of world politics. In the sector of ideology we strongly reject (neo)liberalism and the

globalization process as its derivative. We agree that we (as well as other nations) need a

constructive platform for our alternative future. In the search of it, our work is directed to

dialogue with other cultures and peoples who understand the meaning and necessity of

conservative values in contemporary societies. Speaking about Russian reality, we are heirs and assigns to the former eurasianists (this ideology was born in the 1920s): Piotr Savitsky, Nikolay Trubetskoy, Nikolay Alekseev as well as Lev Gumilev – the famous Soviet scholar. They all studied historical processes and proposed a unique vision of our history, separate from the eurocentric science approach. The understanding that Russia is not part of Europe or Asia, but forms a very own unique world, named Eurasia, is also implemented in our political activity. In cooperation with members of parliament or the Council of the Federation or other governmental bodies, with our advices and recommendations, we always provide a strong basis linked to our history, culture, diversity and so on. And I must tell you that many people understand and support our ideas and efforts (in governmental structures, local and regional authorities, science and education, religious institutions and in society at large).

 

- What is your vision on a multipolar world? Which role do you see for Western European

nations? Do they have any future at all on the world stage of the 21st century? Will they

surmount the actual crises on a demographic, metaphysical and mental level?

 

In my opinion, a multipolar world is the order with 5 or more centers of power in the world and this reality will keep our planet more safe and balanced with shared responsibility between the regions. But it is not just interdependence by the logic of liberalism: some regions might well exist in relative political and economic autarky. Beside that, there might exist a double core in one center (for example Arabs and Turks in a large Muslim zone or Russia and Central Asian states for Eurasia) and shifted and inter-imposed zones, because, historically, centers of power can be moved. Of course at the moment the most significant centers of power are described in terms of nuclear arms, GDP, economic weight/growth and diplomatic influence. First of all we already have more poles than during the Soviet-US opposition. Secondly, everybody understands the role of China as a ‘Bretton Woods-2’, as well as emerging countries under acronyms as BRICS or VISTA, “anchor countries” and so on. And, thirdly, we see the rise of popular and unconventional diplomacy and the desire of many countries (many of them are strong regional actors such as Iran, Indonesia and Brazil) to not follow the U.S. as satellites or minor partners.

 

Of course, Washington does not like this scenario and tries to make coalitions based on states

with a neocolonial background or on dutiful marionettes. But even in the U.S., politicians and

analysts understand that the time of unipolar hegemony has gone. They are trying to build a more flexible approach to international relations, called ‘multilateralism’ (H. Clinton) or ‘non-polarity’ (R. Haas), but the problem is that the U.S. do not have enough confidence in foreign actors united as joint, but who still have no strong alternative to the contemporary world order. So, they use another option for destabilization of rising regions, known as controlled chaos. Because of its military presence over most parts of the globe and its status of promoter of democracy and the protection of human rights, the White House can justify its own interests in these places. And cyberspace is also the object of manipulation, where the whole world is divided in two camps that remind us of the times of the Cold War (I call it ‘Cold Cyber War’).

 

We think that the contemporary West European nations are one of the poles (centers of power) in a forthcoming multipolar world order). But the problem for now is their engagement in U.S. proatlanticist politics, as manifested in the Euro-Atlantic chart of cooperation (common market, legislation and regulation mechanisms, including items of domestic politics), as well as NATO activity. The same we see on the other side of Eurasia – attempts of Washington to start trans-Atlantic cooperation with Asian countries. The contemporary crisis is neither good nor bad. It’s a fact. And the European nations must think about the way they’ll choose, because it will form the future (at least in Europe). It is not the first time in history: during the middle ages there was decline of population because of pestilence and wars. Religious schisms also occurred, so Europeans have some experience in metaphysics and ethics dealing with system failure too. The point is that now we have more interconnected reality and the speed of information sharing is fantastic, that was not possible, imagine, a century ago. And European society becomes more consumerist! But even in Europe, there are a lot of voices in respect of nature (organic greens), anti-grow movements (in economics) and traditionalists who try to keep and preserve ethnic and historical values and manners. Even the Soviet experience could be useful: after the Great Social Revolution there was a strong anti-church attitude promoted by the government, but after 70 years we’re back at our roots (of course during all this time not all people were atheists and the return to church happened during Stalin’s period when the institute of the Patriarchy was restored).

 

- How do you see the dialogue of civilizations in the light of more than 10 years of wars

between the West and the Muslim world? Where does Russia stand in this opposition? Are there fears of an islamization process within the Russian Federation, or are Russian

authorities setting on long-time accommodation with Muslim minorities and actors?

 

At first we must bear in mind that the idea of Huntington (the ‘clash of civilizations’) was

developed out of necessity of justifying the U.S.’s military and economic expansion. His book

was issued when the first wave of globalization as the highest principle of Westcentrism just

began its tide in the Third World. By the logic of neoliberal capitalism it must be re-ordered and re-programmed in the search for new markets. All non-western societies must consume western products, services and technologies by this logic. And let’s remember that war against the Muslim countries originated from the neocons from Washington. So, these 10 years of wars that you to mention is nothing more than a provoked conflict by a small group that was very powerful in American politics at the beginning of the 2000s. By the way, all kinds of radical Islam (Wahhabism) were promoted by the United Kingdom. This version of Islam was founded in Saudi Arabia only with London’s special support. The Great Game in Eurasia was started many years ago and Britain has played here a most significant role. The U.S. took this role only after WW2, but many destructive processes were already unleashed. Of course, Russia is suspicious of the radical Islam, because emissaries of the wahhabis and al-Qaeda were already in the Northern Caucasus. And still now, there are different terrorist groups with the idea of the socalled “Emirate of the Caucasus”. There were also attempts to spread another sectarian belief promoted by Fetullah Gullen (Nurjular), but for now this sect is prohibited here. Actually Islam is not a threat to Russia, because, traditionally, a lot of people living here are Muslim. Regions like Tatarstan, the North Caucasus republics, Bashkortostan have an Islamic population. And our government supports traditional Islam here.

 

- What do you think about the American/Western strategy of strategic encirclement of

Russia? Can we see this as well in the process of the so-called 'Arab Spring'? Is an open,

Western-waged war against Syria and Iran possible and would it be the onset to a major

world conflict, a 'Third World War'? Where would Russia stand?

 

It works. Not only because of the reset of the Anaconda strategy for Eurasia by means of military presence. Sometimes it doesn’t manifest in classical bases. Logistics is the main element of contemporary warfare, as well as C4ISR – Command, Control, Computer, Communications, Intelligence, Surveillance, Reconnaissance – works in the vein of smart engagement. Other tools are: economics, promotion of democracy and human rights, cyber politics. The Arab Spring is a very complex phenomenon – there are a couple of components, but you can see that the U.S. has a bonus anyway: Egypt has asked for a huge loan from the World Bank; Western companies go to Libya; Muslim extremists are being manipulated against moderate Muslims, because they are a threat to western interests and so on. Organized chaos is just another view on the socio-political reality in turbulence. As Steve Mann (famous theorist of the chaos principle in diplomacy) wrote: the state is just hardware and ideology is its soft version. It were better to use ‘virus’ (in other words ‘promoting democracy’) and not to break PC. Syria and Iran are interesting for many nations now. The hysteria of Israel is not good, because this country has nuclear weapons. What will come of Israel using it? The Palestinian question is also on the table. I think that Israel is a more serious problem than Syria and Iran. Russia firmly supports Syria and takes a moderate

position on Iran. During the presidency of Dmitry Medvedev, Russia declined to provide the “S-300” rocket complex to Iran (we had already signed the contract) and the deal was canceled. You bear in mind that during the same time Russia supported resolution 1973 of UN Security Council and the West started operation “Odyssey Dawn” against Libya. So, even VIP politicians in Russia sometimes do wrong things! But Mr. Putin is actively pro-Syrian and I think that the position of Russia about Iran and about Western pressure will be more adequate than before. As foreign minister Sergey Lavrov told: “we got experience with Libya and don’t believe the West anymore”.

 

- What do you think about the Western Europeans: should they remain loyal to their

historical-political heritage of individualism and atlanticism, or should they rethink

themselves and orient themselves towards Russia and continentalism? What about pro-

Russian elements in European society? Can they be partners or are they, politically and

socially spoken, too marginal for that?

 

John M. Hobson, in his brilliant work The eurocentric conception of world politics, made very

clear that the West is rooted in the logic of immanence instead of the logic of co-development

that is characteristic of non-western societies. He continues that the formula “the West and the Rest” is wrong, because without the rest there is no place for the West. Now we see one United Europe, but in real life we have two levels. The first one is presented by the bureaucratic establishment with its symbols, history, power projections and procedures. The second one is active publicity with movements, political parties and personal activists who are not interested in an Orwellian future with “Big Brother”, universal values and so on. Actually, in geography we have more than one substance. And where is the border between Southern, Western and Eastern Europe? It’s mostly in the minds. From history we remember the Celtic space, the Roman Empire, the Germanic and nomad invasions (Huns, Avars, etc.), that shows that the face of Europe permanently changed throughout the centuries. Now the European population includes people from Africa and Asia and soon the demographic balance will change. Political culture will change too. Without Russia, Europe is impossible. Not only because of geography (just look at the map and you will see that the EU is just the small, overpopulated western peninsula of Eurasia), but also because of the role of Russia in European history. Napoleon and Hitler – the two most significant unifiers of Europe - were stopped and defeated in Russia and, after that, new political orders were established. And for now in Europe we have so many Russian “prints”: in culture, history, the role of some persons and diasporas. I think that pro-Russian elements just now have a very good choice, because the window of opportunity is open. All these elements could form an avant-garde of a new kind of cooperation: in trade relations, science, art and education and public diplomacy. The last one is the tie for all activities. Actually Minister Lavrov just today (i.e. 26.02.2013) announced that, because of the Russia year in the Netherlands and vice versa, there will be more than 350 actions on state level. It is a good sign of mutual respect and it may be deeper.

 

- What about key power Germany? Do you believe in, let's say, an 'Indo-European bloc',

an axis Berlin-Moscow-New Delhi, as a formidable counterweight to the atlanticist bloc of

the axis Washington-London-Paris? Do the horrors of the Second World War still affect

Russians' views of Germany and the Germans, or is it possible to turn the page on both

sides and look forward? What about the French: do they belong in the atlanticist bloc, or

can they be won for the continentalist bloc without giving in to their chauvinism? And what

about China: will it turn out to be an even more dangerous enemy than the USA, or will

both Russia and China remain strategic partners, e.g. within the SCO?

 

Because the EU has two levels, the same is true for Germany. One Germany, represented by the political establishment, is pro-U.S. and cannot do anything without Washington. Another one (latent or potential) is looking for closer cooperation with Russia. At the time of the Russian Empire a lot of German people came to our country at the invitation of Empress Catherine the Great. Even before that, many foreigners were in Russia as military officers, teachers, technical specialists, etc. People’s potential can do a lot of things. We must keep in mind that, besides Sea Power and Land Power in geopolitics, we have Man Power, which is the unique and main axis of any politics. The problem is that, after WWII, there was in most European countries a strong influence of Britain and the U.S.. They used very black propaganda and the peoples of Europe were afraid of a communist invasion. The U.S. even started more horrible projects in Western Europe (for example Propaganda-Due and operation “Gladio” in Italy, as well as “Stay Behind” NATO secret armies, formed from right-wing extremist elements). Still now in the EU, we see anti-Russian propaganda, but our borders are open and any European can go to Russia and see what happens here. The case of Gérard Depardieu is just one example.

 

If we look at what happens in China we’ll understand that it is a very strong actor and that its

power grows from year to year. In the UN Security Council China is an important partner of

Russia (for the Syria voting too). Russia is a supplier of oil and gas to China and we have new

agreements for the future. Besides that we provide military equipment to China, though they

have good weapon systems of their own as well. In the SCO we had good results and I think that cooperation in this organization must be enlarged through strategic military elements with the entry at least of Iran, Belarus, India and Pakistan (they have an observer or dialogue partner status). Turkey is interested as well, but because of its NATO membership it will be difficult to join.

 

I know that some Russians and Europeans describe China as a possible enemy, a “yellow threat” (the Polish writer Ignacy Witkiewicz even wrote about it in his novel in 1929!!!) and so on, but in reality China has no intents of border pretence to Russia. We have had some incidents in Siberia with contraband, but these are criminal cases which do not deal with state politics. China will focus on Taiwan and on the disputed islands in the Pacific and it will take all geopolitical attention and may be some loyalty from Russia and SCO members.

 

Also China has the same view on the future world order – multipolarity. Actually this idea

(duojihua) was born in China in 1986. And with the strategic cooperation with many other

countries in Africa and South America, joint efforts against western hegemony will be fruitful.

So, I think China and Russia can do a lot for a reform of the forthcoming world order.

A lot of people now want to forget their own origins and the origins of other peoples. Bavaria,

for example, was populated centuries ago by Avars from Asia (part of them still live in the

Caucasus) during the Migration Period. Groups of Turkish origin also went to lands of

contemporary Austria. So in contemporary Europe we have a lot of Asian elements. And vice

versa in Asia we have people of Aryan origin. Not only in the North of India, but also in

Tajikistan, Pakistan, Iran (arya is the self-name of the people of Iran and India). And

hybridization is continuing as we speak in Europe and in other regions. Just before Hitler's attack on the Soviet Union we had a pact with Germany and had been cooperating extensively in technologies and in the economy. And France was attacked first by Germany, but now relations between both countries are normal. I think that historical harms between Germany and Russia have been mostly forgotten. And I think that many Germans still remember that the most destructive attacks did not come from the Soviet army but from U.S. and British air forces (Dresden, Leipzig...). It was not a war, but a deliberate destruction of cities and non-armed refugees. Actually now Germans is mostly good businessmen for Russians, compared to representatives of other European nations (these facts have been confirmed by many friends who do business with Europeans).

 

I can not to speak with enough certainty of what happens with Russian-French relations, because I'm not very interested in this sector. During the XXth century we had many deals with France and after WWII it was the idea of Stalin to give the winner status to France. Charles de Gaulle also was pro-Soviet in a geopolitical sense. But after the legalization of the gay marriage in France, many Russians feel suspicious about this country. But every people and every country has its own specifics. We have had many interesting philosophers from France who have had influence on Russian thinkers too.

 

- Turning to domestic Russian problems: Russia under President Putin has been able to

make enormous progress in the social field, mainly due to energy sales during the 2000s.

Has this changed the face of Russia? Has this period come to an end or is there stagnation? How will Russia cope with its domestic problems, such as the demographic crisis, which it shares with Western Europe? Should the Siberian land mass be 're-colonized' by Russians and other Europeans, in order to make it an impregnable 'green lung fortress' for the white peoples?

 

The grand contribution of Mr. Putin is that he stopped liberal privatization and the process of

separatism in Russia. Persons such as Chodorkovsky were representatives of the Western

oligarchy, especially of powerful financial clans (for example, he is a personal friend of

Rothschild) and he had plans to usurp power in Russia through the corruption of parliament. We still have the rudiments of predatory liberalism such as misbalances, corruption, fifth column, degradation of traditional values, etc. For now we see in Russia efforts to build a smarter kind of economics, but it must be done very carefully. The questions that must be at the center are: how to deal with the Federal Reserve System? What about a new currency order that may be represented by BRICS? How to start mobilization? What to do with the neoliberal lobby within the government? The demographic crisis is also linked with neoliberalism and consumerism. A century ago, there was a rise of population in Russia, but two world wars have cut it. Even during Soviet times we had a good demography index. Now the government has started supporting young families and the process of human reproduction. In addition to birth programs we have an initiative dealing with the return of compatriots to Russia and all people who were born in the USSR can come to Russia very easily and get certain funding from the state. But I think that, because the Russians were the state-forming people, there must be a preference for Slavonic origin, because migrants from Asian countries (who do not speak Russian and have other traditions) will flow to Russia for economic reasons. Many Russian activists who take a critical stance on Asian people are already disappointed by this program. I think that the attraction of Byelorussians and Ukrainians can equalize this disproportion. But, strategically, the state must support a system of child-bearing with all necessary needs (fosterage, education, working place, social environmental, etc.). In some regions governors personally start up that kind of programs dealing with local and regional solidarity. First of all, Siberia is still Russian. The Siberian type of Russian is different from citizens from the central or southern regions, but till now it's still mainly Russian, not only institutionally, but also ethnically. Actually, according to our statistics, most labor migrants to Russia come from Ukraine! So, in spite of strange relations between both countries and with strong anti-Russian stances on the part of Ukrainian nationalists and pro-western "democrats", people just make their own choice. Rationally speaking, Siberia is not only interesting, because of its virgin forests and natural resources, but also because of its neighbors - and China is one of them with an emerging economy. So Siberia could serve as a hub in the future. I think that Europeans would also go to

Russia (not only to Siberia), but this migration must be done meticulously, because of the

language barrier, with a period of adaptation to different social conditions and so on. Maybe it could be useful to organize towns of compact residence and also city-hubs for foreign people who come to live in Russia, where they can live and work in new conditions. New Berlin, New Brussels, New Paris (of course translated into the Russian language) will then appear on a new Russian map.

 

- What is your opinion about the future of Putinist Russia? Will the government be able to

enduringly counter Western propaganda and destabilization campaigns, and come to a

'generation pact' between the older generation, born during Soviet times, and the younger

generation, born after 1991? What will be President Putin's fundamental heritage for

Russian history?

 

The key problem for Russia is a neoliberal group inside the Kremlin. Putin has the support of

people who want more radical actions against corruption, western agents and so on. But a

“colored revolution” in Russia is impossible, because the masses do not believe in the prowestern opposition. Ideas of democracy and human rights promoted by West have been

discredited worldwide and our people understand well what liberalization, privatization and such kind of activities in the interest of global oligarchy mean. And because of the announcement of the Eurasian Customs Union Russia must work hard the coming years with partners from Kazakhstan and Belarus. As for counterpropaganda, the new official doctrine of Russian foreign policy is about soft power. So Russia has all the instruments officially legalized to model its own image abroad. In some sense we do this kind of work, just as other non-governmental organizations and public initiatives. You mention a “generation pact”, referring to different ideals of young and older people, especially in the context of the Soviet era. Now, you would be surprised that a figure as Stalin is very popular among young people and thinking part of the youth understands well that Soviet times were more enjoyable than contemporary semi-capitalism. As I told in my previous answer, Putin is important because he stopped the disintegration of Russia. He already is a historical figure.

 

- Is there a common 'metaphysical future' for the whole of Europe after the downfall of

Western Christianity (catholicism, protestantism)? Can Russian Orthodoxism be a guide?

What do you hold of the modest revival of pre-Christian religious traditions across the

continent? What about countering the influence of Islam on the European continent? Is

there a different view concerning that discussion between Russia and Western Europe?

 

Russian Christian Orthodoxy is not panacea, because there are also some problems. Christianity in XIIth century, XVIth century and nowadays is very different. Now many formal orthodox Christians go to church two times a year, at Easter and at Christmas. But Orthodox Christianity is also a thesaurus of wisdom where you can find ideas from ancient Greek philosophy, metaphysics, cultural heritage, transformed paganism and psychology. In this sense, Russian Christian Orthodox old believers keep this heritage alive and may be interested as well in forms (ceremonies) as in the spiritual essence with its complex ideas. Speaking about paganism, Russia is the only country in Europe that still has authentic pagan societies (Republics of Mari-El, Mordovia, Komi) with very interesting rites and traditions. Actually Finno-Ugric peoples historically were very close to Slavonic people and assimilated together, so there is a good chance to research these traditions for those who are interested in Slavonic pre-Christian culture. But the postmodern version of a restored paganism in Europe or any other region to my opinion is just a fake and there is not so much from true paganism. As for Islam, as I told before, in Russia there exist a couple of versions of traditional Islam, which are presented by several law schools (mazhabs). In the Northern Caucasus, the regional government has tried to copy the idea of multiculturalism and to implement EuroIslam as an antithesis to spreading wahhabism. But it has not worked and now more attention is paid to traditional religious culture linked with education and the social sector. But the project of multiculturalism has failed in Europe as well, so all common Euro-Russian outlooks on Islam are finished. But, to be honest, I think that Europe must learn from the Russian experience of coexistence of different religions (not forgetting paganism and shamanism – this belief is widely found in Siberia). In Europe, they use the term tolerance but we, eurasianists, prefer the term complimentarity, proposed by Lev Gumilev, meaning a subconscious sympathy between different ethnic groups. As Gumilev explained, Russia became so large because Russians, during the expansion, looked on other people as on their own and understood them. This differs from the point of view (more specifically in ethnosociology) that all ethnic groups have the idea of “We are” against “The Other”, represented by another group. The imperial principle works with the idea of mosaics where every ethnos is a “We are”. And our famous writer and philosopher Fjodor Dostoevsky told about all-human (all-mankind) nature (not common to all mankind) that is represented by

the Russians, because inside, you can find all radical oppositions. I think it is a good reason to turn to Russia and its people.

 

Thank you, Mr Savin, for this very interesting and open-hearted interview.

 

The Mackinder factor: On the inconvenience of being Russia

The Mackinder factor: On the inconvenience of being Russia

Russia replaces the Mongol empire.
Halford Mackinder (1904)

By Nicolas Bonnal

Well, nothing new under the sun: the fear of Russia in Europe was as we know mainly created by the British imperialists, and then 'refurbished' by the American generous and ubiquitous interventionists. As I already showed, British writer Hobson considered that the British Empire was often established on manipulation, false motives, humanitarian reasons, well, on propaganda, to speak a modern word. There was often no economical rationality in it; this is why the financiers and politicians who armed expeditions necessitated propagandists like Kipling. Think of the motivations of one of his most famous short stories, the man who would be a king: Two hundred and fifty thousand men, ready to cut in on Russia's right flank when she tries for India! Napoleon boasted once that from knowing the geography of a state he could deduce his foreign policies. This is why diplomacy has always been a cabalistic science in Russia, a so great country that it had always more than ten boundaries and an incomparable skill in these matters. Disraeli already greeted in his best conspiracy novel that mysterious Russian Diplomacy which so alarms Western Europe...

Western hostility and geopolitical fear of Russia is nothing new. It was embedded since two centuries on various factors: despotism, modern banking system (which the tsars banned), Orthodox faith and then of course communism. Another main factor has been of course the legendary and overvalued theory of Mackinder about the Heartland.

In 1904 this geographer who had written atlases and books for schoolboys, and had been a principal of college, writes a famous article: the geographical pivot of history. Mackinder seems obsessed with the waves of Mongols and tartars that indeed threatened, murdered and plundered more the Russians and Slavic people than the British and the Americans! And he insists, possessed by his idea, upon the following fact: the Russian pass way is fundamental; the Mongol empire is still there, under another name. Famous French historian Grousset wrote later in his balance of history that the red army was 'the new empire of the steppes, blinded and motorized! Unfortunately it is not only a metaphor.

I quote two passages of this famous text. In the first, Mackinder compares the deeds of the West and Russia. In Russia, he defines his intuition:

While the maritime powers of Western Europe have covered the ocean with their fleet, Russia has organized the Cossacks and policed the steppes by setting her own nomads to meet the Tartar nomads.

Is not the pivot of the world's politics that vast area of Euro-Asia which is inaccessible to ships, but is today covered with a network of railways?

The problem is that Mackinder's discovery has become the main ingredient of American interventionism and adventurism since then. We can read in the grand Chessboard of well-known Mr Brzezinski:

Genghis Khan and his successors, by defeating their regional rivals, established centralized control over the territory that latter-day scholars of geopolitics have identified as the global heartland, or the pivot for world power.

As if he was inspired by Tolkien (one ring to rule them all!), Mr Brzezinski adds with his familiar enthusiastic tone:

He (Mackinder) popularized his heartland concept by the famous dictum:

Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland;

Who rules the Heartland commands the World-Island;

Who rules the World-Island commands the world.

This credo of course justifies the western behaviour toward Russia. And I maintain what I wrote earlier: Mackinder's concept may have been wrong or superficial: it just serves western fantasies and agenda. The Heartland means empty and cold areas, devoid of infrastructures and people; they may be rich in resources, but as are many areas in the world; finally there is a great deal of exaggeration in presenting them as the new nest of Genghis Khan, unless you need a giant enemy to fight with. But of course this presentation did not fall into deaf ears. Adds joyfully Mr Brzezinski:

Geopolitics was also invoked by some leading German political geographers to justify their country's "Drang nach Osten," notably with Karl Haushofer adapting Mackinder's concept to Germany's strategic needs. Its much-vulgarized echo could also be heard in Adolf Hitler's emphasis on the German people's need for "Lebensraum."

It is well known now that Mackinder and Karl Haushofer's doctrines of Macht und Raum (power and space) accompanied Hitler's insane policies ("any extension of territory must be done at the expense of Russia") and proficient armies that produced twenty-six millions dead in Slavic countries. The Mongols did come again but from the West. Nazis and fascist presented themselves as the defenders of western civilization against a barbaric and Mongolic bolshevist Asia. This bleak future did not prevent Prophet Mackinder from writing the following lines:

Russian pressure on Finland, on India, on Persia and on China, replaces the centrifugal raids of the steppe men.

This is comparing barely Russians to the hordes of Mongols! Right, Mr Mackinder except the fact that Russia was not the colonial occupier of India (unless we consider Gandhi a KGB agent), neither among the dominating powers that humiliated China in 1900. And who occupied Persia during WW2? And who now is trying to contain China?

In fact Mackinder initiates the process that defends the Anglo-Saxon right to subjugate the world in any place of the world. Being a democracy or a plutocracy or a messianic state or a maritime power is enough to enunciate or apply any diplomatic barbarity; read Hobson again and his insightful analysis of the British Empire. Mackinder followed the path of Mahan, the first theoretician of modern maritime powers, but went further opening the Russophobe agenda of the century. This is a kind of geopolitical paranoia that easily can be turned into a science: you just have to hire and finance scholars. And the surrounded Russian democracy becomes the menacing power that threats the peace of the... new world! When shall we write a Monroe doctrine for central Asia? Or even for Russia? For as stated Mr Brzezinski,

What is Russia? Where is Russia? What does it mean to be a Russian?

More inspired, Mr Brzezinski recalls that the loss of Ukraine was not only geopolitically pivotal but also geopolitically catalytic. This is what Hitler thought too or the German diplomats who signed the treaty of Brest-Litovsk in March 1918.

They understood that the western factor of the Heartland is of course the most important. Mackinder was wrong but not blind; he added finally that "if Germany were to ally herself with Russia, the empire of the world would be then in sight." This is why England preferred to suddenly ally herself with Russia in 1907, even if this decision precipitates the imprudent war of the Kaiser against Russia. It is clear that a friendly diplomacy between Germany and Russia inducing a new European union would solve our problems. It is clear too that a Russian-Chinese friendship is Washington's nightmare. And clear too that the Mackinder factor must be recalled at any moment to understand the most lunatic steps of western diplomacy against Russia. Let us remember its lemma worthy of the Lord of The Rings:

 
Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland;

Who rules the Heartland commands the World-Island;

Who rules the World-Island commands the world.

Nicolas Bonnal

Mijmeringen over een Eurazische toekomst

Jörg ASTMANN:

Mijmeringen over een Eurazische toekomst

 

Toen me werd gevraagd om deze bijdrage te schrijven, was ik net terug in België van een trip naar het fabelachtige, en toch o zo vibrerende Moskou, veel meer dan Rome en andere hoofdsteden van het vermoeide en op drift lijkende Europa, de enige stad die vandaag de dag het epitheton “Eeuwige Stad” verdient.

Het “Derde Rome” van vroegere generaties politieke exponenten is vandaag nog steeds een waarlijk imperiale stad, die in elke vezel de ambitie van het herwonnen centrum van de Eurazische ruimte uitstraalt.

Niet dat de overdreven protserigheid van de eindeloze winkeletalages en hun dito bezoekers geen weinig benijdenswaardig kantje van de zaak zijn, maar daar zullen we het in dit essay nu even niet over hebben.

 

Doorheen de discussies over de historische rol van Vladimir Poetin en de ontwikkelingskansen van de Eurazische Unie, kwam tijdens de gesprekken en interviews met aimabele, doch bij de pinken zijnde Russische gesprekspartners uit de universitaire en mediawereld steeds opnieuw de vraag naar de identiteit van Rusland naar boven.

De aloude discussie: Europees of Aziatisch? Eurazische grootruimte of eenzame blanke macht auf verlorenem Posten in Noord-Azië?

Het zijn vraagstellingen die, zoals ik hierboven schreef, niet nieuw zijn en naar mijn bescheiden mening ook nooit voorgoed zullen worden beslecht.

Misschien ligt dat wel aan het hybride karakter van wat in het ontzielde Westen nogal gemakzuchtig-romantiserend “de Russische ziel” wordt genoemd: de ziel van een van oorsprong Oostslavisch-Finoegrisch-Scandinavische staat, die in volle middeleeuwse ontwikkeling krachtig onder de voet wordt gelopen en cultureel wordt doordrenkt door de nazaten van de grote Khan, om zich vanaf de 16^de eeuw dan resoluut te wijden aan zijn historische missie, zijnde het integreren van de landen van de Grote Steppe en aangrenzende gebieden tot één aaneengesloten geheel, culminerend in de ambitie om dit Rijk een trapje hoger te tillen naar een wereldmacht met een ongeziene aantrekkingskracht op de rest van de onder het juk van het grove geld gebukt gaande wereldbevolking. Of toch delen daarvan.

 

Op delen die er – politiek, militair, economisch – toe deden en nog steeds, zij het in iets mindere mate dan pakweg een halve eeuw geleden, toe doen, was deze aantrekkingskracht veel minder groot: het zogezegde Westen – lees: de VS en de rest van de anglosphere, aangevuld met de verliezers van beide Wereldoorlogen: Europa en Japan.

U leest het goed: de verliezers van de twee Wereldoorlogen, heus niet enkel Duitsland, Japan en occasionele bondgenoten. Ook de “winnaars” Frankrijk en het Verenigd Koninkrijk, en het dozijn kleinere Europese staten en staatjes.

 

En de Sovjetunie, ja, de Sovjetunie betaalde een heel zware prijs, en ongetwijfeld heeft dit haar steile opgang na de Tweede Wereldoorlog ook enigszins gefnuikt, tot grote, heimelijke genoegdoening van haar concurrenten over de grote plas.

Of was het allemaal zo gepland? Hebben de financiers van Wall Street daadwerkelijk een doorslaggevende rol gespeeld in het doen imploderen en revolutioneren van het Russische Rijk, en van de andere keizerrijken van het Oude Europa?

Samenzweringstheorieën doen het altijd goed bij een daarvoor vatbaar deel van de bevolking, maar nooit bij hen die zichzelf au sérieux nemen. Ahum.

 

Wat er ook van zij, dergelijke slachtingen hebben generaties na het gebeurde nog steeds verstrekkende gevolgen.

 

Plaats dat in het grotere plaatje van de Europese burgeroorlog tussen 1914 en 1945 – sommigen gewagen van de Tweede Dertigjarige Oorlog -, en de menselijke en culturele tol wordt nog verschrikkelijker.

De Russische geschiedenis van dit tijdsgewricht toont een bijzonder jammerlijk beeld: na de slachtingen in de loopgraven van de Eerste Wereldoorlog, met een leger vol pronkerige officieren en soms met slechts stokken bewapende soldaten, volgen de wreedheden van de Burgeroorlog tussen Wit en Rood, pakkend beschreven in de nog steeds beklijvende memoires van de voormalige Duitse krijgsgevangene en latere nationaal-revolutionair Edwin Erich Dwinger, Zwischen Weiß und Rot. Die russische Tragödie 1919-1920.

 

Na een periode van nieuwe moed en revolutionaire experimenten is het de beurt aan Stalin om wat er rest aan oude structuren nog eens grondig overhoop te halen en de veelgeroemde Russische ziel danig op de proef te stellen. Zowat elke familie in de voormalige Sovjetunie kan daarvan meespreken.

Al willen we natuurlijk niet elke daad van de Vader der Volkeren negatief duiden. Zijn mobilisatie van alle krachten in de Sovjetsamenleving na een eerste fase van vertwijfeling na de Duitse inval, dwingt ook vandaag nog respect af. Zijn opbouw van de Sovjetmacht tot een geopolitieke en militaire gigant evenzeer.

Er zijn vele aspecten aan de voormalige Sovjetleider die in het Westen vaak te weinig belicht worden.

 

Maar wat blijkt?

Ondanks de wreedheden, die werden begaan door de troepen van nazi-Duitsland, ondanks de wraak van Sovjetsoldaten op de bevolking van, ondermeer, Oost-Pruisen en Berlijn, ondanks de veelvuldige, diepzittende wonden, blijven de Duitsers het volk dat als enige van de Europese volkeren ten volle in staat is om de Russische ziel te vertalen, te duiden en te her-talen naar de sceptische, individualistische West-Europeaan toe.

 

Ik moet bekennen dat mijn Ruslandbeeld in een eerste fase door het Duitse Ruslandbeeld beïnvloed werd.

Of beter gezegd: het positieve Ruslandbeeld, dat van die vele Duitsers en Oostenrijkers die, al dan niet doorspekt met persoonlijke ervaringen uit oorlogs- en andere tijden, die magische wereld van mystiek en oneindigheid in de meest zoete bewoordingen beschreven.

 

Niet het Ruslandbeeld van die andere Duitsers, de Duitsers uit de atlantische traditie – Hitler voorop -, voor wie de Russische ruimte een despotisch geregeerde buitenaardse planeet is.

Of erger, ranziger.

Dat Duitsland bestaat helaas ook, en ik zou durven stellen dat het zelfs anno 2013, zij het in een “gekuiste”, niet-racistische versie, nog steeds een niet te verwaarlozen deel van de Duitse elite uitmaakt.

Dat officiële Duitsland, van de Atlantik-Brücke tot het journalistieke geweld van de Springerpresse, met slechts enkele uitzonderingen die de spijtige regel bevestigen.

Het Duitsland dat zich liever opwerpt als de beste Europese leerling in dienst van de meesters van het internationale grootkapitaal, dan het hart van een zelfbewust en traditiegericht Europa te zijn.

 

Terug naar ons Ruslandbeeld.

De vraag is wat dat positieve beeld precies beschrijft: een beeld van Rusland als nationale staat der Russen of een beeld van de Eurazische ruimte, grosso modo het vroegere Russische Rijk of de Sovjetunie, dat mysterieuze gebied van steppen, taiga, toendra en woestijnen, dat veelvolkerenrijk, naar de woorden van Andreas Kappeler, dat, méér dan een nationale staat in de (West-)Europese betekenis van het woord, een schoolvoorbeeld was en is van een staatsdragend volk – de Russen, of zie de hierboven summier geschetste genealogie – dat zichzelf, surfend op zijn eigen losbarstende passionariteit – dixit Lev Gumiljov – overstijgt en zich als een veelkleurige vlinder ontpopt tot een rijksvolk, dat zijn samenstellende volkeren door eenheid in verscheidenheid integreert tot een nieuwe identiteitslaag, de Euraziër.

Dit alles zonder zijn eigen nationale, Russische identiteit te verliezen, of dit van de andere samenstellende volkeren te vragen. Of toch min of meer.

 

En meer nog dan de som van zijn samenstellende delen en meer nog dan een sterke geopolitieke realiteit is dit Eurazië, gebaseerd op zijn rijke culturele tradities, een Rijk van de Geest, een rijk van het Land, van de Kwaliteit, dat staat tegenover het Rijk van de Zee, van de vloeibaarheid, de massa, de kwantiteit. Het Rijk van de Orde tegen dat van de chaos. Het Rijk van Sint-Joris tegen het rijk van de draak, van de duivel.

De Russische dubbeladelaar met zijn wapenschild spreekt wat dat betreft boekdelen en het is ongelooflijk veelzeggend dat de Russische staat dit staatsembleem in ere hersteld heeft.

Het vat zijn ambitie ten volle samen.

 

Het is in de Russische ziel, die, doorheen historische ervaringen en interculturele uitwisseling met voornamelijk Turks-Mongoolse volkeren, mens geworden is in de Euraziër, dat wij als West-Europeanen een glimp opvangen van wat de mens in zijn bindingen met de wereld was en nog zou moeten zijn: een mens gebonden in de Traditie, in de Orde.

 

Alleen is een glimp niet genoeg voor de Europeaan: er moet een alternatief voor de huidige toestand voorhanden zijn. Een alternatief dat rekening houdt met het feit dat het civilisatorische subject van de Euraziër niet zomaar getransponeerd kan worden naar het individualistische West- en Centraal-Europa, met zijn eigen cultureel-historische ervaringen.

Het is mooi als voorbeeld, maar de Europeanen moeten hun eigen invulling geven aan de terugkeer naar de Traditie.

Slechts een terugkeer naar die Traditie, en, bijgevolg een afkeer van de materie, van de moderniteit in al haar vormen, van het liberalisme in al zijn uitingen, vermag de fundamenten te leggen voor een politiek en economisch partnerschap met de rest van Eurazië, en met de Russische ruimte in het bijzonder.

 

Een economische, of zelfs politieke aaneensluiting, is slechts het sluitstuk van iets wat veel fundamenteler is dan alledaagse economie of politiek.

Een vrijhandelsruimte van Lissabon tot Vladivostok, en van Reykjavik tot Delhi is slechts het logische gevolg van een mentale, zelfs metafysische aaneensluiting op basis van de afwijzing van de (post-)moderniteit.

 

Deze weg, en dat moge duidelijk zijn, zal niet over rozen verlopen.

Er is namelijk een gigantisch probleem – naast andere, meer alledaagse problemen, zoals het geopolitieke en economische eigenbelang van nationale staten.

 

Om het juiste uitgangspunt te bereiken, moeten de Europeanen nu uitgerekend breken met wat hen rest aan grootsheid uit hun eigen geschiedenis, moeten zij, met andere woorden, een haast rituele zuivering ondergaan.

 

Want, laat ons eerlijk wezen, het is allemaal mooi dat de rest van de wereld het Westen, en Europa in het bijzonder, kastijdt omwille van zijn koloniale verleden en alle mede daaruit voortvloeiende cultuurverschijnselen – niet in het minst de eurocentrische blik op de wetenschappen. Dat neemt niet weg dat dit, in de ogen van de rest van de wereld verachtelijke, verleden mede een onderdeel is van de Europese identiteit en hoe deze beleefd wordt.

 

Met andere woorden, indien Alexander Doegin in zijn Fourth Political Theory pleit voor een alliantie van alle antimoderne krachten ter wereld, dus ook in Europa, dan moet hij beseffen dat hij, afgezien van enkele politieke randgevallen – “identitairen” en andere, door westerse inlichtingendiensten gemanipuleerde politclowns -, nooit aansluiting krijgt bij wat de massa in Europa voelt en hoe ze in deze onzekere tijden verder wenst te evolueren naar iets wat op een mooie toekomst voor de Europeanen lijkt.

Doegins analyse van de moderniteit is correct en lovenswaardig, alleen is deze op maat gesneden van Russen, Chinezen, Latijns-Amerikanen, enzovoort, maar veel minder op maat van de Europeaan zelf, omdat Doegins analyse in het geval van de Europeaan tegelijk een soort diagnose is, waarbij de genezing in veler ogen gelijk staat met euthanasie.

De Europeaan moet dus een daadwerkelijk alternatief krijgen alvorens men een kans heeft hem te overtuigen van de noodzaak om het roer om te gooien en wat er rest van de wereld te behoeden voor de neoliberale ondergang.

 

En dat alternatief moet rekening houden met de culturele eigenheid van de Europeanen, en mag niet de fout maken om gegrondvest te zijn op een cultureel-historische vernedering en ontworteling van de Europeanen. De moderniteit zelf heeft wat dat betreft al meer dan haar “best” gedaan in de Europese samenlevingen.

Dat alternatief moet ook rekening houden met het feit dat de verhouding van een orthodoxe Rus tot een islamitische Tataar anders is gegroeid dan de verhouding tussen een ontwortelde, ontkerkelijkte Europeaan en een ontwortelde, maar islamitisch gebleven Noord-Afrikaan uit de massamigratie. Om maar één voorbeeld te noemen.

 

Laat ons heel eerlijk zijn: allianties met Afrikaanse en Latijns-Amerikaanse partners zijn allemaal zeer wel en lovenswaardig, het raakt niet eens de koude teen van hypermacht Amerika. En deze van de internationale financiële groepen achter uncle sam nog minder. Enkele drones of een paar gerichte aanslagen, en het probleem is van de baan.

 

Het is pas wanneer de Europeanen toetreden tot de globale alliantie tegen de krachten van de moderniteit, dat deze alliantie kans op slagen heeft.

En wie zegt Europa, zegt toch op de eerste plaats – laat ons daar nuchter in blijven – Duitsland.

Het is precies dat land, dat nog niet zo lang geleden door zijn eigen minister van Financiën Schäuble werd omschreven als een land dat sinds de capitulatie van de Wehrmacht in 1945 niet meer soeverein is geweest, dat, meer dan andere Europese landen, bevrijd moet worden van de atlantistische clique die het land en zijn volk opnieuw in de dieperik dreigt te storten, als ze haar weg van Europa-wijde blinde begrotingsdiscipline, 1-euro-jobs en Umvolkung mag voortzetten.

We willen wat dat betreft verwijzen naar de groeiende anti-Duitse stemming, niet enkel in de Europese Unie.

 

Het is ook precies Duitsland, dat de brug kan vormen met de Eurazische ruimte, meer nog dan het Frankrijk met zijn vele nakomelingen van Russische emigranten en zijn russofiel gaullisme, meer nog dan Italië met zijn vele antikapitalistische sympathisanten van de Eurazische zaak, meer nog dan het nuchtere Zweden met zijn geografische en mentale nabijheid, en meer nog dan de Slavische broeders uit het westen, die al te vaak uit kortzichtigheid en onverwerkte historische trauma’s gemene zaak maken met de geopolitieke belangen van de VS.

 

De officier-avonturier Oskar von Niedermayer en zijn ideologische mentor Ernst Niekisch, hoofdfiguur van de Duitse Nationaal-Bolsjevieken, wisten het al: het is het Pruisische aspect in Duitsland – in 1947 in zijn staat geworden vorm afgeschaft door de geallieerden –, de “geest van Tauroggen”, die de ware brugfunctie met de Eurazische ruimte vormt.

Jammer dat de DDR wat dat betreft de verwachtingen tijdens de Koude Oorlog niet of onvoldoende heeft ingelost!

 

Net zoals het Oostenrijkse element voor West-Europa de brug kan vormen naar de Turkse ruimte en het Midden-Oosten.

 

Beide vroegere Germaanse machten – in de woorden van de generaal en geopoliticus Heinrich Jordis von Lohausen ooit de hoekstenen van de Europese ordening, nu nog slechts beperkt overlevend in bepaalde staatstradities van hun opvolgerstaten – zijn essentieel voor de mentale aaneenschakeling waarvan ik hierboven sprak.

Beide elementen zijn essentieel om de rest van Europa de weg te tonen naar een Eurazië, en, bij uitbreiding, een wereld waar de postmoderniteit en het postliberalisme niet verder kunnen uitgroeien tot de enige, niet langer als een ideologie beschouwde, maar als “natuurlijk” aangevoelde condition humaine.

 

Hoe moet die Eurazische toekomst er dan concreet uitzien, na de overwinning op de machten van de moderniteit, die van het Euraziatische continent – niet enkel van Rusland, maar ook van Europa, China en India – één gigantische kolonie van ruwe en menselijke grondstoffen willen maken?

In dit Groot-Eurazië als groothandelsruimte tussen Lissabon en Vladivostok, als völkerrechtliche Großraumordnung mit Interventionsverbot für raumfremde Mächte, om het met de woorden van de legendarische Carl Schmitt te zeggen, komt de centrale plaats zonder twijfel toe aan de Russische Federatie als kern van de voormalige Sovjetruimte – de ruimte van de voormalige Sovjetunie of Eurazië in de zin van de evrazii en als brug tussen Europa en Azië proper -, met aan haar flanken sterke en betrouwbare bondgenoten, zoals Duitsland en Frankrijk in het westen – al dan niet in een hervormde Europese Unie -, en Iran en India in het zuiden. Wat betreft de Turkse wereld en de Chinese wereld, gekristalliseerd rond respectievelijk Turkije en China, daar zal de toekomst moeten van uitwijzen wat hun plaats in dit geheel is.

 

Door de Turkse volkeren in de Russische Federatie en de snelweg van de Grote Steppe is er via de Eurazische ideologie natuurlijk een directe link met Turkije mogelijk – we verwijzen naar het pionierswerk van de hierboven aangehaalde geniale historicus en etnoloog Lev Gumiljov -, maar de geschiedenis leert ons ook dat de (Anatolische) Turken vaak, zoniet altijd geopolitieke vijanden van Europa én Rusland zijn geweest. Bovendien staat Turan altijd in oppositie met Iran, staat de Turks-Mongoolse traditie doorheen de geschiedenis, ondanks interculturele wisselwerking, tegenover de Indo-Europese traditie. Maar het blijft mogelijk om tot een vergelijk te komen.

Vooral als een veelbelovend land als Kazachstan, de parel van de Eurazische Steppe, hierin het voortouw neemt.

 

Hetzelfde geldt voor China. Mij lijkt de Shanghai Cooperation Organisation vooral een bondgenootschap te zijn dat op de eerste plaats de belangen van China dient en het de nodige ademruimte in de op gang komende globale strijd tegen de Amerikaanse hegemonie verschaft.

We zijn benieuwd om te zien in welke mate China zijn bevolkingsoverschot in de toekomst enkel naar de verre landen van het zuiden – Australië op de eerste plaats - zal duwen, en niet het onmetelijke land boven de Amur in bezit zal willen nemen. Me dunkt is dit een gevaar waar de meeste evrazii te licht over gaan, en waar we – misschien voor één keer – in het Westen een nuchterder kijk op hebben?

 

Waar we evenwel met al deze en vele andere actoren uit Azië, Latijns-Amerika en Afrika in moeten overeenstemmen, is in onze afwijzing van de postmoderniteit, van het neoliberalisme, van de clash-of-civilizations-retoriek en van de breuk met de Traditie, en in ons gezamenlijk streven naar een multipolaire wereld, die vertrekt van de complementariteit van culturen die respect hebben voor elkaars eigenheid en voor de Traditie die ons allen verbindt.

 

Jörg Astmann,

Brussel, maart 2013.

La Russie aux temps postmodernes

La Russie aux temps postmodernes

par Georges FELTIN-TRACOL

 

Penseur néo-eurasiste influencé par les œuvres de René Guénon et de Julius Evola, polyglotte émérite à l’insatiable curiosité, Alexandre Douguine incarne pleinement ce que le communiste italien Antonio Gramsci qualifiait d’« intellectuel organique ». L’auteur d’une abondante bibliographie qui va de la géopolitique à l’étude sociologique des musiques contemporaines vient de publier la traduction française de sa Quatrième théorie. Il faut en saluer la parution tant ses écrits demeurent rares et méconnus dans le monde francophone. La sortie de cet essai est un grand événement éditorial !

 

Lecteur attentif d’Arthur Moeller van den Bruck, de Claude Lévi-Strauss, de Georges Sorel, Alexandre Douguine s’est aussi inspiré des travaux de Martin Heidegger, Francis Fukuyama, Carl Schmitt, Gilles Deleuze ou Guy Debord.

 

Pragmatique partant d’un constat accablant, le fondateur du Mouvement international eurasien se demande : « Comment faire de la politique quand il n’y a pas de politique ? Il n’existe qu’une seule solution : refuser les théories politiques classiques, tant vaincues que triomphantes, et faire preuve d’imagination, saisir les réalités du nouveau monde global, déchiffrer correctement les défis du monde postmoderne et créer quelque chose de nouveau, au-delà des affrontements politiques des XIXe et XXe siècles (p. 12). » Prenant par conséquent acte de la victoire de la pensée libérale qu’il appelle “ Première théorie ” et des échecs du communisme, « Deuxième théorie », et du « fascisme » (au sens très large du mot), « Troisième théorie », Alexandre Douguine esquisse une « Quatrième théorie politique » « non pas comme un travail ou une saga d’auteur, mais comme la direction d’un large spectre d’idées, d’études, d’analyses, de prévisions et de projets. Tout individu pensant dans cette optique peut y apporter quelque chose de soi (p. 13) ».

 

Cela fait très longtemps qu’Alexandre Douguine était en quête d’une nouvelle solution politique. Dès 1994, il en exposait les prémices théoriques dans un entretien passé inaperçu paru dans le n° 119 nouvelle série du magazine Le Crapouillot (mai – juin 1994), intitulé « Créer l’Europe des ethnies (pp. 9 – 13) ». Estimant que « le temps de la gauche anti-capitaliste est définitivement passé (art. cit., p. 9) », Douguine prévoyait l’entrée « dans l’ère de la droite anti-capitaliste – donc nationaliste, identitaire, différencialiste et organiciste (art. cit., p. 9) ». Il ajoutait plus loin que « nous sommes en présence de la naissance de la nouvelle idéologie anti-libérale, qui unira, en son sein, trois tendances politiques collectivistes, à savoir : le nationalisme, le socialisme et la démocratie, en opposition à la tendance libérale qui est essentiellement individualiste (art. cit., p. 12) ».

 

Contre le libéralisme postmoderne

 

Une nouvelle vision du monde s’impose, car le début du XXIe siècle marque l’achèvement de l’ère moderne ainsi que l’obsolescence de ses trois grandes théories mobilisatrices au profit d’une fluidité croissante et d’une mutation majeure de la doctrine libérale elle-même. Ce changement s’opère néanmoins dans un monde saturé d’idées libérales qui, du fait de leur réussite même, engendrent un « post-libéralisme » ou un « libéralisme 2.0 », promoteur d’une « société de marché globale (p. 21) ». C’est parce que « le libéralisme, mettant toujours l’accent sur la minimalisation du politique, a décidé, après sa victoire, de supprimer de façon générale la politique (p. 11) » que « le monde global doit être dirigé seulement par les lois économiques et la morale universelle des “ droits de l’homme ”. Toutes les décisions politiques sont remplacées par des techniques (p. 21) ». Ce « post-libéralisme » commence même à modifier la nature humaine. Douguine désigne donc clairement « le libéralisme et ses métamorphoses (p. 37) » postmodernistes (terme à préférer à celui de « post-moderne ») comme l’ennemi principal à abattre. Émanation des Lumières, « l’individualisme est devenu le sujet normatif à l’échelle de toute l’humanité. Apparaît alors le phénomène de la mondialisation, et le modèle de la société post-industrielle commence à se manifester, l’époque du postmoderne commence. Désormais, le sujet individuel n’apparaît plus comme le résultat d’un choix mais comme une certaine donnée générale obligatoire. La personne est libérée de  “ l’appartenance ”, l’idéologie “ des droits de l’homme ” devient communément acceptée (du moins – en théorie) et, dans les faits, obligatoire. L’humanité, composée d’individus, tend naturellement vers l’universalité, devient globale et unifiée. Ainsi naît le projet d’« État mondial » et de “ gouvernement mondial ” (le globalisme) (p. 20) ». Ses méfaits, réels, insidieux et profonds, dévastent tout autant les milieux naturels pollués que les psychismes. Il relève que « la logique du libéralisme mondial et de la mondialisation nous tire vers l’abîme de la dissolution postmoderniste dans la virtualité. Notre jeunesse a déjà un pied dans cet abîme : les codes du globalisme libéral s’introduisent de plus en plus efficacement au niveau de l’inconscient, dans les habitudes, la publicité, le glamour, les technologies, les modèles de réseau. La perte de l’identité, non seulement nationale ou culturelle mais aussi sexuelle et bientôt humaine, est désormais chose commune. Et les défenseurs des droits de l’homme, sans remarquer la tragédie de peuples entiers sacrifiés selon les plans cruels du “ nouvel ordre mondial ”, hurleront demain à la violation des droits des cyborgs ou des clones (p. 54) ». L’égalitarisme prôné par le « libéralisme 2.0 » est l’ultime réductionnisme de l’Occident globalitaire anomique.

 

Ce dispositif total, néo-totalitaire, de nivellement général bénéficie d’un redoutable modèle attractif : les États-Unis d’Amérique. Fille de la Modernité et matrice d’un postmodernisme « ultra-moderne », « l’Amérique prétend désormais à une diffusion universelle d’un code unitaire, qui pénètre dans la vie des peuples et des États par des milliers de voies différentes – comme le réseau global – à travers la technologie, l’économie de marché, le modèle politique de la démocratie libérale, les systèmes d’information, les clichés de la culture de masse, l’établissement du contrôle stratégique direct des Américains et de leurs satellites sur les processus géopolitiques (p. 47) ».

 

Décomposition des droites et des gauches

 

Contre cette « Hydre de Lerne » postmoderniste, un regard critique sur l’histoire des idées politiques est indispensable afin de concevoir une théorie novatrice. Alexandre Douguine prévient qu’elle « ne peut être une tâche individuelle pas plus que celle d’un petit cercle d’individus. L’effort doit être synodique, collectif. Les représentants d’autres cultures et d’autres peuples (d’Europe, ainsi que d’Asie), qui se rendent compte également de façon aiguë de la tension eschatologique du moment présent (p. 32) ». On y décèle ici la double influence de l’« impersonnalité active » chère à Evola et du sobornost de l’Orthodoxie. Il espère que la Quatrième théorie politique sera « une alternative au post-libéralisme, non pas comme une position par rapport à une autre, mais comme idée opposée à la matière; comme un possible entrant en conflit avec le réel; comme un réel n’existant pas mais attaquant déjà le réel (p. 22) ».

 

À cette fin, il devient utile de dresser la généalogie et la taxinomie des idées politiques modernes. L’anti-conformisme de la démarche de Douguine est déjà ancienne puisque cela fait longtemps qu’il propose de comprendre les auteurs de l’ultra-gauche d’un œil révolutionnaire-conservateur et de commenter les penseurs de l’« extrême droite » à l’aune de Marx, de Toni Negri et d’autres théoriciens gauchistes. Tout en reprenant la distinction classique entre la « droite » et la « gauche », Douguine dynamite en réalité cette dichotomie familière en discernant trois idéologies de « gauche » : les « vieilles gauches » avec les marxistes, les sociaux-démocrates et les zélateurs travaillistes d’une pseudo-« troisième voie » du Britannique Giddens, gourou de Tony Blair; les « nouvelles gauches » qui rassemblent sous ce label les néo-gauchistes, les altermondialistes et les postmodernistes genre Negri; et les « nationalistes de gauche », à savoir les tendances nationales-bolcheviques, nationales-communistes et « nationales-gauchistes ». Quant à la « droite » que Douguine préfère nommer « conservatisme » parce que c’« est un “ non ” adressé à ce qui est autour. Et au nom de quoi ? Au nom de ce qui était avant (p. 86) », il distingue :

 

— le conservatisme fondamental où l’on retrouve les écoles de la Tradition et les monothéismes dits « intégristes », y compris un certain islamisme;

 

— le libéral-conservatisme qui « dit “ oui ” à la tendance principale qui se réalise dans la modernité mais s’efforce de freiner à chaque nouvelle étape de la réalisation de ces tendances (p. 92) »;

 

— les forces conservatrices-révolutionnaires qui « ne veulent pas seulement geler le temps à la différence des libéraux-conservateurs ou encore revenir dans le passé (comme les traditionalistes) mais arracher à la structure de ce monde les racines du mal et annihiler le temps en tant que propriété destructrice de la réalité, réalisant le dessein secret, parallèle et insoupçonné de la Divinité elle-même (p. 97) ».

 

Douguine analyse finement l’approche contre-révolutionnaire (Maistre, Bonald, etc.) pour qui « le postmoderne avec sa dérision suive son cours, qu’il dissolve les paradigmes déterminés, l’ego, le super-ego, le logos, que le rhizome et les masses schizophréniques ainsi que la conscience morcelée entrent en jeu et que le néant entraîne derrière lui tant le contenu du monde, alors s’ouvriront des portes secrètes et les archétypes ontologiques anciens, éternels, apparaîtront à la surface et de façon terrible mettront fin au jeu (pp. 99 – 100) ».

 

Après avoir déterminé idéalement ces tendances politiques, Alexandre Douguine les recherche sur la scène politique russe avec d’inévitables mélanges contextuels. Le Parti communiste de la Fédération de Russie de Guennadi Ziouganov est sans conteste national-communiste alors que le mouvement Rodina (« Patrie ») fut inconsciemment national-gauchiste. Si l’opposition à Vladimir Poutine, malgré Limonov, verse plus ou moins dans le libéralisme et l’occidentalisme, Russie unie défend une conception sociale-conservatrice. Enfin, son eurasisme radical puise à la fois dans la Tradition et dans la Révolution conservatrice. Mais toutes les formations politiques russes communient dans un ardent patriotisme, ce que ne comprennent pas les observateurs occidentaux…

 

Il ne fait guère de doute que l’eurasisme constitue, aux yeux d’Alexandre Douguine, le cœur de la Quatrième théorie politique. Discutant des thèses culturalistes du « choc des civilisations » de Samuel Huntington, il dénie à la Russie tout caractère européen. Par sa situation géographique, son histoire et sa spiritualité, « la Russie constitue une civilisation à part entière (p. 167) ». Déjà dans son histoire, « la Russie – Eurasie (civilisation particulière) possédait tant ses propres valeurs distinctes que ses propres intérêts. Ces valeurs se rapportaient à la société traditionnelle avec une importance particulière de la foi orthodoxe et un messianisme russe spécifique (p. 146) ». Et quand il aborde la question de la Russie et de son peuple-noyau, les Russes issus des Slaves orientaux, Alexandre Douguine déclare son amour à son peuple et à sa terre. « Peuple du vent et du feu, de l’odeur du foin et des nuits bleu sombre transpercées par les gouffres des étoiles, un peuple portant Dieu dans ses entrailles, tendre comme le pain et le lait, souple comme un magique et musculeux poisson de rivière lavé par les vagues (p. 302) », les Russes incarnent un peuple tellurique.

 

Un conservatisme rénové

 

Via l’eurasisme s’élabore une nouvelle approche du conservatisme, un conservatisme repensé, révolutionnaire et adapté à la phase post-moderne des temps. Alexandre Douguine affirme que « le conservateur aime ce qui est grand et dans l’homme, il aime ce qui est grand et élevé (p. 111) ». Il est logique que « le conservatisme, défendant l’éternité, défend également l’éternité de l’homme, de l’homme en tant que structure douée de signes intangibles et d’une vie inaliénable. L’Homme est un concept conservateur (p. 110) ». La modernité libérale et le postmodernisme post-libéral nient au contraire l’homme singulier pour mieux valoriser un homme abstrait doté de droits fallacieux ou extravagants (voir la dernière lubie lyssenkiste en date avec la pseudo-théorie du genre).

 

« Pluralisme gnoséologique, [… l’eurasisme est] une forme spécifique de conservatisme, qui se différencie des autres versions de conservatisme proches (à la différence du libéral-conservatisme), par le fait qu’elle trouve une alternative au moderne non pas dans le passé, ou dans un renversement conservateur révolutionnaire exceptionnel, mais dans les sociétés cœxistant avec la civilisation occidentale mais géographiqement et culturellement distinctes d’elle (p. 101). » Fort de ce constat, Douguine se permet de « déconstruire » la démocratie dans sa pratique libérale hypocrite. Il remarque d’abord que « le principe de prise de décisions collectives constitue le fondement de la démocratie (p. 58) » et que « la démocratie constitue la forme d’organisation politique la plus ancienne, la plus archaïque, la plus primitive et, si l’on veut, la plus barbare (p. 57) ». Ne craignant pas de se mettre à dos les belles âmes occidentalocentrées, il assène que « la démocratie ne reconnaît aucunement l’égalité des individus. Elle comporte une limite très stricte qui sépare ceux qui ont le droit de participer à l’extase politique de la décision de ceux qui ne le peuvent pas (p. 58) ». L’octroi du droit de vote aux étrangers va à l’encontre de cette stricte différenciation et favorise plutôt « la tyrannie [qui] remplace la démocratie en tant que forme d’organisation politique plus contemporaine où pour la première fois se manifeste très clairement un individu distinct, dans notre cas le tyran (pp. 59 – 60) ».

 

L’émergence d’une nouvelle figure tyrannique résulte de l’occidentalisation du monde. « Puisque modernisation et occidentalisation constituent des synonymes (Occident = moderne), il est impossible de mener une modernisation séparée de l’Occident et de ne pas copier ses valeurs (pp. 127 – 128). » Pis, « la fosse noire et vide de sens du postmoderne réalisé brille au centre de l’Occident global, les États-Unis et les pays de l’Alliance transatlantique (p. 138) ». Or, « pour combler le vide, la Russie a besoin d’une nouvelle idée politique. Le libéralisme ne convient pas, tandis que le communisme et le fascisme sont inacceptables (p. 13) ». Dès lors, « seule une croisade mondiale contre les États-Unis, l’Occident, la mondialisation et leur expression politico-idéologique, le libéralisme, peut constituer une réponse adéquate (p. 55) », d’où l’importance d’une Quatrième théorie politique particulièrement adaptée à la Russie.

 

« La lutte contre la métamorphose postmoderniste du libéralisme en postmoderne et un globalisme doit être qualitativement autre, se fonder sur des principes nouveaux et proposer de nouvelles stratégies (p. 22). » C’est le but tactique de l’eurasisme et de la Quatrième théorie politique. Contre le « nomadisme de l’asphalte (p. 258) » célébré par les médiats occidentaux globalitaires ultra-individualistes et ochlocratiques, Alexandre Douguine, en chrétien orthodoxe vieux-croyant conséquent, désigne l’atlantisme, « mal absolu (p. 258) », comme l’hérésie contemporaine contre laquelle le combat doit être implacable. « Pour les eurasistes, le moderne est un phénomène spécifique à l’Occident tandis que les autres cultures doivent démasquer les prétentions à l’université de la civilisation occidentale et construire leur société sur leurs valeurs internes (p. 101). »

 

De l’empire au grand espace

 

Guidé par les travaux de Johann Gottfried von Herder, Friedrich Ratzel, Jean Parvulesco et Raymond Abellio, Alexandre Douguine veut que « l’eurasisme se positionne fermement non pas en faveur de l’universalisme, mais en faveur des “ grands espaces ”, non pas en faveur de l’impérialisme, mais pour les “ empires ”, non pas en faveur des intérêts d’un seul pays, mais en faveur des “ droits des peuples ” (p. 207) ». Dans un monde enfin multipolaire, chaque pôle d’influence mondiale s’édifiera autour d’un grand espace géo-culturel particulier.

 

Homme de Tradition qui se réfère à l’ethnosociologie, à la géopolitique et à la théologie, Alexandre Douguine se défie des concepts d’État et de nation. Si le premier, malgré sa froideur intrinsèque, reste pour lui nécessaire, le second ne correspond pas à l’esprit des steppes eurasiennes. Mais sa critique ne coïncide pas avec celle des libéraux. En effet, pour un libéral, « la “ nation ” désignait l’ensemble des citoyens de l’État, dans lequel s’incarne le contact des individus qui le peuplent, unis par un territoire de résidence commun, ainsi que par un même niveau de développement de l’activité économique (p. 41) ». Quant à l’État-nation, il « représentait une sorte de “ corporation ” ou d’entreprise, créée selon l’accord mutuel de ses participants et qui peut être théoriquement dissoute pour les mêmes raisons (p. 42) ». Or, répondant aux discours tenus par des « nationaux-souverainistes » russes, Douguine affirme que le destin de la Russie n’est pas de devenir une nation, mais de rester un empire. « Entre l’Empire et le “ grand homme ” (homo maximus), il existe une homologie directe. L’Empire est la société maximale, l’échelle maximale possible de l’Empire. L’Empire incarne la fusion entre le ciel et la terre, la combinaison des différences en une unité, différences qui s’intègrent dans une matrice stratégique commune. L’Empire est la plus haute forme de l’humanité, sa plus haute manifestation. Il n’est rien de plus humain que l’Empire (p. 111). » « L’empire constitue une organisation politique territoriale qui combine à la fois une très forte centralisation stratégique (une verticale du pouvoir unique, un modèle centralisé de commandement des forces armées, la présence d’un code juridique civil commun à tous, un système unique de collecte des impôts, un système unique de communication, etc.) avec une large autonomie des formations sociopolitiques régionales, entrant dans la composition de l’empire (la présence d’éléments de droit ethno-confessionnel au niveau local, une composition plurinationale, un système largement développé d’auto-administration locale, la possibilité de cœxistence de différents modèles de pouvoir locaux, de la démocratie tribale aux principautés centralisées, voire aux royaumes) (pp. 210 – 211). »

 

L’idée d’empire est plus que jamais d’actualité dans les faits, car, si l’Union européenne demeure un « empire hésitant (p. 218) », Alexandre Douguine souligne avec raison que les élites étatsuniennes raisonnent, elles, dans ces termes avec le Benevolent empire. Idem chez les islamistes qui rêvent, eux, d’un califat universel et dont « le projet islamique en tant que réponse à la mondialisation américaine coïncide pleinement avec la définition de l’empire. […] Il s’agit d’un projet d’empire mondial alternatif (pp. 217 – 218) ».

 

L’empire correspond de nos jours à la notion géopolitique de civilisation. « La mise en évidence de la civilisation en qualité de sujet de la politique mondiale au XXIe siècle permettra de mener une “ globalisation régionale ”, une unification des pays et des peuples qui se rapportent à une seule et même civilisation (p. 187). » En clair, faire des civilisations des « grands espaces ». Théorisé par Carl Schmitt, l’un des plus grands penseurs du XXe siècle, « le “ grand espace ” ne constitue qu’une autre dénomination de ce que nous comprenons sous le terme de civilisation dans son sens géopolitique, spatial et culturel. Un “ grand espace ” se distingue des États-nations existant aujourd’hui précisément en ceci qu’il se construit sur le fondement d’un système de valeurs et d’une parenté historique, ainsi que par le fait qu’il unit plusieurs, voire un grand nombre d’États différents liés par une “ communauté de destin ”. Dans différents grands espaces, le facteur d’intégration peut varier : dans un cas, la religion peut jouer ce rôle, dans un autre, l’origine ethnique, la forme culturelle, le type sociopolitique ou la situation géographique (p. 188) ».

 

Arme géopolitique anti-mondialiste par excellence, « le “ grand espace ” découle d’une stratégie anticoloniale et présuppose (d’un point de vue purement théorique) une alliance volontaire de tous les pays du continent s’efforçant d’affirmer collectivement leur indépendance (p. 194) ». Ainsi peut-on soutenir, concernant la politogenèse européenne, que « les continentalistes affirment que les États-Unis et l’Europe ont non seulement des intérêts divergents, mais également des valeurs divergentes (p. 140) » parce qu’avec les grands espaces civilisationnels, « il n’y aura aucun étalon universel, ni matériel, ni spirituel. Chaque civilisation recevra enfin le droit de proclamer librement ce qui constitue pour elle la mesure des choses. Ici, ce sera l’homme, là, la religion, ailleurs, l’éthique, ailleurs enfin, la matière (p. 191) ». Si l’Union européenne paraît dans l’impossibilité de former un grand espace impérial conscient de son destin, Douguine appelle cependant les Européens à ne pas céder au fatalisme et au pessimisme. Certes, « aujourd’hui l’axe Paris – Berlin – Moscou apparaît plus que jamais fantomatique mais […] de ces mêmes fantômes naissent parfois de grands phénomènes (pp. 229 – 230) ». Il souhaite en revanche que la C.E.I. (Communauté des États indépendants) et les autres organisations de coopération comme l’Organisation du traité de sécurité collective (O.T.S.C.), la Communauté économique eurasiatique (C.E.E.), l’Organisation de coopération centre-asiatique (O.C.C.E.) et l’Union de la Russie et du Bélarus jettent les bases solides de « l’empire eurasiste du futur (p. 223) » capable d’affronter l’Occident financiariste et mondialiste.

 

Dans cette lutte à venir (mais qui a dès à présent commencé avec les actions médiatiques des bandes pétassières des Pussy Riots et des FemHaine ou les attaques anti-russes des cloportes du Congrès étatsunien), la Russie est à l’avant-poste de la bataille. Toutefois, Douguine se désole que « la position du pouvoir russe contemporain envers l’Occident (dans son incarnation actuelle) demeure indéterminée. Le pouvoir a rejeté un occidentalisme direct sans pour autant occuper une position alternative (slavophile, eurasiste). Le pouvoir s’est figé, de même que quelquefois un ordinateur cesse de fonctionner. Ni dans une direction, ni dans l’autre (p. 165) ». Il déplore que les blindés ne se soient pas entrés dans Tbilissi à l’été 2008. Ces atermoiements sont préjudiciables à la Russie qui, en tant que Troisième Rome potentiel, pourrait déjà pratiquer une diplomatie multipolaire, « même si actuellement seuls l’Iran, le Venezuela, la Syrie, la Bolivie, le Nicaragua, la Corée du Nord, la Biélorussie et, avec prudence, la Chine, la défendent (p. 163) ».

 

Dépassement des idéologies modernes et formulation nouvelle d’un conservatisme traditionnel et impérial, « la Quatrième théorie apparaît donc comme un projet de “ croisade ” contre le postmoderne, la société post-industrielle, le projet libéral réalisé dans la pratique, le globalisme et ses fondements logistiques et technologiques (p. 23) ». C’est une déclaration de guerre qu’il convient d’apprécier ! L’assomption de l’Europe passe bien par la Quatrième théorie politique.

 

Georges Feltin-Tracol

 

• Alexandre Douguine, La Quatrième théorie politique. La Russie et les idées politiques du XXIe siècle, avant-propos d’Alain Soral, Ars Magna Éditions, Nantes, 2012, 336 p., (B.P. 60 426, 44004 Nantes C.E.D.E.X. 1). Pour recevoir le livre, écrire à l’éditeur, en accompagnant cette demande d’un chèque de 32 € franco.

 

---

 

Article printed from Europe Maxima: http://www.europemaxima.com

 

URL to article: http://www.europemaxima.com/?p=2958

Remembering Sven Hedin

Remembering Sven Hedin

By Savitri Devi

Ex: http://www.counter-currents.com/

Editor’s Note: 

We are presenting the following excerpts from Savitri Devi’s And Time Rolls On: The Savitri Devi Interviews ^[2] in honor of the birthday of the great Swedish explorer Sven Anders Hedin (February 19, 1865–November 26, 1952). For a brief account of his life and work, see his Wikipedia ^[3] article. 

Hedin’s feats of exploration and his magnificent books recommend him to the attention of all mankind. What recommends him to the North American New Right is his devotion to the survival and flourishing of European man and civilization, which he believed was endangered by both communism and Anglo-Saxon capitalism.

As a Swede and a European, Hedin saw the Second German Reich as the best vehicle for the preservation of European civilization, and when Germany revived under the Third Reich, he reposed his hopes there, enjoying the friendship and admiration of Adolf Hitler, Hermann Göring, and other leading National Socialists.

As this text also makes clear, Hedin had more than a nodding knowledge of the traditional religions and spirituality of Asia.  

. . . I came back to England from Iceland at the end of ’47, and there I had to struggle a long time too. Until it was possible for Mr. Mukherji to send me a little money. He was himself in difficulty at the time. He had no job after the war. His past injured him a lot from the point of view of jobs. In fact, he couldn’t send me anything until ’48. But I already had a job. I got a job in the dancing company of Ram Gopal as a dresser.[1] I had to take care of the costumes of the girls and all that. It was not badly paid: £5 a week in England, £10 a week abroad. I was taken to France. I was taken to Norway. I was taken to Sweden. We stayed two-and-a-half months in Sweden, and that took me to June ’48.

Of course, I didn’t like the surroundings very much, and I don’t mean the surroundings in Sweden. I mean the surroundings in the company. The stage manager, Mr. Ben Topf, was a Jew. A Jew who said in the train he would like to see the larders full and the arsenals empty in Germany, naturally. And I hated him for it. [. . .]

In Sweden on the 6th of June, 1948 I met somebody extraor­dinary. I met Sven Hedin.[2] I wanted to meet him. I knew he was one of our people. But they told me, “Sven Hedin meets nobody after ’45. He doesn’t want to meet anybody. You can try.” So I wrote a letter to him, and he said, “Yes, you can come on Sun­day. You can come at 2:00.” I came there at 2:00, and I told him, “You see, we are going to Germany on the 14th.” I had been spending two or three nights, up all night, writing papers.[3] I had intended to spend all my salary in Sweden buying chocolate, sardines, butter, cigarettes, putting a paper in each box and throwing them from the windows of the Nord Express. We were going to pass through Germany. “And I’d like to know, can we have any hope?”

He said, “Why do you say, ‘Can we have any hope?’ Do you have no hope?” I said, “Well, I’m doing this just as an act of defiance, but what to do? Those of Nuremberg, they have killed them.” Sven Hedin said, “Don’t fear. Germany has more such men.” I said, “Yes, but when will they appear?” “They’ll appear in time.” And I said to him, “What about the Führer? Is he dead or alive?” He said, “Whether he’s dead or alive, he’s eternal. What does it matter to you?” I said, “I’ll never see him if he’s really not alive.” “Well, even if you do see him, what difference would it make? The war is lost anyhow. And his ideas are true anyhow, even with a lost war.” I said, “You are right. You are right.”

And with this sort of talk and with the encouragement he gave me, he said, “You can distribute your papers if you like, all through Germany. If you get into trouble . . .” I said, “I don’t care. I don’t care if I spend my life in an Allied concentration camp.” “In that case, carry on.” I felt my wings, my old wings were growing again. He wanted to give me supper, if you please. I never expected it. “It is 7:00 now, you can have supper with me.” I said, “At 7:00 I must be at the theater. It’s a night show. I have to be there. It’s my job.” He said, “All right.” So I went.

The first person I met in the theater was Ben Topf. He looked at me and said, “Mrs. Mukherji, what happened to you?” I said, “Nothing happened to me.” “You look 20 years younger.” I said, “Do I?” I said, “I met a great man.” “What kind of great man?” I said, “Sven Hedin, the great explorer of Central Asia. The one who found out the real way that Lop Nor and other Central Asian lakes go around and round and round. They fol­low the same route.” He said, “For that you are so pleased to meet that man?” And I said, “Yes I am. I am interested in arche­ology and explorations. What can you expect?” He didn’t believe me, of course. He found it queer. He wouldn’t have found it queer for long.

And Time Rolls On, pp. 54–56

In October ’46, I was staying at 104 Grosvenor Road, in a very quiet room. It was a building for nurses, a kind of hostel for nurses. They used to sleep in the daytime. At night they were on duty. So it was perfectly quiet in the daytime and at night. And that’s what I wanted. I liked physical peace. So I was there on the night of the 15th to 16th of October ’46. And I never read the papers. I didn’t want to read them. I didn’t want to see the evolution of the trial at Nuremberg. I hated it. But I couldn’t sleep. I couldn’t. I couldn’t detach my mind from the fact that I knew, without reading the papers—every­body knew it—that the 11 were to be killed on that night.

I was thinking about it. I was thinking about it. And then sud­denly, I was not asleep, but I felt exactly as I used to feel after my exercises at Hatha yoga ten years before.[4] I was no longer in that room. I don’t know how I went through the walls. I was in Göring’s cell. And I saw Göring just as I see you. He was seated with his hands like this.[5] And suddenly he did like that. As though he saw me and was rather astonished. I had some­thing in my right hand, a tiny little piece of I don’t know what, something I held. And I said to him, “No fear”—“keine Angst.” “No fear. I’m not an enemy. I’m one of your people. I wish I could save you all from this ignominy, but unfortu­nately the heavenly powers gave me permission to save one, and one only, up to my choice, and I chose you because of your kindness to creatures. Because of your solicitude to ani­mals.”

Göring had been a hunter in his youth. He had given it up. And he liked animals, that’s true. But some hunters do at the same time they’re hunters. He had a leopard for a pet. The leopard used to lie at his feet and purr, like a big cat. I knew that. What I knew also was that he contributed with the Führer to the setting up of the Reichsjagdgesetz,[6] a book thick like that. It is much more than a regulation of hunting. It’s a protection of nature. Traps are forbidden. One man hunting by himself is forbidden. It must be two. If an animal is wounded the other one will shoot it. Mustn’t kill fe­males. Mustn’t, mustn’t, mustn’t, mustn’t. The Führer could not forbid hunting altogether. He did what he could to lessen the effect, and Göring had a part of that.

That I knew before I got into this kind of queer state. I said to him, “Take this,” and gave him what I had in my right hand. I said, “Take this, and don’t allow these people to kill you as a criminal. You are not one. Anything but. Now I must go. Good-bye. Heil Hitler!” And I vanished. And I didn’t see any­thing of the kind. I fell completely unconscious after that. I saw Göring, and I was unconscious. I gave him whatever I had to give him. I was unconscious.

I woke up. It was 10:00 in the morning. I never wake up at 10:00. I wake up at 6:00. I never sleep like that. I opened my eyes. I said, “What a queer experience I had. Where did I go last night?” Anyhow, I bathed quickly, and I went downstairs. It was a rainy day, drizzly. I never bought a paper as I told you. I wasn’t going to buy the paper on the 16th of October, anything but. But I couldn’t help seeing the headlines on the papers. There was a newspaper kiosk just opposite. Headlines like that. Eight centimeters high. “Göring found dead in his cell, half past two in the morning. Nobody knows who gave him the poison. Potassium cyanide.”

I’ll never forget it. And I felt cold all over my body. It seemed to me that I saw the Nataraja, the dancing Shiva, as he is presented in Hindu tem­ples, dancing in the clouds. And I said, “If this has been done through me, use me in greater things still. If it’s me, that’s the best thing I did in my life.” I don’t know what really happened, to this day. I know what experience I had. I know what I felt. I know what I saw. I don’t know anything more. Is it a genuine experience? What is it? I just don’t know. I don’t pretend to know, and I don’t like to speak of what I don’t know.

Less than two years later, on June 6th, 1948, I met Sven Hedin, who is a scholar of Tibetology and has roamed all over Central Asia and seen things in Ladakh and Tibet. I asked him, “What would people in Ladakh or Tibet think of this?” He said, “My dear, they would find that the most natural thing in the world. That is no problem for a Tibetan or for a Ladakhi, for a Buddhist Lama. No problem at all. You went into the astral plane. You gave Göring some astral potassium cyanide, and it materialized in his hand. He took it and died, instead of being hanged.” I said, “I wish I could’ve done it for the 11.” “Well, you could for one. Be thankful that you could for one.” That’s what Sven Hedin told me. I don’t know any more than that. I never had a psychic experience in my life. That’s the only one.

And Time Rolls On, pp. 48–50

Notes

1. Ram Gopal (1912–2003) was one of the leaders of the revival of classical Indian dance and one of the most celebrated and widely traveled dancers of the 20th century. See his Rhythm in the Heavens: The Autobiography of Ram Gopal (London: Secker and Warburg, 1957).

2. On Hedin and Savitri’s first propaganda trip through occupied Germany, see Gold in the Furnace, ch. 4, “The Unfor­gettable Night.”

3. Savitri supplies a translation of the flyer in Gold in the Furnace: “In the midst of untold hardships and suffering, hold fast to our glorious National Socialist faith, and resist! Defy our persecutors! Defy the people, defy the forces that are working to ‘de-Nazify’ the German nation and the world at large! Nothing can destroy that which is built in truth. We are the pure gold put to test in the furnace. Let the furnace blaze and roar! Nothing can destroy us. One day we shall rise and triumph again. Hope and wait! Heil Hitler!” (Gold in the Furnace, 34).

4. See ch. 3, §9 below.

5. According to Sven Hedin (1865–1952), diary entry of 6 June 1948, Savitri told him that, “Han satt med huvudet i händerna” (“He [Göring] sat with his head in his hands”) (The papers of Sven Hedin, box 41, National Archives of Sweden).

6. Reich Hunting Law.

---

Article printed from Counter-Currents Publishing: http://www.counter-currents.com

URL to article: http://www.counter-currents.com/2013/02/remembering-sven-hedin/

URLs in this post:

[1] Image: http://www.counter-currents.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Sven-Hedin.jpg

[2] And Time Rolls On: The Savitri Devi Interviews: http://www.counter-currents.com/2013/02/and-time-rolls-on-now-in-kindle-and-nook/

[3] Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sven_Hedin

Eurasian Doctrine of Kazakh President Nursultan Nazarbayev

Eurasian Doctrine of Kazakh President Nursultan Nazarbayev: "Thinking space"

 

Sergey V. Biryukov

 

Ex: http://www.geopolitica.ru/

 

Kazakhstan becomes a nodal point of the post-Soviet space today. In this context it should be considered not as an ordinary state, balancing between global "centers of power", but as a key element of the great intercivilizational zone stretching through the whole of Eurasia. Whether the zone stays what it was for centuries - the "inner corridor" of Eurasia, separating or linking its civilizations, depends on the Kazakhstan’s fate. That fact brings us inevitably to the geopolitical problems.

It should be noted that for many years Central Asia has been the object of interest for geopoliticians. From the point of view of traditional geopolitics Eurasia is not just a "gap" between "Great Europe" and "Great Asia" - but it is a special cultural and civilizational world, a self-organizing "great space."

 

It should be observed that the debate about the nature and purpose of space in modern geopolitical thought is far from being over. Positivist science of political geography focuses on the phenomena of "objective" external character: the balance of weapons, geographical location of transit infrastructures, etc.

 

Traditional geography and geopolitics are based on the idea of ontological heterogeneity of terrestrial space, on the prevalence of anthropological, civilizational, religious and spiritual factors in determination of the fate and vocation of many nations.

 

For example, modern French researchers do not like to call themselves "geopoliticians", but consider themselves most likely as geographers working at the intersections of geography and history. These sciences, in particular, express their deep surprise that in Germany they still speak about the “Space” (“Raum”) or the "Big space» (“Grossraum”) in the geopolitical discourse. 

 

The concept of “space” is considered “empty” or “abstract” by French researchers, who consequently prefer speaking about the “territory” which  they link to the interests of a certain community and a “collective identity formation”. As a result, according to the French approach the geopolitics itself is defined as the “analysis of contradictions among different types of power institutes of the territory” [1], which narrows the object to geopolitical study, replacing it actually with political geography. 

 

At the same time, within the Eurasian geopolitical research school the desired synthesis has been carried out, and as a result the category of "space" has acquired human, historical, cultural and civilizational contents. That synthesis was embodied in the concept of "local development" which denotes the inseparable connection of space with history and destiny of individuals, societies and nations, with the unique cultural characteristics of the civilization.

 

 As an example of such a "local development" (a model of political, social and economic development which character is defined by country or region location) can be considered as Eurasia in general, so Kazakhstan with its great strategic power as the integral part of “Eurasian space”. What does "to think space" mean, for the founders of states and prominent public figures in this context? 

 

From the author’s point of view it means, first of all, the possibility to correlate spatial, cultural, civilizational and socio-economic characteristics of the states they head with the logic of their history and contemporary political process, and the possibility to draw up the domestic and foreign policy course according to the long-term national, regional and global political trends.

 

One of the founding fathers of classical geopolitics theory K. Haushofer has the same point of view on the “Big space” concept. Speaking on formation of continental alliance connecting European and Asian continents he supposes that “every considerable formations and structures don’t appear ready from the head of some great statesman like the famous Greek goddess of war in her stately spiritual image. A competent person knows that the creation of such formations is a long-term process. I am pleased to admit young colleagues-geographers that I must produce evidence on the formation of a new Euro-Asian continental policy perhaps, more than any other senior representative of the geographical science ". [2]

 

The fullest realization of “thinking space” tendency has been  found in eurasianism  - the movement of Russian intellectuals emigrant groups connected on the first place with the attempt of understanding the origins and consequences of the October Revolution. The movement itself appeared in 1921 in Prague and Sofia, and was founded by four young emigrants from Belorussia - P. Savitsky, geographer, P. Suvchinsky, musicologist, N.Trubetskoy, philologist and Slavicist, Father G. Florovsky, religious philosopher and publicist. Among them there were such prominent Eurasians as religious thinker L.P. Karsavin, famous historian G.V. Vernadsky, lawyer and political scientist Nikolai Alekseev, orientalist V. Nikitin, writer V. N. Ivanov.

 

Much has been said on strong and weak sides of Eurasianism in the historiographical literature. It is admitted that Eurasianism is one of the most significant political theories of the twentieth century bringing up the question on determination of Eurasia’s place in the world. The fact that Eurasians find grounds for necessity of harmonious coexistence of Slavic and Turkish people, Orthodox Christianity, Islam and Buddhism, as a guarantee of integrity and stability of the post-Soviet space are also very important.

 

In parallel the negative sides of the Eurasian doctrine are accentuated. It's pretty clear that when taken to the extreme Eurasianism can act as an ideology justifying totalitarian and autarchic model, causing isolation from the West.

 

How do the subsequent interpretation of this doctrine reproduce and (or) overcome the disadvantages of the "classical Eurasianism"? Perhaps the biggest scientific interpreter of the Eurasianism ideology is Lev Gumilev (1912 - 1992) – a famous Russian historian, anthropologist and philosopher, author of the original teaching about the nature and life of ethnic groups - ethnology. His decade stay at the camp with one of the founders of Eurasianism Peter Sawicki influenced much on his views formation.

 

Actually there were three main ideas of Gumilev’s "Eurasian conception": the first two were adopted, the third was original. The first of them considers the Russian Empire and the USSR historical forms of Eurasian statehood, coming from the empire of Genghis Khan. The second defines the Turkic and Muslim Eurasian peoples as Russian natural allies in their fight against West expansion, as it is equally fatal to any of the "Eurasian power" to unite with it. [3]

 

However, despite the original and profound Gumilev’s interpretation of Russian history, Eurasianism remained for him mainly a geopolitical metaphor. The prominent Russian historian and ethnologist has not formulated yet his specific proposals to arrange the political and socio-economic life of Eurasian countries and peoples. It took time to perceive deeply and completely his ideas.

 

And the time has come. 1990s was the time of large-scale policy changes related to political self-determination and self-assertion in the post-emerging new nation-states, with special and important place occupied by Kazakhstan. At the same time, the 1990s was the period of an increasing interest to the Eurasianism and the conception of underestimated outstanding scientist L. Gumilev.

 

  To bring the key imperatives of Eurasianism to life its entirely new interpretation has been required, as well as the escape from the "mythopoetic" shade, specification of its cultural and civilizational imperatives. This kind of a "modernization" of the Eurasian studies could be used for searching for the most appropriate model of economic and political organization of the post-Soviet space.

 

Thereupon it is no mere chance that the most active and consistent supporter of the Eurasian concept concerning modern political realities is the president of the Republic of Kazakhstan Nursultan Nazarbayev. The leader of a young and dynamic state saw its realization in his project of the Eurasian Union, subsequently implemented in practice in the model of the Eurasian Economic Community (EAEC), and the Customs Union of Russia, Kazakhstan and Belarus founded in 2010.

 

The Eurasian Union project declared in the mid 1990s yet, was supposed to unite new independent CIS states (conserving their political sovereignty) into a common economic space. A little later, N. Nazarbayev repeated his offer with a new meaning - he proposed the creation of the Eurasian Economic Union. This project, as experience has shown, had the fundamental political, historical and cultural base as a result of the Kazakhstan’s specificity as a Eurasian power. The ideology of Eurasianism was officially recognized in Kazakhstan, and one of Kazakhstan's leading universities - the Eurasian National University in Astana - was named after a prominent ideologist of Eurasianism Lev Gumilev.

 

In general we can distinguish following basic features of the "Eurasian concept" by President Nursultan Nazarbayev. In the author’s opinion, they consist in a firm compliance with the following principles:

1) A realistic character, absence of "the ideology primacy";

2) The tendency to connect firmly the idea of "Eurasian integration" in the post-Soviet space with the purposes and objectives of modernization;

3) Focus on the priority of interests of the Republic of Kazakhstan as a sovereign independent State;

4) Realistic reflection of the current state of "the post-Soviet space" and main trends of its development.

5) Review of the prospects of "Eurasian integration" in the context of a multidirectional strategy adopted by the Kazakh government.

6) The tendency to close coordination of the economic and political integration.

7) consulting not only Kazakh and Russian interests within the "Integration Project," but the interests of Central Asian states as well. [4]

 

What factors ensure the success of the geopolitical position of Kazakhstan? Firstly, as Kazakh experts noted, Kazakhstan, represented by the leader Nursultan Nazarbayev, has a strong political will. Secondly, after years of independence Kazakhstan has practically implemented its will in the unique economic, social, political and humanitarian projects of modernization. Thirdly, the Republic of Kazakhstan is the heir of the centuries-old nomadic culture, which passionarity has strongly affected the global world formation since ancient times. Today this passionarity has been realized in proposing a number of initiatives answering the meaning and the essence interpreted in the frames of the contemporary Eurasian doctrine.

 

It is president Nazarbayev who has consistently been reinforcing the status of Kazakhstan as the leader country of the Central Asian region, who seeks to carry out in practice Eurasian principles interpreted in a modern key without confirming to politics or economics. Nursultan Nazarbayev is also an author of cultural and civilizational initiatives (World and traditional religions forum) in the contemporary crisis of the world and is trying to strengthen the dialogue between countries, civilizations and continents. Kazakhstan, a member of the main important institutions of post-Soviet space (CSTO, EurAsEC, Customs Union) and international organizations (the Organization “the Islamic Conference”), expanding its cooperation with the European countries within the OSCE, can play a very important role in establishment and realization of the multilateral partnership.

 

All these achievements and efforts could not stay unnoticed by western and eastern leaders. In this context it is not surprising that for the past several years, many states, representing those cultural civilizational "worlds", seek the partnership with Kazakhstan as a promising economic partner and a key political actor in the complex and little predictable Central Asian region.

 

Due to the realization of complex strategies by the leader of the nation modern Kazakhstan successively transforms into the Eurasian hub, one of the most dynamic and stable states in the territory of the CIS. At the same time, it serves a good example of inter-ethnic and religious tolerance, moderate Muslim country that has become a sort of a "bridge between East and West."

 

Domestic policy strategy of Kazakhstan answers the Eurasian imperatives, particularly in the field of nation-building politics. Over the centuries destinies of many people with different cultures, religions and traditions crossed on the historical Kazakh land. So the unique situation was created in when representatives of 140 ethnic groups and 40 confessions live peacefully together with the Kazakhs. Meanwhile a long-term cohabitation of different ethnic groups has formed a strong tradition of tolerance in the society.

 

Thus, today there are all necessary foundations for leaders, elites and peoples of Russia, Kazakhstan and Belarus to make a new decisive and qualitative step to the “Eurasian integration” - the orientation founded in the early 1990s by the national leader, president of Kazakhstan, Nursultan Nazarbayev, who has updated and is filled in the ideology of Eurasianism with a modern and concrete meaning.

 

Cited literature:

1. Lacoste Y. Fuer eine neue und umfassende Konzeption der Geopolitik // Welttrends. – 1994. - № 4. – P. 24.

2. Хаусхофер К. Континентальный блок // Элементы. – 1997. - №7. – P. 32.

3. Гумилев Л. Н. Заметки последнего евразийца. // Наше наследие. – 1991. - № 3. - P. 24 - 26.

4. Назарбаев Н. А. Евразийский союз: идеи, практика, перспективы, 1994-1997. – М.: Фонд содействия развитию соц. и полит. наук, 1997.  – 497 p.

 

English translation by Natalia Biryukova

 

ON THE EURASIAN ROOTS OF INDIAN SPIRITUAL TRADITIONS

Kashmir Shaivism and Slavic-Russian Mysticism

Acharya Peter Wilberg

Ex: http://granews.info/

1.       Historical Introduction and Background

This essay will seek to show that here is no more profound and powerful counterpart and complement to Indian wisdom traditions than Slavic-Russian Mysticism and its relation to Nordic-Arctic climate and culture. There is now both archaeological and linguistic evidence to show that  the Vedas and Upanishads and Tantras (including those of Kashmir Shaivism) all had their roots in a highly advanced pre- or proto Indo-European and Arctic civilisation covering the entire area known as Eurasia and with centres not only in the Indus Valley but in many other ancient civilisations such as Sumeria and also Russia and the Arctic.  This pre-historic or ‘primordial’  civilization was founded by ruler priests and teachers from other planets and/or planes of consciousness called ‘Urs’ in the Nordic-Arctic region (‘Ur’ being cognate with the German prefix ‘Ur-’ which means ‘primordial’ – and recalling also both  the Urals in Russia and the name of the Sumerian city called Ur, Uru or Urim. 

According to Levashov (The Untold History of Russia)

“Urs became tutors and guides to the rest of the people. They protected an initially rather small number of settlements of ‘ordinary’ people both from wild nature and ‘biped predators’. Urs trained people and helped them to master primary technologies, and gave them the knowledge necessary for them at that moment as well as knowledge that would be called for only in millennia.

Urs taught them and gave them into the charge of a special caste of keepers – volkhvs[1], who in due time were to convey conserved knowledge, having carried them through millennia and preserved as much of it as possible.

For this purpose those keepers-volkhvs received two runic alphabets, each of them was used by volkhvs of different levels of initiation. Those alphabets were da’Aryan and h’Aryan letters[2].

The memory of Urs, the teachers, has remained in language, for example, in the word ‘cult-ur-e’, which means a system of moral and spiritual concepts, which were transferred by Urs to their wards, the Ruses.

The two-caste system of the ancient Slavs reverberated in the names given them by their neighbours. For instance, the majority of Asian neighbours called an inhabitant of the Slavoniс-Aryan Empire as ‘ur-rus’, uniting the self-names of these two castes in a single word. Even now many Asian neighbours call Russians in the old fashioned manner, as ‘Urruses’.

There was a time when the names of the Slavonic tribes were formed by the addition of prefixes to the root ‘rus’, reflecting distinctive features of these tribes of Ruses, for example, Et-rus-can, P-rus-sian. The prefix ‘et’ before the self-name of Ruses means ‘elucidated Ruses’ – the carriers of highcult-ur-e. The proof of their existence has been found in the north of Italy in the form of inscriptions on stones and works of art. The name ‘Prussian’ meant ‘Ruses of Perun’[3], their other self-name was Venedas[4] (bellicose tribes of western Slavs), was kept in the self-name of the territory where they lived up to the 19th-20th centuries even after the German (gothic) tribes seized this land in 9th-10th  centuries A.D. The gothic tribes destroyed the majority of Prussian-Slavs, assimilated the rest amidst them and borrowed their name. After that one of the German tribes that lived on this territory began to call themselves ‘Prussians’; in the 19th century they played a key role in the merger of German tribes into a united state.

During the thousands of years of history of the Slavs, who initially had a united culture and language, the formation of self-names of the different Slavonic tribes was influenced by different factors. In the Urs’ time all Slavonic tribes have the second name ‘Ur-rus’. After the Urs’ disappearance their functions had to be distributed between their wards, Ruses.

This led to the formation of several castes: a caste of Volkhvs, carriers of knowledge and traditions; a caste of professional warriors, defenders from external enemies; a caste of handicraftsmen, grain-growers and cattlemen. At the top of all castes was a patrimonial aristocracy.

After the Urs’ disappearance, Ruses added to the common tribal name (Rus) one or another prefix reflecting their basic type of activity (Et-rus-can, P-rus-sian).”

The ancient pre- or proto-Aryan civilisation that Levashov describes, with a caste system clearly similar to that of Vedic civilisation, was essentially a Eurasian civilisation with multiple centres, not only in the Indian sub-continent, but also in Sumeria (whose language was neither Indo-European nor Semitic), Babylon and Assyria, the Egyptian Middle Kingdom, Minoan Crete, Troy and Mycenae – and as recent  discoveries show it also had centres in Russia and the Arctic. Evidence for this was found in 1987, when archaeological discoveries were uneathed in the Southern Urals (the so-calledARKAIM site) of an earlier ‘Arctic’ civilisation. This was referred to by Herodotus, Hesiod, Homer and Pindra as Hyperborea (‘beyond the North Wind’ or Boreas) and by Virgil as Thule. It corresponds also to Asgard – the land of the Norse gods or Aesir, one of the nine worlds unified by the world tree called Yggdrasill  and described in the Nordic Eddas as the abode of the  god Odin and his wife Frigg and the site of his fortress – Valhalla. What has since come to be known as the Slavic Vedasshare a similar script to Sanskrit, similar scriptures to the Vedas, and similar sagas to the Eddas – describing a migration south from the Arctic as climatic conditions changed from temperate to glacial.  The singular of aesir is ás related  to the  Sanskrit word asura – referring to the ‘anti-gods’ opposed to but inseparable from their half-brothers, the celestial sura – known in Sanskrit as devasor ‘shining ones’ (from the root *diw meaning “to shine”).

What united all the centres of this proto-Indo-European or Eurasian civilisation was both the ‘pillar’ connecting Sky (ARKA) and Earth (IM)  - also one important meaning of the Shivalingam – and theswastika/svastika symbol  found in so many ancient cultures. This is now understood not as a solar or sun symbol alone but as representing a spiralling or spinning galaxy. In this context it is interesting to note that the Slavic svastika symbol, called kolovrat means ‘spinning wheel’ – just as the Sanskrit chakra also means a ‘wheel’ which turns or spins.   

Neither svastika nor kolovrat essentially symbolise the sun however. For ancient Eurasian religious cultures worshipped the pole star rather than the sun – that star, close to the constellation of the bear (URSA) which lights up the darkness of the night sky and points us North i.e.  towards the planet Nibiru from which the Sumerian ruler-priests were thought to have come, toward the pole star – and toward the giant ‘black hole’ or ‘black sun’ at the very centre of our galaxy around which both the earth and the entire solar system turns or ‘spins’.  All the different geographical centres of the Eurasian civilisation however were seeded and guided long ago in the past by the advanced knowledge of their extra-terrestrial ruler priests or Urs. Conversely however, the rebirth in Russia of a future Eurasian culture and civilisation - one that will replace the currently dominant global capitalist culture of the U.S.A. - was anticipated by the German theosophist Rudolf Steiner. One of the chief current advocates of spiritual-political Eurasianism in Russia is Aleksandr Dugin – erstwhile organiser of the now-banned National Bolshevik Party and National Bolshevik Front in Russia, and founder of the Eurasia Party – now called Eurasia Movement and now leader of the International Eurasian Movement. 

“In principle, Eurasia and our space, the heartland Russia, remain the staging area of a new anti-bourgeois, anti-American revolution …The new Eurasian empire will be constructed on the fundamental principle of the common enemy: the rejection of Atlanticism, strategic control of the USA, and the refusal to allow liberal values to dominate us. This common civilizational impulse will be the basis of a political and strategic union.” Dugin —The Basics of Geopolitics (1997)

2. The Metaphysics of Light and Darkness

As early as 1903, Lokamanya Bâl Gangâdhar Tilak (then proprietor of the Kesari and the Mahrattanewspapers, author of the Orion or Researches into the Antiquity of the Vedas) wrote a book presenting evidence of clear reference to an ‘Arctic Homeland’ in the Sanskrit Vedas and Zoroastrian Avestas.  This in turn formed the basis of a work by J.G. Bennett (metaphysical interpreter of the ‘4th Way’ spiritual movement of Gurdjieff and Ouspensky) entitled ‘The Hyperborean Origin of Indo-European Culture’.  A key argument that Tilak offers are numerous temporal indications in the Vedas of a ‘year’ in which, as is the case above the Arctic circle, the sun rises only once – making it the equivalent of a ‘day’. Nordic-Arctic countries in general are influenced culturally and psychologically by long periods of sunless winter darkness, interspersed with only brief summers in which the sun shines through the night.

This brings us to the central metaphysical theme of this essay – namely that there is no more profound and powerful counterpart  and complement  to both the Vedas, Upanishads  and Kashmir Shaivism itself than Slavic-Russian Mysticism and its relation to Nordic-Arctic climate and culture.

For whereas Kashmir Shaivism places special emphasis on the ‘light’ of awareness, Russian mysticism and even the Russian Orthodox Church has always emphasised the ‘darkness’, ‘dark light’ or ‘luminous darkness’, as expressed in the blackness of the night sky and long winters, rather than the blue sky of summer. Inward depth and darkness of soul go together, just as outward expansiveness of soul goes together with light.

“The divine darkness is not the kind of blackness we experience stumbling into an underground room with no lights. This darkness is a positive reality that helps us to discover God, and hence is called “luminous.” Although it sounds like a contradiction in terms, a luminous darkness is one filled with God’s presence, and by faith, the soul can begin to perceive God in darkness. In fact, the closer that God comes to the soul, the more intense the darkness becomes; it is then that all other things of this world are cleared away. The soul looks up to the Lord and never ceases to desire him.”

St. Gregory of Nyssa

If, as in Kashmir Shaivism, we understand God (Shiva) as ultimately identical with awareness as such or ‘pure awareness’ – and awareness as the ultimate sole reality (what I call The Awareness Principle) then we must also recognise that awareness itself is first and foremost an awareness of the ‘dark’ realm of ‘non-being’ constituted by infinite potentials of awareness – infinite potential consciousnesses or ‘beings’.  It is the very awareness of these potentials that ultimate leads to their actualisation and birth – like the birth of stars in the darkness of the cosmos.

Similarly, The Awareness Principle understands the key Kashmiri Shaivist term Spanda as a primordial tension (German ‘Spannung’) that literally spans the dark realm of potentiality (symbolised by the blackness of Ma Kali) and the light of awareness by which alone all things actual – including the sun and stars – become visible.  Spanda can be compared to a stretched string or ‘monochord’ strung between the twin poles of dark potentiality and illuminated actuality. The chord not only has a fundamental tone – the OM sound or Omkara, but also countless harmonics – each a unique tonal quality or ‘colouration’ of awareness. The Awareness Principle also recognises the universe as amultiverse – a multitude of parallel space-time universes all of which open up like bubbles of space and light within the darkness of a wholly non-extensional ‘space’ of potentiality. For just as light and ordinary ‘extensional space’ are inseparable, so also are ‘intensional’ space and darkness. Within any space-time universe light is what rays out from a centre towards a cosmic circumference, like light raying out from stars in the night sky. Darkness or ‘dark light’ on the other hand, is ‘light’ raying in from that cosmic circumference we behold as the blackness of the night sky itself and its ‘luminous darkness’ – illuminated at all times by the pole star.

According to the colour theory of both Goethe and Steiner, redness is light beheld through darkness. Blueness, on the other hand is darkness behold through light. Hence the two colour poles of the spectrum of darkness and light are red and blue. As the blue-throated one, Shiva has come to be associated with blue.  Yet as we know, one of the principal Vedic gods associated with Shiva isRudra – which is cognate with words such as ruddy or reddish. Similarly the syllable ‘rus’ in Russia is a proto-Slavic word for both bear and ‘reddish-haired’, cognate with ursus or ursa – the constellation of the Bear whose name combines the words ‘ur’ and ‘rus’.  Furthermore, the Slavic ‘s’  in ‘rus’ corresponds to the ‘d’ in the name Rudra itself, which also means ‘to howl’ – like a bear or wolf. Indeed, the Sanskrit ‘Shiva’ may itself be a loan word from the Tamil-Dravidian civa – meaning ‘red’ or ‘angry’. Blue and red have become of course powerful colour symbols in politics. Communists or those on the political left are ‘reds’. Conservatives or those on the political right on the other hand, are signified by the colour blue. Interestingly, since the collapse of the Soviet Union the flag of the Russian Federation is no longer purely red but red, white (the colour of the anti-Bolshevik ‘White Russians’) and… blue.  But let us return to Levashov:

“At the end of the 20th century, people got access to the Slavoniс-Aryan Vedas, which contained a lot of very interesting information that was vainly ignored by modern science. These unique manuscripts translated into modern Russian reveal that last glacial age was a consequence of the war between the Great Russenia and Antlania[5] (Atlantis). This war happened more than 13,000 years ago. Then people moved large distances of planetary scale by means of Vaitmans  [Sanskrit Vimanas]. So, those mysterious rhombic platforms on the three-dimensional map of Western Siberia are nothing else but landing grounds for Vaitmars. The last Vaitmars [travelers in the Vaitmans] left our planet Midgard-Earth about 3500 years ago when the Night of Svarog[6] began.

There is another interesting document – the Book of Veles. The last records in it were made by volkvs of Novgorod at the end of the 10th century. This book covers more than 20,000 years of Slavic history.

To learn something useful is always welcome, but did it happen like this in reality? Let us remember, that in the middle of the 11th century (according to the Christian calendar) a daughter of Jaroslav Mudry, princess Anna became the French queen. Arriving from the «wild» Kievan Rus, the princess did not consider that arrival as entering into civilized Europe but considered Paris a big village. This has documentary acknowledgement in the form of her letters.  She brought with her to the remotest depth of the provinces, which France was then, a part of the library, some books from which returned to Russia only in the 19th century and were found in the library of Mr. Sulakadzaev. It was he who made the first translation into modern Russian of the Book of Veles, which was composed of wooden plates with runic letters on them. After Sulakadzaev’s death his widow sold the greater part of his library to the Romanovs, and after that nobody heard anything about these books. The most interesting fact is that after the appearance of these copies, all originals without exception have disappeared – they either were burned down in bonfires of the inquisition, having been declared as heretical books, or were lost in ‘accidental’ fires and epidemics ‘affecting’ all ancient libraries.The libraries of Alexandria, Athens, and Tzargrad (Constantinopol), along with the Etruscan library in Rome, were burned down almost simultaneously. The libraries of Yaroslav I the Wise (978-1054) and Ivan IV the Terrible (1530-1584) disappeared without a trace. All originals were burned or disappeared, while the copies made from them so «opportunely» have been kept and cherished. Old books were destroyed; new ones were written. They were adjusted so that in new ‘history’ there was no any mention about the Slavonic-Aryan Empire. The period of history before the 10th century in Europe was declared as dark, barbarous centuries, which were illuminated by the light of education brought with the culture of the Sacred Roman Empire.”

Note firstly that the 10th century marked both the apotheosis and the beginning of the decline of Kashmir Shaivism. Note also that the very term ‘dark ages’ places a negative connotation on darkness. Then again, the Bible itself  (Genesis 1) admits that ‘darkness was over the surface of the deep’ even before God said ‘Let there be light’ and supposedly created heaven and earth.  Still today, however, inner knowing or gnosis is associated almost exclusively with ‘illumination’ or ‘en-lightenment’. This is paradoxical given that modern scientific and atheistic ‘rationalism’ had its source origin in the European ‘Age of Enlightenment’.  Yet the modern scientific mode of ‘rationality’ it gave rise to however, is now confronted with an ‘occult’ mystery that threatens to undermine its entire theoretical framework – the mystery of what physicists and cosmologists term ‘dark matter’ and ‘dark energy’ – whose nature is completely unknown but which is nevertheless acknowledged to make up 90% of the mass and two thirds of the ‘mass-energy’ of the universe. Levashov:

“…the last record in the Book of Veles and christening of Kievan Rus falls on the same time – the end of the 10th century according to contemporary chronology … What are these Days and Nights of Svarog? These words are mentioned in the Slavonic-Aryan Vedas quite often. It is time to understand what these concepts mean. There are several types of star accumulations in our Universe, such as spiral and spherical galaxies, star nebulas, etc. Our Sun is located in one of four sleeves of our spiral galaxy, in the «backyards» of this sleeve. Every spiral galaxy rotates around its nucleus while traveling on the star roads of our Universe. Seven primary matters form our Universe. The so-called, physically solid matter, which everybody is used to see as galaxies, nebulas, stars, planets, etc., appeared as a result of the merging of these primary matters in the areas of space, where necessary terms for this merging were observed. As proved by ‘scientists’,’physically’ solid matter makes only 10% of the whole matter of the Universe, and the rest (90%) is so-called ‘dark matter’. However, they do not specify what this “dark matter,” which can not be registered by any known modern scientific tool, is; we will forgive them this ‘insignificant misunderstanding’ and will move on to business.”

The galactic ‘nucleus’ that Levashov refers to is recognised to be a huge ‘black hole’ – itself a portal linking our universe to other universes in the ‘honeycomb’ plurality of multiple universes or ‘multiverse’. The types of ‘primary matter’ that Levashov refers to are what is now ‘scientifically’ termed ‘dark matter’. He refers also to the ‘psi-generators’ used in early civilisations, and those which he himself employs as medium of both healing and natural growth and regeneration. These he sees as “made of dark matter” and therefore essentially neither detectable by or requiring any technical or physical instrumentation, except as outward symbols for the subjective manipulation of the dark matter in its different forms.

The Awareness Principle understand the forms of ‘dark matter’ that Levashov refers to as specific potentialities and qualities of awareness - and their dark power or ‘energy’ as the capacity or power (Shakti) for the actualisation of these potentials – itself released by interaction with the invisible lightof awareness (Paramashiva). On the physical plane, this interaction plays itself out as an interaction between solar and earthly magnetism – what we call ‘magnetism’  being itself a bipolar spatial flow pattern of the all-pervasive ‘aether’ of pure awareness known in Sanskrit as Akash.

In modern translations the tantric term Shakti is almost invariably translated as ‘energy’. A closer translation would be ‘power’ or ‘power of action’ (Shak). Indeed this translation of Shakti accords with the root meaning of the term ‘energy’ itself – not as some ‘thing in itself’ but as pure action – the actualisation of those powers or potentialities of action latent in space itself as the ‘aether’ of pure awareness. What I call ‘The Awareness Principle’ is the metaphysical understanding that awareness is ultimate reality – that ultimately ‘awareness is everything’ and ‘everything is awareness’. The Awareness Principle stands in direct contrast to ‘The Energy Principle’ shared by modern science and ‘New Age’ pseudo-science alike – namely the principle that ‘energy is everything’ and ‘everything is energy’. As a ‘Theory Of Everything’ (TOE) ‘The Energy Principle’ is a highly questionable one, resting as it does on an unquestioned notion of energy as some ‘thing in itself’, a notion that is at the same time a distortion of its root meaning as that ‘formative action’ (energein) through which all forms are actualised in awareness. Pure awareness then, like the seeming emptiness of space itself, is no mere formless void but a plenum of formative potentials.  ‘Energy’ in the root sense is the actualisation of these potentials – the emergence of form from the apparent formlessness of space.

The Sanskrit term akash is translated both as ‘space’ and ‘aether’, sometimes spelled ‘ether’. It is understood in Indian thought as pervaded by countless basic units or “animations of consciousness” (Seth) which constitute the very ‘air’ or ‘breath’ of awareness called Prana – and the quintessence of air as such. The Sanskrit term prana is etymologically cognate with the Latin-derived terms ‘spirit’ and ‘spiral’ (from spirare – ‘to breathe’). It is also cognate with the root meanings of the Greek words for ‘spirit’ and ‘soul’ – pneuma (meaning air or wind) and ‘psyche’ (‘vital breath’). To be ‘spiritual’ in the root sense of this word therefore, is to be capable, quite literally, of a wholly different type of re-spiration or breathing – a type of whole body ‘transpiration’ of the clear, luminous expansiveness of the space around us – not through our lungs alone but through every pore of our felt body surface. It is the long-lost experience of breathing the clear, luminous ‘air’ or ‘aether’ of awareness itself that lies concealed behind both the otherwise wholly vague Western notion of ‘spirit’, as well as different classical and modern-scientific notions of a cosmic ‘aether’. Its secret is that invisible breath or ‘air’ of awareness (Prana) that pervades the entirety of space (Akash), both the space around us and the space which pervades and makes up by far the largest proportion of each and every atom of ‘matter’. This space vibrates with spanda – the fundamental tensing spanning the realm of the potential and the actual, together with the vibration of the actual within the potential and of the potential within the actual. Spanda is also what resounds with the inner sound ‘OM’. Hence also the association in Indian thought of the Akash with the element of sound or vibration. The double meaning of the Sanskrit Akash as both ‘space’ and ‘aether’ goes together with the Greek meaning of the word aether itself – as that ‘upper’, less gaseous, purer and thus morespacious air of the sort we breathe at Himalayan mountain summits – or in Nothern polar regions such as the Arctic.  For aether was the ‘higher air’ breathed by the gods themselves in their uppermost abode – whether we call this Olympus, Hyperborea, Thule or Asgard.

Dark Forces?

“I’m not the Devil. I’m much, much older. I watched the beginning and I will see the end. I am the dark behind all the stars. I am the dark inside you all.”

…from the screenplay of the film ‘Event Horizon’

The Greek word Khaos refers to a gaping dark void or chasm. It is cognate with Sanskrit Kha andAkash – referring to space itself, understood as the womb of all things – including the gods. In contrast, the Sanskrit kala means ‘time’ As such it is connected with the name of the great black Indian mother goddess Kali (kal – black / kala – time). Metaphysically, she can be understood as both, the ultimate temporal circumference or ‘event horizon’ of this spatial womb (kala – time) and as an ultimate ‘black hole’ or ‘singularity’ at its heart. Put in other terms, the realm of pure potentiality symbolised by Kali is a realm of unbounded inwardness – an inwardness that cannot be perceived by looking out from some localised centre of consciousness in space, but only by looking inwards from an infinite periphery, circumference or ‘horizon’ of awareness.

If the actual physical universe is a realm of spatial and material extensionality, then the primordial realm of potentiality is a non-extensional realm – a realm of pure intensionality. As such, it is made up not of extensional material bodies in space-time but of pure intensities of awareness in an unbounded ‘time-space’. The massive density of intensities that constitute this realm of unbounded inwardness – deified as Kali – find manifestation only through gravitational densities of matter so great, that they have collapsed themselves into ‘black holes’ with a so-called ‘singularity’ at their core. In physical-scientific terms, a black hole is ‘black’ because at its ‘event horizon’ the gravitational pull of the ‘singularity’ is so great as to bend space itself around itself – allowing no light-information to escape  – only sound in the form of a fundamental tone (the primordial sound of silence known as the Omkara or ‘OM’ sound).

From a metaphysical perspective however, the apparent outer surface of every visible body in space is also an event horizon. For like the visible outer surface of the human body, every ‘physical’ body conceals an unbounded and invisible psychical interiority along with invisible psychical ‘events’. These can never be perceived from without, no matter to what degree the physical interiority of the body is opened up and physiologically examined. For, what we perceive as fleshly bodies, cells and organs too are but outer surface appearances or ‘event horizons’ concealing an invisible psychicalinteriority and invisible psychical events.

When the crew on board the fictional movie spaceship  called ‘Event Horizon’ start ‘hallucinating’ terrifying images of bodies invisible to others (and later perceive each other’s bodies in horrific form) is this because they have entered ‘hell’ in the Christian sense or because, under the influence of the ship’s black hole, they have also unconsciously penetrated the event horizon of their own and each other’s bodies – perceiving events and images within their otherwise invisible psychical interiority in outward bodily form? The root meaning of ‘hallucinate’ is ‘to wander’. The crew’s ‘hallucinations’ are an expression of their wandering into and within the realm of ultimate inwardness associated with the primordial “agony” of creation as described in ‘The SETH Material’ by Jane Roberts – in which what Seth calls ‘All That Is’ (in essence the ultimate and universal awareness) sought a way to release all the potential consciousnesses embraced but still contained in His nebulous, dreamlike awareness into that state of autonomous actuality or being into which they “clamoured to be released”.   

In reality then, every outwardly perceived body is an Event Horizon. And at the core of all material bodies is a ‘black hole’ or “Singularity of Awareness”. This singularity at the core of all material bodies is both a central point (Sanskrit Bindu) and a central tone linking that unit of extensional matter to all other bodies through that dark, intensional realm of unbounded inwardness and inexhaustible potentiality that “flows through and forms all matter”.

This flow is that of the higher air or aether of awareness itself in its twin but inseparable aspects of light and darkness. Darkness is the in-flow of an invisible and wholly translucent ‘light’ of awareness from the cosmic circumference towards a centre just as light is the outward radiance of that invisible light of awareness from a centre. If we learn to sense the entirety of ‘empty’ cosmic space above and surrounding the entire surface of our heads and upper bodies, we can come to to experience ourselves breathing in its innate aetheric vitality of that invisible light and feel its countless centres – each of which have the character of miniature, light-emitting ‘white holes’ – revitalising the inner spaces within every atom, cell and molecule of our body.

If, on the other hand, we sense our lower bodies and let awareness flow inwards from our abdominal surface towards the singularity of awareness at its centre – or a few inches below and behind our navel – we will experience that inner space of our abdomen or hara (Japanese) as filled with inner darkness or blackness. Each out-breath can then be experienced as both an inward and downward flow of a ‘dark light’ of awareness – one that not only rays inwards from the abdomen or toward itshara centre or tanden but also flows downwards from our lower body and abdominal centre to yet lower centres. This dark inward and downward flow of awareness ultimately reaches and roots down below the very ground beneath our feet and  towards the fiery core of the earth itself. Here we contact the ‘dark force’ known in occult literature as Vril or Kundalini – the fire of awareness that then rises from that molten and fiery core – whose spinning is known to be responsible for the earth’s magnetic field.

The felt surface of our bodies then, both unites and distinguishes two spaces or fields of awareness – one extending outward and upward to a heavenly cosmic circumference, the other downward and inward towards a bodily and earthly centre or ‘singularity’ of awareness. The relationship between these two different flows of awareness is essentially a relation between the invisible space or light of awareness in its dual character – as both light and darkness. It also finds expression as the relation between polar or axial magnetism on the one hand and ‘spherical’ magnetism or ‘magnetospheres’ on the other. Thus, like the earth itself, the body has both axial magnetic poles (North and South)  and a ‘magnetosphere’ – the outer surface or ‘event horizon’ surrounding the black hole at its gravitational centre and the fiery core into which it can lead – demonised as the ‘underworld’ or ‘hell’ in both religious mythology and science fiction. The word ‘hell’ however derives from the German Halle (hall) and the verb hallen – to echo or resound, as the  Omkara does from within the event horizon of a black hole.  Polar axial and vertical dimensions of light and darkness, space and gravity, electricity and magnetism are all expressions of axial and vertical flows of awareness – corresponding to the Shivalingam and the vertical axis of kundalini within our body of awareness.  On the other hand, spherical dimensions of light and darkness, space and gravity, electricity and magnetism – all express spherical boundaries, spaces and centres of awareness.

Beyond space, time and ‘space-time’

Time too has a spatial dimension – including a spherical one and not just a linear one. Like a sphere, time (Seth) has an outside and an inside. Behind and beyond ‘space’ ‘time’ and ‘space-time’ as physicists conceive it is a “spacious present” (Seth).  This is ‘space-time’ understood and experienced as a spherical time-space of awareness embracing and yet ‘outside’ all ‘space-time’ universes and embracing also all actual and potential pasts and futures – both of the cosmos and of human civilisation. The interweaving of the actual and potential in the realm of dreams and mythical possibilities – like the interweaving of dreams and mythologies that opens up new possibilities for humankind – are themselves nothing mythical but the ‘dreamtime’ and very loom or tantra of time-space. It finds expression today in the mythological history, credible actuality and futural possibility of the civilisation called ‘Eurasia’ – with both its multiple geographical centres and its single axial pole – pointing to the pole star and to the ‘black hole’ at the centre of our spinning galaxy or kolovrat.

Dream-Land

By a route obscure and lonely,
Haunted by ill angels only,
Where an Eidolon, named Night,
On a black throne reigns upright,
I have reached these lands but newly
From an ultimate dim Thule –
From a wild weird clime, that lieth, sublime,

Out of Space – out of Time.

Edgar Allen Poe 1844

3. Personal Postscript

I might not have come to write this piece were it not for the fact that, lying down on my mother’s sofa one afternoon in the late seventies or early eighties – and despite being wholly ignorant of what was then the still-undiscovered ARKAIM site -  I entered a hypnagogic state in which I experienced the strong but invisible presence of Rudolf and Marie Steiner beside me. Accompanying this, I had a most vivid and lucid dream of an isolated citadel of the future – from within which I found myself peering out at a vast steppe land, one which I knew from the Steiners to be somewhere in Russia – and the centre of a future civilization.

Links:

ARKAIM – ancient Russian city

Michael Kosok  The Singularity of Awareness

Peter Wilberg  THE AWARENESS PRINCIPLE

Peter Wilberg TANTRA REBORN – ON THE SENSUALITY AND SEXUALITY OF THE SOUL BODY

P.Wilberg  EVENT HORIZON – TERROR, TANTRA AND THE ULTIMATE METAPHYSICS OF AWARENESS

J. G. Bennett – THE HYPERBOREAN ORIGIN OF THE INDO-EUROPEAN CULTURE

Lokamanya Bâl Gangâdhar Tilak – THE ARCTIC HOME IN THE VEDAS

Levashov – THE UNTOLD HISTORY OF RUSSIA

INTERNATIONAL EURASIAN MOVEMENT

THE NATIONAL PEOPLES PARTY U.K.

INTERVIEW WITH ALEKSANDR DUGIN 

EVENT HORIZON – the film

THE BOOK OF VELES

---

[1]A Volkhv is a cleric, the Supreme priest, and a keeper of ancient sacred texts.

[2] Da’Aryan and h’Aryan characters (letters) are two of four kinds of writing of the Great Race: da’Aryan Trags, h’Aryan Runes, Sviatorussians Images (bukvitca, runica, cherty and rezy) and Russenian Molvitca.

[3] Perun was the god-patron of all soldiers, the defender of the land and the clan of SviatoRuses (Russians, Byelorussians, Asts, Lits, Lats,  Latgalls, Zemgalls, Polans, Serbs, etc.)

[4] Venedas were inhabitants of the Great Venea where Clans and tribes of Venedas migrated. It corresponds to the territory of modern Western Europe.

[5] Antlania was an island in the Atlantic Ocean where Slavonic clan of Ants was lodged. Then their land began to be called as Ant-lan, i. e., the Land of Ants. Ancient Greeks named it Atlantis and its inhabitants – atlantes (modern Ukrainians; U-krai-ne means in Russian outskirts («krai») of the Land of Holy Race).

[6] The Night of Svarog, according to Slavonic tradition, is the name of a dark difficult time when our solar system passes through spaces of the Dark Worlds; or Kali-Uga in Aryan or Indian tradition.

Interview of Dari Dugina

Interview of Dari Dugina :

“We Live In The Era Of The End”

 

Open Revolt is very happy to present a conversation between the Eurasian Youth Union’s Dari Dougina and our own James Porrazzo.

Dari, the daugher of Alexander Dugin, in addition to her work in the Eurasian Youth Union is also the director of the project Alternative Europe for the Global Revolutionary Alliance.

Dari you are a second generation Eurasianist, daughter of our most important thinker and leader Alexander Dugin. Do you care to share with us your thoughts on being a young militant this deep into the Kali Yuga?

We live in the era of the end – that’s the end of culture, philosophy, politics, ideology. That’s the time without real movement; the Fukuyama’s gloomy prophecy of the ”end of history” turns to be a kind of reality. That’s the essence of Modernity, of Kali Yuga. We are living in the momentum of Finis Mundi. The arrival of Antichrist is in the agenda. This deep and exhausting night is the reign of quantity, masked by the tempting concepts such as Rhizome of Gilles Deleuze: the pieces of the modern Subject changes into the ”chair-woman” from the “Tokyo Gore Police” (post-modern Japanese film) – the individual of the modern paradigm turns into the pieces of dividuum. ”God is dead” and his place is occupied by the fragments of individual. But if we make a political analysis we will find out that this new state of the world is the project of liberalism. The extravagant ideas of Foucault seemingly revolutionary in their pathos after more scruple analyze show their conformist and (secretly) liberal bottom, that goes against the traditional hierarchy of values, establishing pervert “new order” where the summit is occupied by the self-adoring individual, atomistic decay. 
That’s hard to fight against the modernity, but sure – it’s unbearable to live in it – to agree with this state of the things – where all the systems are changed and the traditional values became a parody – being purged and mocked in all spheres of controls of modern paradigms. That’s the reign of the cultural hegemony.
 And this state of the world bothers us. We fight against it – for the divine order – for the ideal hierarchy. The cast-system in modern world is completely forgotten and transformed into a parody. But it has a fundamental point. In Plato’s republic – there is very interesting and important thought: casts and vertical hierarchy in politics are nothing but the reflection of the world of ideas and higher good. This model in politics manifests the basic metaphysical principles of the normal (spiritual) world. Destroying the primordial cast system it in the society – we negate the dignity of the divine being and his Order. Resigning from the casts system and traditional order, brilliantly described by Dumezil, we damage the hierarchy of our soul. Our soul is nothing but the system of casts with a wide harmony of justice which unites 3 parts of the soul (the philosophical – the intellect, the guardian – the will, and the merchants – the lust). 
Fighting for the tradition we are fighting for our deep nature as the human creature. Man is not something granted – it s the aim. And we are fighting for the truth of human nature (to be human is to strive to the superhumanity). That can be called a holly war.

What does the Fourth Political Theory mean to you?

That’s the light of the truth, of something rarely authentic in the post-modern times. That’s the right accent on the degrees of existence – the natural chords of the world laws. That’s something which grows up on the ruins of the human experience. There is no success without the first attempts – all of the past ideologies contained in them something what caused their failure.

The Fourth Political Theory – that’s the project of the best sides of divine order that can be manifested in our world – from liberalism we take the idea of the democracy (but not in it’s modern meaning) and  liberty in the Evolian sense; from communism we accept the idea of solidarity, anti-capitalism, anti-individualism and the idea of collectivism; from fascism we take the concept of vertical hierarchy and the will to power – the heroic codex of the Indo-European warrior.

All these past ideologies suffered from grave shortcomings – democracy with the addition of liberalism became  tyranny (the worst state-regime by Plato), communism defended the technocentric world with no traditions and origins, fascism followed the wrong geopolitical orientation, its racism was Western, Modern, liberal and anti-traditional.

The Fourth Political Theory is the global transgression of this defects – the final design of the future (open) history. It’s the only way to defend the truth.

For us – truth is the multipolar world, the blossoming variety of different cultures and traditions.

We are against racism, against the cultural and strategic racism of the USA’s Western modern civilization, which is perfectly described by professor John M. Hobson in ”The Europocentric conception of world politics”. The structural (open or subliminal) racism destroys charming complexity of the human societies – primitive or complex.

Do you find any special challenges as both a young woman and a activist in this age?

This spiritual war against (post)Modern world gives me the force to live.

I know, that I’m fighting against the hegemony of evil for the truth of the eternal Tradition. It is obscured now, not completely lost. Without it nothing could exist.

I think that any gender and age has its forms to access  the Tradition and its ways to challenge  Modernity.

My existential practice is to abdicate most values of the globalist youth. I think we need to be different from this thrash. I don’t believe in anything modern. Modernity is always wrong.

I consider love to be a form of initiation and spiritual realization. And the family should be the union of  spiritually similar persons.

Beyond your father, obviously, who else would you suggest young militants wishing to learn our ideas study?

I recommend to make acquaintance with the books of Rene Guenon, Julius Evola, Jean Parvulesco, Henri Corbin, Claudio Mutti, Sheikh Imran Nazar Hosein (traditionalism); Plato, Proclus, Schelling, Nietzsche, Martin Heidegger, E. Cioran (philosophy); Carl Schmitt, Alain de Benoist, Alain Soral (politics); John M. Hobson, Fabio Petito (IR); Gilbert Durand, G. Dumezil (sociology). The base kit of reading for our intellectual and political revolution.

You’ve now spent some time living in Western Europe. How would you compare the state of the West to the East, after first hand experience?

In fact, before my arrival to Europe I thought that this civilization is absolutely dead and no revolt could be possible there. I was comparing the modern liberal Europe to bog, with no possibility to protest against the hegemony of  liberalism.

Reading the foreign European press, seeing the articles with titles as ”Putin – the satan of Russia” / ” the luxury life of poor president Putin” / ” pussy riot – the great martyrs of the rotten Russia” – this idea was almost confirmed. But after a while I’ve found some political anti-globalist groups and movements of France – like Egalite&Reconcilation,  Engarda, Fils de France etc – and everything changed.

The swamps of Europe have transformed into something else – with the hidden possibility of revolt. I’ve found the ”other Europe”, the ”alternative” hidden empire, the secret geopolitical pole.

The real secret Europe should be awakened to fight and destroy its liberal double.

Now I’m absolutely sure, that there are 2 Europes; absolutely different – liberal decadent Atlanticist Europe and alternative Europe ( anti-globalist, anti-liberal, Eurasia-orientated).

Guenon wrote in the ”Crisis of the modern world” that we must divide the state of being anti-modern and anti-Western. To be against the modernity – is to help Occident in its fight against  Modernity, which is constructed on liberal codes. Europe has it’s own fundamental culture (I recommend the book of Alain de Benoist – “The traditions of Europe”). So I found this alternative, secret, powerful, Traditionalist other Europe and I put my hopes on its secret guardians.

We’ve organized with Egalite&Reconcilation a conference in Bordeaux in October with Alexander Dugin and Christian Bouchet in a huge hall but there was no place for all the volunteers who wanted to see this conference.

It shows that something begins to move…

Concerning my views on Russia – I’ve remarked that the bigger part of European people don’t trust the media information – and the interest to Russia grows up – it’s seen in the mode of learning Russian, of watching soviet films and many European people understand that the media of Europe are totally influenced by the hegemonic Leviathan, liberal globalist machine of lies.

So the seeds of protest are in the soil, with  time they’ll grow up, destroying the ”society of spectacle”.

Your whole family is a great inspiration to us here at Open Revolt and New Resistance. Do you have a message for your friends and comrades in North America?

I really can’t help admiring your intensive revolutionary work! The way you are working – in the media – is the way of killing the enemy ”with it’s own poison”, using the network warfare strategy. Evola spoke about that in his excellent book ”Ride the tiger”.

Uomo differenzziato is someone who stays in the center of modern civilization but don’t accept it in his inner empire of his heroic soul. He can use the means and arms of modernity to cause a mortal wound to the reign of quantity and its golems.

I can understand that the situation in USA now is difficult to stand. It’s the center of hell, but Holderlin wrote that the hero must throw himself into abyss, into the heart of the night and thus conquer the darkness.

Any closing thoughts you’d like to share?

Studying in the faculthttp://openrevolt.info/2013/01/23/we-live-in-the-era-of-the-end-a-interview-with-dari-dougina/y of philosophy and working on Plato and neo-platonism, I can remark, that politics is nothing but the manifestation of the basic metaphysical principles which lays in the fundament of being.

Making political war for the Fourth Political Theory we are also establishing the metaphysical order – manifesting it in the material world.

Our struggle is not only for the ideal human state – it is also the holy war for reestablishing the right ontology.

http://openrevolt.info/2013/01/23/we-live-in-the-era-of-the-end-a-interview-with-dari-dougina/

Servië, van EU-kandidaat naar lid van de Russische Federatie

Chris Roman:

Servië, van EU-kandidaat naar lid van de Russische Federatie

Ex: http://www.eurorus.org/

De Europese Unie staat een zware klap te wachten. Na een periode van aantrekken van nieuwe lidstaten, begonnen van de oprichting tot heden, heeft de EU nu te maken met aankomend verlies van lidstaten. We kennen allemaal het domino-effect. Indien ééntje met iets begint, dan (pas) doen anderen mee.

We kennen allemaal eveneens de grote problemen waarmee de EU heden te kampen heeft: een munt die op instorten staat, landen die met het bankroet flirten, beknotting van de vrije meningsuiting, enorme toename van de armoede door het nefaste liberale beleid, enorme toename van de onveiligheid die niet steeds apart mag gezien worden van de enorme toestroom van vele door de Europese volkeren ongevraagde immigranten, denatalisatie doordat de Unie het krijgen en goed laten opvoeden van kinderen zowaar verhindert en de moord op ongeboren kindjes een handje toesteekt, corruptie, … De EU is stervende. Een ziekenwagen en spoedoperaties zullen niet veel meer verhelpen wegens de vergevorderde slechte en terminale toestand van de patiënt. Al deze problemen doen sommige lidstaten van EU overwegen om te … vertrekken !

Aparte Unie ?

De idee van het oprichten van een aparte Unie is niet nieuw. De leiders van de Scandinavische landen (Denemarken, Zweden, Finland en Noorwegen) overwegen het vormen van een Noordse Unie. Dezelfde ideeën vinden ook plaats in Tsjechië, Slovakije, Slovenië en de Baltische Staten. Zelfs Angela Merkel pleitte ooit voor het opdelen van de Euro in een Noordelijke Euro en een Zuidelijke Euro. Alle kleinere staten beseffen vandaag meer dan ooit heel goed dat ze niets anders zijn dan de dienaren van de grote lidstaten: Groot-Brittannië, Frankrijk en Duitsland. Van de Britten weten we dat ze er na het komende referendum, aangekondigd door premier Cameron, waarschijnlijk zullen uitstappen. De Fransen hollen gewoon de Duitsers na. Conclusie: vandaag is de Europese Unie niets meer dan een Groot-Duitsland, een soort Vierde Rijk. De Euro is een andere naam voor de nieuwe Duitse mark. Merkel wil haar kapitalistische anti-volkse politiek aan de hele Unie opleggen.

Presidentsverkiezingen: Van Boris Tadic naar Tomislav Nicolic

Servië was onder de pro-westerse president Boris Tadic kandidaat voor toetreding tot de EU. Servië zou aan een pak voorwaarden moeten voldoen om tot die Unie toegelaten te worden. Boris Tadic was de geknipte kandidaat om deze taak te volbrengen. Zijn achtergronden zijn interessant. Zijn adoptiemoeder is de joodse Klara Mandic, links-intellectueel en hoofd van de “Maatschappij van Servisch-Joodse Vriendschap”, geboren in 1944 in een Italiaans concentratiekamp en geadopteerd door een Servisch gezin in 1945. Zij werd in 2001 vermoord. Boris Tadic werd geboren in Sarajevo (Bosnië & Herzegovina) en is leider van de door de CIA ondersteunde Servische sociaal-democratische partij. Zijn raadgever was Predrag Markovic, het hoofd van de joodse gemeenschap in Servië. De eerste politieke daden van Tadic bestonden in het verwijderen van 60 etnisch Servische topambtenaren en deze te vervangen door ambtenaren van joodse origine. Dit klinkt niet heel politiek correct, maar de waarheid heeft haar rechten.

In december 2012 werd duidelijk dat Servië niet zou kunnen/willen voldoen aan de dictaten van de EU. Eén ervan was het herkennen van de onafhankelijkheid van Kosovo. De verkiezing van de nationalist Tomislav Nicolic tot president deed Servië totaal van koers veranderen. Brussel en Washington waren in shock. Zijn partij, de Servische Vooruitgangspartij SNS had een partnerschap met de Oostenrijkse FPÖ gesloten.

Het Westen hanteert maar al te graag de rol van Servische zondebok. Servië werd heel wat grondgebied ontnomen maar mag anderzijds duidelijke Servische gebieden niet opnieuw bij het moederland laten aansluiten. Omwille van ‘de moslims’ werd en kunstmatige staat Bosnië-Herzegovina gesticht. Het noordelijke Servische deel, de Republika Srpska, mag niet aansluiten bij Servië. Het Servische Montenegro werd door manipulatieve referenda tot separatisme gedwongen waardoor Servië de toegang tot de zee is kwijt geraakt. Kosovo enMetohija werd aan de Albanese immigranten en de terroristen van het door de CIA opgeleide UCK gegeven.

Een deel van de Serviërs was ooit inderdaad bereid om de EU- en VS-dictaten te aanvaarden omwille van de vrede. Dit veranderde de laatste vier jaar. De Serviërs zijn niet blind en beseffen dat ze met EU-lidmaatschap ook de NAVO zouden moeten erkennen. Gezien de oorlog van 1999 was dit toch wel een stap te ver.

Nicolic en zijn SNS hebben prachtig ingespeeld op zowel de radicale als de gematigder kiezer. Met zijn overwinning eindigt de horigheid aan de VS.

Terloops: ook Kroatië kent, net als Servië onder Boris Tadic, een zeer inefficiënt bestuur en een totaal geruïneerde economie met een enorm hoge werkloosheidsgraad. Het merendeel van de Kroaten (60%) wil niets weten van de EU. Zij vrezen de dictaten van Brussel. Voor de gewone Kroaten betekent de aansluiting bij de EU niets goeds ondanks de mooie beloften gedaan door de Kroatische elites.

Tomislav Nicolic en zijn grote liefde Rusland

Tot grote schok voor de Euro-Atlantische wereld kwam recent Tomislav Nicolic van de Servische radicale partij (nationalisten) aan de macht. Hierdoor bevinden zich een aantal getrouwen rond Slobodan Milojevic van de jaren ’90 opnieuw aan de macht. Sommigen onder hen werden indertijd door Tadic weggezuiverd.

Nicolic verklaarde tijdens de aanloop naar de presidentsverkiezingen van mei 2012 al dat deze verkiezingen een referendum zullen zijn over pro-EU of niet pro-EU. Hij verklaarde dat“hijzelf Servië liever als een Russische provincie te zien dan als lid van de EU”. De uitspraak was toen al zeker niet zonder bedoelingen. De Servische kiezer wist van toen al wat hij/zij aan Nicolic had. Vanaf het ogenblik dat Nicolic tot president van Servië werd benoemd begon de versnelde toenadering tot Rusland.

De plannen voor de toetreding van Servië tot de NAVO werd met het aan de macht komen van Nicolic naar de prullenmand verwezen. De Serviërs stonden zeer huiverig tegenover deze plannen, besproken onder het bewind van Tadic, want zij zijn de NAVO-bommenregen van 1999 niet vergeten.

Onmiddellijk na zijn aanstelling tot president van Servië ging hij op bezoek bij zijn grote vriend, Vladimir Poetin. Dit was zijn eerste buitenlandse bezoek. Nicolic was in Moskou zeer duidelijk over de NAVO: “Nooit !”.

In Moskou herhaalde hij ook dat de Servische grondwet verbiedt om Kosovo en Metohija op te geven. Hij prees er de Russen : “Rusland vroeg tenminste nooit dat we Kosovo e Metohija zouden opgeven”.

Toen het gesprek ging over de hoge positie van Nicolic in de populariteitslijsten, antwoordde hij: “De enige wijze hoe ik de presidentsverkiezingen zou kunnen verliezen was indien Vladimir Poetin zelf kandidaat zou geweest zijn. Zo hoog is het prestige van Vladimir Poetin in Servië”.

Poetin benadrukte dat Servië de Ruslands spirituele broeder is: “Terwijl Rusland naar Servië kijkt als partner in de Balkan, zo zijn we spirituele Broeders. Het was zo, het is zo en het zal altijd zo blijven.”

Servië lid van de Russische Federatie!

Servië zou wel eens aan de basis kunnen liggen van een heel uitzonderlijk domino effect. In Moskou ligt nu een uitgewerkt plan op te tafel om Servië te laten aansluiten bij de Russische Federatie.

Een team van verschillende deskundigen borduurt nu een weg om Servië bij Rusland te laten aansluiten. Servië zou dan de 84ste republiek van de Russische Federatie worden. De kenners van de geopolitiek en zeker van de Oost-Europese geopolitiek zijn niet verbaasd. Zelfs de CIA en andere Westerse inlichtingendiensten zijn zich van deze stappen goed bewust. De Amerikaanse regering en de regeringen van de sterkste EU-landen staan schaakmat. De steun van de Servische bevolking aan de plannen voor toetreding tot de EU is gezakt tot ver onder de 40%. De huidige Servische onderhandelaars onderhandelen internationaal op meesterlijke wijze over Kosovo en Metohija. De economische hulp van Rusland aan Servië neemt nu al gestaag toe.

We zien dat de Albanese Siptar-terroristen, die actief zijn in het zuiden van Servië, niet veel speelruimte krijgen. In die regio is de militaire aanwezigheid van het Servische leger enorm. De bevolking steunt massaal het leger. Ook de politie eenheden zijn er enorm. We weten allen dat de Servische politie iets kordater tegen bandieten optreedt (mag optreden) dan de Belgische. De extremistische (moslim)elementen in die regio hebben bij het Pentagon al gepleit voor een snelle militaire interventie en bezetting van heel Servië. De gevolgen voor zo’n interventie zijn zeer verregaande want Rusland heeft duidelijk gemaakt dat het alle steun zal verlenen aan de Servische militairen.

De Russisch-Servische plannen: enorme Russische steun aan Servië

Terwijl de EU verder in elkaar stort zal er in Servië veel Russisch geld worden geïnvesteerd in o.a. de media. De publieke opinie, die nu al zeer hartelijk en warm staat tegenover het Russische broedervolk, zal dan nog meer sympathie hebben voor een toetreding tot de Russische federatie. Servische politici zullen zich uitspreken voor de Unie met Rusland. Rusland zal veel geld in de Servische economie pompen, vooral in de landbouw. Rusland kan Servië meer geven dan de EU, dat staat vast. In een Russische Unie zullen de Serviërs veel gelukkiger zijn dan in de EU.

Nu al staat vast dat een komend referendum zal aantonen dat meer dan 70% van de Serviërs voor de Unie met Rusland zal stemmen. Nadien zouden beide parlementen, Rusland en Servië, instemmen met het akkoord. De deadline om de deal af te ronden zou einde augustus 2013 zijn !

Servië zal niets van zijn soevereiniteit verliezen. Nationaal embleem, vlag, volkslied, alles blijft behouden. De officiële taal blijft het Servisch. De tweede taal wordt wel het Russisch. In de Unie met Rusland zal Servië meer autonomie hebben dan bijvoorbeeld Tsjetsjenië of Yakutië binnen Rusland. Servië zal meer autonomie hebben dan bijvoorbeeld Vlaanderen binnen België en/of Nederland, Tsjechië of Polen binnen de EU. Het leger zal onveranderd en professioneel blijven maar wel de input krijgen van de allernieuwste Russische wapens.

Rusland zal enorm veel investeren in de Servische landbouw, die door het Westen doelbewust werd verwoest. Niet te verwonderen want ook de landbouw binnen de EU werd doelbewust afgebouwd ten voordele van vooral Amerikaanse import (Verdrag van Maastricht, 1992).

Vandaag is voedsel in Servië veel duurder dan in EU-landen zoals Frankrijk, Duitsland, België, Italië, … . Herstel van de landbouw zal de verlaten Servische dorpen opnieuw leven schenken. De werkloosheid zal drastisch dalen. Het geboortecijfer zal stijgen. Servië zal voedsel uitvoeren naar Rusland. In ruil krijgt Servië gas, olie en mineralen welke de economie vlot zal doen herop starten. Waarschijnlijk wordt het geen echte ruilhandel maar worden van beide kanten spotprijzen gehanteerd.

Rusland krijgt, als één van de machtigste landen ter wereld, zo de controle over één van de belangrijkste strategische posities van Europa. Zo vermindert de kans van agressie op het grondgebied van Rusland zelf omdat Servië als eerste zijn Russische broeder zal verdedigen.

Op het Servische grondgebied zullen Russische pijpleidingen lopen. De geostrategische positie van Servië is ideaal om van daaruit pijpleidingen naar andere Europese landen te laten lopen. Bovendien zou Servië als brug kunnen fungeren voor handel met het Westen voor Russische producten.

Resolutie 1244 en Kosovo en Metohija

Resolutie 1244 van de Veiligheidsraad van de Verenigde Naties (10 juni 1999) stelt wel dat de Servische provincie Kosovo en Metohija verregaande bevoegdheden krijgt maar dat de provincie nog steeds integraal onderdeel vormt van Servië en dat het ‘internationaal bestuur’ tijdelijk is. De resolutie kwam er in de periode dat de NAVO op gruwelijke wijze gedurende 78 dagen Servische steden bombardeerde en burgers vermoordde om in het hart van Europa een extremistisch moslimprotectoraat te stichten. De NAVO handelde met de aanval op van dit Europees land op eigen houtje want het kreeg geen steun van de VN-Veiligheidsraad.

Dank zij de Unie van Servië met Rusland wordt Kosovo op zijn beurt integraal onderdeel van de Russische Federatie. In dat geval geniet het Russisch leger het legitiem recht om in Kosovo en Metohija op te treden. De (toch wel verdrukte autochtone !) Serviërs zullen er een hart onder de riem krijgen.

Kosovo en Metohija zou de facto naar Servië terugkeren. De Amerikanen mogen er hun basis in Camp Bondsteel behouden, maar zonder er militaire activiteiten te mogen ontplooien.

Rusland plant om 50.000 elitetroepen in het zuiden van Servië te stationeren. Aan de huidige grens met Kosovo en Metohija zouden in eerste instantie 15.000 Spetznaz-soldaten gelegerd worden.

Hashim Thaci, ‘Kosovaars president’, zal worden opgepakt en vervolgd voor handel in menselijke organen en voor oorlogsmisdaden voor de tijd dat hij opperbevelhebber was van het terroristische Albanese UCK.

Na de aansluiting zal Rusland ook investeren in de Kosovaarse economie omdat de werkloosheid daar ook enorm is. Kosovo en Metohija vormen dan een brug voor de militaire en economische samenwerking tussen Rusland en het Westen.

Alle plannen voor een Groot-Albanië vallen in het water. Het opruimen van de Albanese maffia zal niet eenvoudig zijn. Sommige Albanese kopstukken verdienen grof geld aan wapen- en drugshandel en collaboreren sterk met de CIA en andere Westerse inlichtingendiensten.

Russisch compromis met de Amerikanen ?

Geruchten vertellen dat de oplossing ‘Kosovo’ een “compromis” inhoudt voor Syrië. De Amerikanen zien ‘Kosovo en Metohija bij Servië’ door de vingers indien Rusland de steun aan Assad zou intrekken. Ook zou Rusland zich niet bemoeien indien Israël en VS een aanval plannen op Iran. In ruil geven de VS en de EU Kosovo op.

Wat men daar moet van denken is echter koffiedik kijken. Wel is het zo dat in een vertrouwelijke e-mail die kon ingekeken worden Qatar aan Rusland de ‘bescherming’ van de Russische marinebasis in Syrië aanbood. De soms onduidelijke houding van Rusland lijkt deze stelling te bevestigen. Qatar zou het zogenaamde ‘Vrije Syrische Leger’ onder druk zetten om na de machtsovername de Russische basissen te beschermen.

Maar, er is een maar. Men moet rekening houden met alle mogelijkheden. We gaan terug in de geschiedenis. Toen de Sovjet-Unie viel, beloofde de NAVO dat geen enkel land van het Warschaupact (een soort NAVO maar dan met Sovjet-bondgenoten) zou worden aanvaard binnen de NAVO. Maanden later zagen we dat het Russisch leger zich conform de akkoorden had terug getrokken en dat verschillende leden van het Warschaupact inclusief nieuwe onafhankelijke staten die daarvoor deel uitmaakten van de Sovjet-Unie, lid werden van de … NAVO. Men kan begrip opbrengen voor de Russische onvrede en frustratie. Maar toen was het onder Jeltsin. Om verschillende redenen mag deze man terecht als één van de zwakste presidenten/tsaren/secretarissen van Rusland beschouwd worden. Onder Poetin veranderde Rusland geleidelijk aan naar een wereldmacht waar opnieuw moet rekening gehouden worden.

Poetin is de NAVO-leugens niet vergeten. Een mogelijkheid is dat hij met de VS ee compromis sluit over Servië, Syrië tijdelijk losser laat, om dan, eens Servië binnen is gehaald, Syrië en Iran volop te steunen. Machten die hun woord niet houden mogen immers op dezelfde wijze van antwoord bediend worden.

Om terug te komen op de zogenaamde bescherming door Qatar en het ‘Vrije Syrische Leger’ : Poetin heeft de herschappen met hun aanbod wandelen gestuurd.

Montenegro

Ook Montenegro zou op één of andere manier Servië vervoegen. Vanaf de gedwongen onafhankelijkheid investeerde Rusland er enorm veel. Rusland verwittigde Montenegro al vanaf het begin van de onafhankelijkheid dat NAVO lidmaatschap alle goede banden zouden kunnen beschadigen. Montenegro is er bovenop gekomen dankzij Rusland e niet dankzij de EU.

Russische miljardairs investeerden enorm veel kapitaal in Montenegro, en in het bijzonder langs de kuststrook. Feit is dat de Rusland via het kapitaal en de bezittingen van een deel van de steenrijke Russische diaspora in Montenegro al toegang tot een haven van Bar en de zee heeft. Daardoor is de toegang tot Servië de facto verzekerd.

Met dat Russisch kapitaal aanwezig in Montenegro is er meer dan voldoende om de ‘centengevoelige’ Montenegrijnse regering van Milo Djukanovic om te ‘gebruiken’. Een goedkopere oplossing is het actief steunen van een oppositiepartij.

Besluit

Indien Servië aansluit bij de Russische Federatie dan verandert de hele geopolitieke situatie in de Balkan. Dan verandert de geopolitieke situatie in heel Europa. Dan verandert de hele geopolitieke situatie in Eurazië en in de wereld.

Voor de Europese as van Gibraltar tot Vladivostok, voor de Europese volkeren, voor de vrijheid en voor de bescherming van onze culturen zou dit een alternatief, misschien zelfs een verademing kunnen zijn.

De toekomst zal het aantonen.

Kris Roman

Voorzitter Euro-Rus

Anatomie du durcissement russe

Anatomie du durcissement russe

Ex: http://www.dedefensa.org/

Une nouvelle déclaration officielle russe confirme le blocage complet des relations stratégiques avec les USA, notamment sur la question fondamentale pour la Russie du réseau antimissile (BDM et BMDE). Cette déclaration est du plus modéré des dirigeants russes, le Premier ministre Medvedev, qui était interrogé sur CNN, lors de l’émission de Fareed Zakarias GPS. Russia Today a extrait de ces déclarations, ce 28 janvier 2013, celles qui concernent ce point de litige fondamental des deux pays qu’est la question des antimissiles.

«No ease in relations over missile defense, no flexibility arose. We stand at the same positions – the position of the United States is one, the position of the Russian Federation is, unfortunately, different. And the convergence of these positions is not happening… […] We clearly understand that if we do not have guarantees such as the pairing of our programs, that means that missile defense could also work against the Russian nuclear arsenal. What does this mean? This means that the parity, which we recorded with President Obama by signing the New START treaty (a very important and very helpful treaty, by the way: I think this is the achievement of the so-called reset), [the parity] is being cracked by that, because the missile defense – is a direct continuation of nuclear offensive capability, combat nuclear weapons…»

Ces déclarations n’apportent rien de nouveau mais elles fixent encore plus précisément la vigueur de la détérioration du climat entre les USA et la Russie, compte tenu encore une fois de la position habituelle de Medvedev. Malgré la modération de ton propre à Medvedev, qui n’oublie pas de saluer le nouveau traité START de limitation des armements, le constat du blocage complet et de la dangerosité de la situation pour la Russie est énoncé clairement. (L’on sait, comme on l’a déjà vu le 22 janvier 2013, que ce traité est lui-même en danger si la situation n’évolue pas, que les Russes n’hésiteront pas à en sortir pour pouvoir renforcer leur arsenal offensif face à la pression que va faire peser sur eux le réseau antimissile lorsqu’il sera mis en place en Europe en 2015.)

…Mais au lieu de la Russie et des USA, on devrait parler d’une façon plus générale de la détérioration du climat, de façon plus générale, entre la Russie et les pays du bloc BAO, c’est-à-dire également avec l’Europe. Cette détérioration porte d’ailleurs sur bien plus que la question des antimissiles (qui concerne elle-même également mais indirectement l’Europe, en raison du déploiement à venir des antimissiles en Europe, comme on le voit également dans le même texte référencé du 22 janvier 2013).

La situation générale est très singulière, notamment du côté des Européens et de l’UE, à un point où l’on ne devrait pas hésiter à la qualifier de schizophrénique. Alors que la situation spécifique des relations avec la Russie continue à se dégrader, essentiellement à cause du comportement des pays du bloc BAO d’une façon systématique vis-à-vis de la Russie, les milieux européens qui sont comptables de cette politique s’inquiètent parallèlement de plus en plus vivement de cette détérioration et de ses conséquences. Il existe un courant favorable à des tentatives qui seraient développées pour tenter d’améliorer ce climat, ou tenter au moins de freiner sa dégradation. Des contacts très informels devraient être ou sont d’ores et déjà lancés entre les deux partenaires et, pour ce qui nous concerne ici comme sources de nos appréciations, entre Européens et Russes, essentiellement sinon exclusivement à l’initiative des Européens. Le côté européens est dans une position un peu différente de celle du côté US ; il n’y a pas entre les Européens et la Russie un énorme point de blocage comme celui des antimissiles entre la Russie et les USA, mais bien ce constat d’une dégradation irrésistible des relations qui semble être la conséquence d’un climat évoluant dans ce sens, sans que rien ne puisse sembler être fait contre cela. Ce qui nous intéresse ici est donc moins la teneur concrètes de ces éventuels contacts, la situation circonstanciée de ces très mauvaises relations, etc., que l’état d’esprit des Russes tel qu’il a pu être mesuré et constaté au cours de ces constats.

On fera principalement deux remarques à partir des impressions recueillies de diverses sources.

• La première concerne la position des Russes en général (là aussi, hors de toute question spécifique, – on parle bien de l’état d’esprit et de la position politique générale). Il semble bien se confirmer que l’on arrive à une situation de blocage qui ne tient pas précisément à l’un ou l’autre dossier (bien que le blocage existe bien entendu dans l’un ou l’autre dossier), mais qui concerne l’attitude générale des Russes. Il semble qu’un seuil ait été franchi, qui est celui de la perte complète de confiance des Russes dans leurs “partenaires” du bloc BAO. D’une façon générale ressort la complète lassitude des Russes devant le comportement de leurs interlocuteurs du bloc BAO, qui fait que, dans toute rencontre, dans toute négociation, l’intervention de ces interlocuteurs des Russes est sempiternellement introduite par une leçon infligée aux Russes, de bonnes manières démocratiques, de bonne morale et de respect des divers droits (ceux de l’homme en priorité, certes), accompagnée du conseil à peine voilé de la nécessité pour la Russie d’abandonner un régime quasi-dictatorial pour un comportement civilisé. Les Russes considèrent ces interventions, non seulement comme infondées par rapport aux situations respectives des divers interlocuteurs (la situation de la démocratie aux USA, par exemple, étant considérée souvent du côté russe comme plus mauvaise et plus corrompue que cette situation en Russie, et avec nombre d’excellentes raisons), mais en plus comme des cas flagrant d’ingérence dans les affaires intérieures d’un pays souverain.

• Subsiste plus que jamais, et même grandit jusqu’à créer, pour les Russes eux-mêmes, un problème d’une dimension considérable, la question de l’incompréhension totale où ces mêmes Russes se trouvent de la politique des pays du bloc BAO, et spécifiquement de l’Europe dans ce cas, dans le chef de son élaboration, de son développement, etc. Les Russes se posent ces questions et les posent à leurs interlocuteurs : “Mais qui élabore ces politiques foncièrement et très durement antirusses, et qui violent tous les usages entre nations souveraines” ? “D’où viennent ces politiques”  ? “Quelles en sont les causes et les fondements” ? Etc. Peut-être devrait-on citer, comme amorce de réponse qui n’éclaircit rien sur le fond bien entendu mais au moins mesure l'ampleur du problème, cette remarque faite dans notre texte du 25 janvier 2013, qui donne un certain éclairage à la situation extraordinaire où se trouve le bloc BAO d’une façon générale. Cette remarque concerne la politique interventionniste dans le cadre du “printemps arabe” du bloc BAO, mais elle pourrait parfaitement s’intégrer comme explication des questions posées ici concernant la politique russe du bloc BAO : «Il n’étonnera que ceux qui veulent bien l’être, ou ceux qui ignorent comment faire autrement que penser comme ils pensent, d’apprendre que quelques personnalités du plus haut niveau, [du bloc BAO], y compris pour quelques très rares exemples dans la diplomatie française, conçoivent sans hésiter que les politique du bloc BAO ne sont pas humainement élaborées mais bien le fruit d’une dynamique machiniste dont personne ne peut saisir les modalités de fonctionnement, et donc que personne ne peut modifier ou arrêter.» (Cette situation extraordinaire est bien entendu résumée par nous par le simple fait qu’il n’existe plus de politique spécifique dans les pays du bloc BAO, mais simplement l’entraînement irrésistible de ce que nous nommons la “politique-Système, voulue par le Système.)

On sait que les Russes se doutent de quelque chose dans ce sens, depuis un certain temps. En son temps (le 4 août 2008), Rogozine avait déjà exprimé certaines hypothèses à cet égard, en observant que la politique occidentale (bloc BAO) était menée par un système (qu’il désignait comme “le technologisme”) plutôt que par délibération rationnelle et volonté affirmées d’atteindre un but spécifique ; et aussi Lavrov, le 6 juin 2011, lorsqu’il affirmait à des journalistes : «We think our Western partners understand that the events in Libya are taking an undesirable turn, but the decisions that have been taken are continuing by momentum…» Poutine lui-même a déjà exprimé à diverses reprises sa perplexité devant cette “politique” qui semble ne répondre à aucun processus rationnel malgré certaines apparences, – par exemple lorsqu’il observait que la politique du bloc BAO recherchait en Libye et en Syrie le “regime change” mais qu’elle s’avérait finalement “coûteuse, inefficace et largement imprévisible”, c’est-à-dire informe et répondant finalement à d’autres impulsions, manifestement mystérieuses (voir le 5 mars 2012) :

«“Under the guise of trying to prevent the spread of weapons of mass destruction they [the US] are attempting something else entirely and setting different goals – regime change,” news agencies quote Putin as saying. The Russian PM pointed out that US foreign policy, including that in the Middle East, was expensive, inefficient and largely unpredictable. Putin also added that, among other things, it may eventually disserve Israel. “They changed regimes in North Africa. What will they do next? In the end, Israel may find itself between the devil and the deep blue sea”" he said.»

Les Russes ont désormais bien compris cela : que la politique du bloc BAO n’est pas quelque chose de rationnel, qui puisse être compris, discutée, négociée, mais une sorte de phénomène qui semble échapper à ceux qui semblent la conduire. A côté de ce constat, il semble également évident que les Russes ont décidé qu’ils n’en subiraient plus sans broncher les conséquences qui sont pour eux des désagréments inacceptables, ni sans durcir eux-mêmes leur propre politique pour éviter ces désagréments. La question des relations entre le bloc BAO et la Russie est donc en train de s’installer dans une situation de type crisique très aigue, comme quelque chose qui ressemble à une crise endémique comptable d’une tension grandissante et soumise à toutes les possibilités d’explosion selon les circonstances.

Eurasia and Europe: Dialogue of “Big Spaces”

Natella Speranskaya

Eurasia and Europe: Dialogue of “Big Spaces”

Ex: http://granews.info/

 

Carl Schmitt regarded the earth as a single whole and was looking for its global mission. This "whole" was formed by Schmitt in the concept of Nomos. He used the Greek word derived from the verb «nemein», which is identical to German “nehmen” - “to take”. Nomos comprises three acts of the drama: "taking", "division and distribution of the taken", "exploitation and use of the taken and distributed." According to Schmitt, Nomos of the Earth existed always. First Nomos is described as a "promised land" of ancient peoples. It is the Nomos of the ancient times and the Middle Ages. It ceased to exist after the exploration of the great oceans and the American continent. Thus began the Second Nomos, the Nomos of national sovereign states that had the Eurocentric structure. Events of the World War II led to its destruction, so that the land was divided into east and west, which were in a state of "cold war". It is not about mere geographic opposites, but a more original and profound contradistinctions. Carl Schmitt wrote: "The whole history of the planetary confrontation of East and West in its entirety is reducible to the fundamental dualism of the elements: Earth and Water, Land and Sea. What we now call the East, is a single mass of solid land: Russia, China and India - a huge piece of land, the "Middle Earth", as named by the great English geographer Sir Halford Mackinder. What we call today the West, is one of the world's oceans, hemispheres, where the Atlantic and Pacific oceans are placed. Confrontation of the sea and land powers, worlds - is the global truth that lies at the heart of explanation of civilization dualism that constantly generates a planetary stress and stimulates the whole process of history ." Thus, the birth of a third Nomos was caused by division of the world between the West and the East. However, it was destroyed with the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Schmitt's understanding of "three Nomoses of the Earth" brings us to the question, what will be the fourth Nomos of the Earth? Alexander Dugin, the founder of the theory of a multipolar world, the founder of the Russian school of geopolitics, believes that the new Nomos of the Earth will be a Nomos of large continental logic of the Eurasian continent. Certainly, the worst possible option would be a unipolar, globalist Nomos. Which of the Nomoses will be established depends on the strategic decision of Heartland, Russia, the civilization of land.

Italian political scientist Tiberio Graziani thinks, that Russia "has everything necessary to fulfill the historical role of the cornerstone of the whole global system," and he regards its location in the heart of Eurasia to be one of its most important elements. That is why all the strategic decisions of Atlanticists imply  fragmentation of the Heartland, considering that this process will provide the accession of a unipolar order. Alexander Dugin says, "On that, whether Russia can be sufficiently weakened, split and destabilized, and subjected by its fragments to the external power, largely depends the fate of globalization." And further: "For anyone who is serious about counter American hegemony, globalization and planetary domination of the West (Atlanticism), the axiom should become the following statement: The fate of the world order is decided at the moment only in Russia by Russia and through Russia." To describe the time in which we now live, the prominent sociologist Zygmunt Bauman applies the concept of Interregnum – so was called in ancient Rome the period between the death of Caesar and the accession of another one. It is a state of instability, uncertainty, unpredictability, when the demolition of the old order is as obvious as the emergence of the new one is. But what this new order (and, accordingly, the new Nomos) will be - is unknown. In the context of the changes of the new world order, we can speak of  paradigmatic shift from the "unipolar moment" to the formation of a multipolar world order. In other words, the focus should be on the end of the era of unipolarity, because there are all essential conditions for the realization of the alternative project. According to Huntington, the unipolar state is able to "effectively deal with all the major international problems alone, and none of the unions of other states can even be hypothetically capable of stopping it." It is difficult to deny that the hegemon represented by the United States now has no serious opponent, whether a coalition of states or, quite incredibly, a single state  that shows such strong potential that it inevitably involves the speedy restoration of the bipolar order.

According to Zygmunt Bauman, about 60-70 years ago an event occurred that contributed to a fundamental change in global politics: the gap between Macht and Staat, in other words, between Might and Politics, Might and the State (which are integral aspects of the Power) led to the situation, when Macht (Might) moved to supra-national space. Thus, the nation-state could no longer control it. In unipolar paradigm namely national states are actors of international relations. The said gap means neither more nor less than a gradual slippage to non-polarity. Namely, this, according to Richard Haass, Director of Foreign Policy Studies at the Brookings Institute and head of CFR, will determine international relations in the XXI century. Nation-states are nearly deprived of possibility of efficiency, "of doing things" (as Bauman understands Macht), emerging into a state of political paralysis. Antonio Gramsci treated Interregnum as a period when the old is no longer working, and the new has not yet appeared.

We are "stuck" between unipolarity and multipolarity, and have no idea what should the solution to this situation be. Of course, the question arises: what to do? And, above all, question themselves nation-states, de jure retained the ability to make decisions , but Zygmunt Bauman rightly argues that under current circumstances, the question should be formulated in a different way: who will do what is necessary rather than what to do? Which actor will assume responsibility for the actions that solve fundamental problems? Sure, we do not consider like such nation-states. Instead, we turn to the theory developed by Alexander Dugin, the Theory of the Multipolar World. Book with the same title gives a clear picture of what is happening in the field of international relations today: when the bipolar model of the world order has changed to unipolar one, it came to mean the triumph of the liberal-democratic ideology . The West has modeled values and guidelines system that were imposed upon the world as universal. Thus, the West came to the consistent implementation of the control (dictatorship) of cognitive and strategic spheres. The area of international relations became "American Science", the content of the discussions was reduced to polemical confrontation between realists and liberals. The diplomatic corps itself was formed within the unipolar world and the Western discourse, Western mentality, where political actors are  the national states. Another model of the world order, namely the multi-polar model, involves a form of organization of spaces based on several actors - "civilizations", as rightly pointed out by Samuel Huntington. This leads us to the formation of a new diplomatic corps and the new diplomatic language based on a multipolar world order. And the most progressive political thinkers have already come to a conclusion about the need to change the paradigm of international relations. One of them just raised the question of what will be next, others - have found the answer and freely operate  the basic concepts of the new system. It is impossible not to recognize the fact that the vast majority of politically engaged figures remain under the old paradigm, failing to perceive  the ongoing shift, which will commence the new historical period, completely changing the picture of the world politics . The Unipolar world - is yesterday. Here and now we are discussing the change of the unipolar paradigm to the multi-polar one, poly-civilizational.

Theory of the multipolar world suggests to establish new actors in international relations, which are of civilizations , and each of them, by definition, has a strategic center, serving as the subject of dialogue in international relations and, therefore, the subject of power. The transition from national states to civilizations is an inevitable consequence of the rupture described by Zygmunt Bauman.

Specialist in International Relations, Professor Adam Roberts notes the loss of a leading U.S. role in the current world order. Asked who will perform their receiver , he gives a completely obvious answer: no one. More precisely, we have not yet entered the period of interregnum, but just got close to it, and all that is happening in global politics - is the agony of the dying Caesar (USA).

The genuine emergence into Interregnum will happen with the final loss of the U.S. role as the world's hegemon and the cancellation of a "unipolar moment." It is here that the danger appears, that in the period of interregnum and consistent implementation of the formative stages of a multipolar world order will come "The variable geometry" of the nonpolarity and everything will be in the melting pot of globalization; we are immersed in liquid modernity (Z.Bauman), the main feature of which is "non-directedness of changes”, that is lack of strict direction, guideline, which ultimately makes us unprepared to respond to sudden challenges, elusive from any calculations and projections. The collapse of the Soviet Union occurred suddenly as lightning, completely changing the landscape of history. Non-polarity, which seems to come, may become a needed respite, a period of possibility of full value formation of the new model of the world order - for it is impossible to deny that the paradigmatic shift, followed by the demolition of numerous structures, will not be able to quickly create in all areas of Political  all the necessary conditions for the accession of the multipolar order. Non-polarity, Interregnum in the XXI century - are the funeral of the retired Caesar and the preparation for the enthronement of the new rulers (in the plural), that is rise of the poles, power centers.

Non-polarity is a "decapitation" of the U.S., but at the same time it can be called the attempt of the hegemon to maintain its influence through self-dispersion, dissolution. Under these circumstances it is strictly necessary to prevent delays, getting stuck in post-liberal environment and humility with a "coherent non-polarity." New actors must challenge the postmodern "non- directedness of changes" now and knowingly take absolute responsibility for strategic decisions and actions in the field of political practice. The leading research associate of the New America Foundation, Parag Khanna, analyzing the current situation and the precarious position of the U.S., discusses a critical role of diplomacy towards which the focus should be shifted . For improvement of the global diplomatic structure is laid the responsibility of the strengthening of U.S. hegemony . However, he does not take into account the fact that the diplomatic language is undergoing  a significant reformatting in the context of  paradigmatic shift to multipolar model, and this process is irreversible. Now we have to discuss  the dialogue of civilizations. The dialogue is built on a completely different level, which is beyond the rules of the dialogue between national states (i.e., outside the imposed Western discourse), with the U.S. having the unltimate decision-making power . Unless we understand that the battle for the world domination is not between civilizations, but a single (western) civilization with all the "other" ones, which are offered only two options: 1) to be on the side of this civilization, 2) or to be against it, defending the right for their own independence and uniqueness - we are not able to form a new diplomatic language for civilizational dialogue. And this should be understood, above all, by the elite of civilization, responsible, according to Alexander Dugin, for the conduct of the dialogue. If all the "others" agree with the unipolar project, our battle is lost, but if they make a radically different choice, we are waiting for  the "rise of the rest" (Fareed Zakaria). We should note that the world-famous British political scientist Paul Kennedy expresses his concerns about the emergence of the ideological differences between the U.S. and Europe, due to opposition to one of the projects of the world order - unipolar or multipolar. In the current environment we should not just rely on the increased conflict between Europe and America, but prepare the situation of split and division of the former from the hegemonic influence of the latter . Here Russia has a special role.

However, we must admit, that during the last decades, Russia increasingly moved away from its original purpose - to be a bridge between East and West. Interregnum can be our chance to recover, a chance for Russia to become and be. The theory of a multipolar world can be considered to be the starting point of the end of the unipolar era and of entry into the "post-American" period, a feature of which will be the presence of several poles (the subjects of inter-civilizational dialogue) and the certain elimination of an identity crisis, because in a multipolar world identity acquires a civilizational character. Today our dialogue with Europe is a dialogue of "big spaces"; in the new system of international relations GROSSRAUM becomes an operational concept of multipolarity. Alexander Dugin offers the "FOUR-polar" or "quadri-polar" model of the world, which consists of four world zones.

In the first zone, under the full control of the United States, there are two or three "big spaces." We get two "big spaces" by combining the U.S. and Canada - on the one hand, and Latin America - on the other. According to Alexander Dugin, three "big spaces" can emerge when "we shall divide those Latin American countries that are sufficiently well integrated with the U.S. and are completely under their control, and those that tend to create their own geo-political zone, challenging the U.S."..

The second zone is the area of Euro-Africa with the European Union as Its undoubted pole . Here appear  three "big spaces": the European Union, the black  Africa and the Arab GROSSRAUM.

The third zone is Eurasia with Russia (Heartland ) as its pole. Meanwhile, Prof. Dugin indicates, there are also a number of regional centers of power, namely Turkey (if it chooses the Eurasian path), Iran, Pakistan and India. Thus, the Eurasian zone consists of several "great spaces": Russia and CIS countries are the Russian-Eurasian GROSSRAUM. Three "great spaces" are also Turkey, Iran, India and Pakistan.

 The fourth zone - is the Pacific region. Its pole can become either China (which is a "big space") or Japan (potential GROSSRAUM, having all the essential factors - economic, geopolitical, technological, etc.- for its recovery:).

Justifying the basic guidelines for practical action to build a multipolar world, Professor Dugin focuses on the following directions:

1. Strategic reorganization of Heartland.

This implies the geopolitical activity of "middle earth" and the implementation of integration projects aimed at strengthening of the multipolar model.

2. Changes in the minds of the political elite of Russia.

Mainly he focuses on acquiring geopolitical thinking, as well as the high level of competence in the field of social science, sociology, and history. "The elite of Russia should understand themselves as the elite of Heartland, should think in Eurasian categories, not just on a national scale, herewith being clearly aware of the non-applicability of the atlanticist and globalist scenario to Russia" - writes A. Dugin. We cannot speak of any awakening of elite, until it makes a conscious choice towards Eurasianism, rejecting blind attempts to play up anti-Russian scenarios of Atlantist strategists.

3. The model of building relations between Russia and the United States.

With the understanding of destructive U.S. policies aimed at dismantling Russia for the absolute control of the whole Eurasia, these relationships become irreversibly hostile. We need to undertake drastic actions in order to prevent the NATO presence in the Eurasian "big space" and weakening of Heartland.

4. The model of building relations with Europe.

This model involves a strategic partnership with countries, adhering to the policy of the continental tradition - France, Germany, Italy and Spain. Here it is appropriate to talk about the project of axis "Paris-Berlin-Moscow". Another situation is deployed with countries of "New Europe", as well as England – that are oriented against Russia and have a tendency to adapt to the requirements of Washington.

5. The project "Great Eastern Europe."

This project includes the Slavs (Slovaks, Czechs, Poles, Bulgarians, Serbs, Croats, Slovenes, Bosnians, Macedonians, Serbs-Muslims), Orthodox (Macedonians, Serbs, Bulgarians, Greeks and Romanians). Prof. Dugin says that Hungarians are the only people who do not fall into the "Orthodox" category and at the same time they cannot be called the "Slavic". Hungarians have a Eurasian-Turanian origin.

6. Heartland and Western CIS countries.

It is about the multi-polar integration of Russia, Ukraine and Belarus, which belong to the area of Heartland, a single strategic structure. This political action will prevent the risk of entry of Belarus and Ukraine into NATO. Special attention is given to Moldova, whose integration with Romania, which is a part of NATO, seems to be impossible until the implementation of the project of the "Great Eastern Europe."

7. Eurasian Middle East and the role of Turkey.

Prof. Dugin mentions the American project the «Greater Middle East Project» concerning the Middle East. It implies the democratization and modernization of Middle Eastern societies, and strengthening of the military presence of the U.S. and NATO. Guided by conflicting interests, the strategy of Heartland in this direction should include political actions directed towards Turkey’s exit from NATO and the creation of the axis "Moscow - Ankara." Furthermore, the project of axis "Moscow - Tehran" should be taken with the utmost attention. According to Alexander Dugin, Iran is a "strategic space that automatically solves the problem of converting Heartland into a force in the global world." Neither Russia nor Iran should allow the implementation of the scenario, laid in the project of the "Greater Central Asia” (Greater Central Asia Partnership). Its launch would inevitably lead to the emergence of the "sanitary cordon", which would hardly separate Russia from Iran. In addition, having included such countries as Georgia, Afghanistan, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, this cordon would make those countries controlled by American influence. The union of Russia and Iran, of course, will solve yet another fundamental problem, namely, it will open the "anaconda’s terret", depriving American strategists of any possibility of preventing marine operations of Russia.

 The strategy of Heartland should include projects of integration of Russia, Kazakhstan and Tajikistan into a single economic and customs space. In turn, the relationship with Pakistan should be built in strict accordance with the strategy of displacement of U.S. forces from this area. Alexander Dugin points to the need for a new model of relations with Afghanistan's Pashtun majority.

8. Axis "Moscow-Delhi."

Relationships with politically neutral "big space" of India should be directed towards achieving partnership. The main objective of this axis is to deter attempts of Washington to deploy its dominance in the South Asian region.

9. Russian-Chinese relations.

Prof. Dugin focuses on two difficult issues such as:

- Demographic spread of Chinese in sparsely populated areas of Siberia,

- China's influence in Central Asia.

It is necessary to build a balanced relationship with China, focusing on the fundamental point of strategic contact – support of the idea of the multipolar world.

10. Russian - Japanese relations.

Prof. Dugin indicates the need for the release of Japan from the American influence and the support of Japan as a sovereign regional power. Here it is appropriate to talk about  the project of axis "Moscow - Tokyo" as an integral part of Asian politics of Eurasia. "The alliance with Japan is vital - says Alexander Dugin, in his work "The bases of Geopolitics" – the Moscow-Tokyo axis, contrary to the Moscow - Beijing axis is an important and perspective, providing such prospects for continental empire-building, that will finally make Eurasia geopolitically completed, at the same time extremely weakening the Atlantist empire of the West, if not destroying it finally".

11. The geopolitics of the Arctic zone.

The following countries tend to control this zone: USA, Canada, Norway, Denmark and Russia. All of these countries (except Russia) are NATO members. Conquering territories in the polar region, and joining the race to develop large deposits of minerals, to its future plans Russia included the creation of a widescale system of communication and monitoring in the Arctic. Russia claims the polar area with size of 1.2 million square kilometers, with the incoming North Pole. In 2011 a brave move of the Russian researchers who had planted a Russian flag on the seabed of the Arctic Ocean  has been highly publicized by American media.

There is no doubt that we enter into a battle for the fundamental changes of the rules of political discourse, carrying out the task of undermining the basic principles of Western hegemony. The implementation of the multi-polar project, contrary to the considerations of skeptical Western political scientists, depends on the political course which Russia will adhere. The choice towards Eurasianism shows the approaching readiness to take the next step in building a new world order.

Natella Speranskaya

War of the Worlds

 

Jure Vujić's new book War of the Worlds – Euroasianism versus Atlantism ( Zagreb, Croatia )

On Thursday, December 20, 2012, the promotion of Jure Vujić's book War of the Worlds – Euroasianism versus Atlantism (with a foreword by Dr. Robert Steuckers) took place at the Cultural Information Centre in Zagreb. With the author the event was also attended by historian Toni Abramović and H.E. DSc Robert Markaryan, the Ambassador of the Russian Federation. The moderator was Petar Bujas.

To date, Jure Vujić has published the books Fragmenti geopolitičke misli (2004) and Intelektualni terorizam (2007) in Croatian and the book “ LA MODERNITÉ À L'ÉPREUVE DE L'IMAGE L'obsession visuelle de l'occident in French. This is the fourth book of the prominent Croatian political scientist and geopolitical expert.
In 1919, Sir Halford John Mackinder published the book on Democratic Ideals and Reality: A Study in the Politics of Reconstruction presenting the thesis statement about the heartland: the power that managed to control Eastern Europe would also dominate Euroasia, and whoever dominated Euroasia should rule the world.
The book 'War of the Worlds – Euroasianism versus Atlantism' is a true and the first synthesis in the Croatian language that elaborates on the idea of Euroasia or the heartland as the key geostrategic area in which opposed geopolitical and economic interests come to play. The author approached the subject as a topical metapolitical, philosophical and cultural conceptual matrix that represents a real alternative to Atlantism. The rivalry relation between Atlantism and Euroasianism is symbolically represented by the illustration of Behemoth, the mythical monster of the land, and sea monster Leviathan.

The Ambassador of the Russian Federation to the Republic of Croatia, His Excellency Robert Markaryan, conveyed to the audience the thought of Vladimir Putin that 'whoever has no feeling for the disintegration of the Soviet Union has no heart, and whoever believes it will come together again has no brain.' He also mentioned that Vujić's book was pioneer work in this area and a great scientific contribution to the development of Russian-Croatian relations.

Historian Toni Abramović noted that Europe and Russia are parts of one and the same body, the so-called Big Island or Euroasia. Croatia shares more than just its Slavic roots with Russia. Juraj Križanić (17th c.) played an important role in the creation of the  'Memorandum of Peter the Great'. Croatia is geographically and politically situated at the divide between two global interests, and its future should be perceived as identical to the future of Eurasia.

L’ISLAMISMO CONTRO L’ISLAM?

L’ISLAMISMO CONTRO L’ISLAM?

Sommario del numero XXVIII (4-2012) d'Eurasia - Rivista di studi geopolitici

http://www.eurasia-rivista.org/

Lo strumento fondamentalista

“Il vero problema per l’Occidente non è il fondamentalismo islamico, ma l’Islam in quanto tale”. Questa frase, che Samuel Huntington colloca in chiusura del lungo capitolo del suo Scontro delle civiltà intitolato “L’Islam e l’Occidente”¹, merita di essere letta con un’attenzione maggiore di quella che ad essa è stata riservata finora.

Secondo l’ideologo statunitense, l’Islam in quanto tale è un nemico strategico dell’Occidente, poiché è il suo antagonista in un conflitto di fondo, che non nasce tanto da controversie territoriali, quanto da un fondamentale ed esistenziale confronto tra difesa e rifiuto di “diritti umani”, “democrazia” e “valori laici”. Scrive infatti Huntington: “Fino a quando l’Islam resterà l’Islam (e tale resterà) e l’Occidente resterà l’Occidente (cosa meno sicura) il conflitto di fondo tra due grandi civiltà e stili di vita continuerà a caratterizzare in futuro i reciproci rapporti”².

Ma la frase riportata all’inizio non si limita a designare il nemico strategico; da essa è anche possibile dedurre l’indicazione di un alleato tattico: il fondamentalismo islamico. È vero che nelle pagine dello Scontro delle civiltà l’idea di utilizzare il fondamentalismo islamico contro l’Islam non si trova formulata in una forma più esplicita; tuttavia nel 1996, allorché Huntington pubblicò The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, una pratica di questo genere era già stata inaugurata.

“È un dato di fatto – scrive un ex ambasciatore arabo accreditato negli Stati Uniti e in Gran Bretagna – che gli Stati Uniti abbiano stipulato delle alleanze coi Fratelli Musulmani per buttar fuori i Sovietici dall’Afghanistan; e che, da allora, non abbiano cessato di far la corte alla corrente islamista, favorendone la propagazione nei paesi d’obbedienza islamica. Seguendo le orme del loro grande alleato americano, la maggior parte degli Stati occidentali ha adottato, nei confronti della nebulosa integralista, un atteggiamento che va dalla benevola neutralità alla deliberata connivenza”³.

L’uso tattico del cosiddetto integralismo o fondamentalismo islamico da parte occidentale non ebbe inizio però nell’Afghanistan del 1979, quando – come ricorda in From the Shadows l’ex direttore della CIA Robert Gates – già sei mesi prima dell’intervento sovietico i servizi speciali statunitensi cominciarono ad aiutare i guerriglieri afghani.

Esso risale agli anni Cinquanta e Sessanta, allorché Gran Bretagna e Stati Uniti, individuato nell’Egitto nasseriano il principale ostacolo all’egemonia occidentale nel Mediterraneo, fornirono ai Fratelli Musulmani un sostegno discreto ma accertato. È emblematico il caso di un genero del fondatore del movimento, Sa’id Ramadan, che “prese parte alla creazione di un importante centro islamico a Monaco in Germania, intorno al quale si costituì una federazione ad ampio raggio”⁴. Sa’id Ramadan, che ricevette finanziamenti e istruzioni dall’agente della CIA Bob Dreher, nel 1961 espose il proprio progetto d’azione ad Arthur Schlesinger Jr., consigliere del neoeletto presidente John F. Kennedy. “Quando il nemico è armato di un’ideologia totalitaria e dispone di reggimenti di fedeli devoti, – scriveva Ramadan – coloro che sono schierati su posizioni politiche opposte devono contrastarlo sul piano dell’azione popolare e l’essenza della loro tattica deve consistere in una fede contraria e in una devozione contraria. Solo delle forze popolari, genuinamente coinvolte e genuinamente reagenti per conto proprio, possono far fronte alla minaccia d’infiltrazione del comunismo”⁵.

L’uso strumentale dei movimenti islamisti funzionali alla strategia atlantica non terminò con il ritiro dell’Armata Rossa dall’Afghanistan. Il patrocinio fornito dall’Amministrazione Clinton al separatismo bosniaco ed a quello kosovaro, l’appoggio statunitense e britannico al terrorismo wahhabita nel Caucaso, il sostegno ufficiale di Brzezinski ai movimenti fondamentalisti armati in Asia centrale, gl’interventi a favore delle bande sovversive in Libia ed in Siria sono gli episodi successivi di una guerra contro l’Eurasia in cui gli USA e i loro alleati si avvalgono della collaborazione islamista.

Il fondatore di An-Nahda, Rachid Ghannouchi, che nel 1991 ricevette gli elogi del governo di George Bush per l’efficace ruolo da lui svolto nella mediazione tra le fazioni afghane antisovietiche, ha cercato di giustificare il collaborazionismo islamista abbozzando un quadro pressoché idilliaco delle relazioni tra gli USA e il mondo islamico. A un giornalista del “Figaro” che gli chiedeva se gli americani gli sembrassero più concilianti degli Europei il dirigente islamista tunisino ha risposto di sì, perché “non esiste un passato coloniale tra i paesi musulmani e l’America; niente Crociate, niente guerra, niente storia”; ed alla rievocazione della lotta comune di americani e islamisti contro il nemico bolscevico ha aggiunto la menzione del contributo inglese⁶.

La “nobile tradizione salafita”

L’islamismo rappresentato da Rachid Ghannouchi, scrive un orientalista, è quello che “si richiama alla nobile tradizione salafita di Muhammad ‘Abduh e che ha avuto una versione più moderna nei Fratelli Musulmani”⁷.

Ritornare al puro Islam dei “pii antenati” (as-salaf as-sâlihîn), facendo piazza pulita della tradizione scaturita dal Corano e dalla Sunna nel corso dei secoli: è questo il programma della corrente riformista che ha i suoi capostipiti nel persiano Jamal ad-Din al-Afghani (1838-1897) e nei suoi discepoli, i più importanti dei quali furono l’egiziano Muhammad ‘Abduh (1849-1905) e il siriano Muhammad Rashid Rida (1865-1935).

Al-Afghani, che nel 1883 fondò l’Associazione dei Salafiyya, nel 1878 era stato iniziato alla massoneria in una loggia di rito scozzese del Cairo. Egli fece entrare nell’organizzazione liberomuratoria gli intellettuali del suo entourage, tra cui Muhammad ‘Abduh, il quale, dopo aver ricoperto una serie di altissime cariche, il 3 giugno 1899 diventò Muftì dell’Egitto col beneplacito degl’Inglesi.

“Sono i naturali alleati del riformatore occidentale, meritano tutto l’incoraggiamento e tutto il sostegno che può esser dato loro”⁸: questo l’esplicito riconoscimento del ruolo di Muhammad ‘Abduh e dell’indiano Sir Sayyid Ahmad Khan (1817-1889) che venne dato da Lord Cromer (1841-1917), uno dei principali architetti dell’imperialismo britannico nel mondo musulmano. Infatti, mentre Ahmad Khan asseriva che “il dominio britannico in India è la cosa più bella che il mondo abbia mai visto”⁹ ed affermava in una fatwa che “non era lecito ribellarsi agli inglesi fintantoché questi rispettavano la religione islamica e consentivano ai musulmani di praticare il loro culto”¹⁰, Muhammad ‘Abduh trasmetteva all’ambiente musulmano le idee razionaliste e scientiste dell’Occidente contemporaneo. ‘Abduh sosteneva che nella civiltà moderna non c’è nulla che contrasti col vero Islam (identificava i ginn con i microbi ed era convinto che la teoria evoluzionista di Darwin fosse contenuta nel Corano), donde la necessità di rivedere e correggere la dottrina tradizionale sottoponendola al giudizio della ragione e accogliendo gli apporti scientifici e culturali del pensiero moderno.

Dopo ‘Abduh, capofila della corrente salafita fu Rashid Rida, che in seguito alla scomparsa del califfato ottomano progettò la creazione di un “partito islamico progressista”¹¹ in grado di creare un nuovo califfato. Nel 1897 Rashid Rida aveva fondato la rivista “Al-Manar”, la quale, diffusa in tutto il mondo arabo ed anche altrove, dopo la sua morte verrà pubblicata per cinque anni da un altro esponente del riformismo islamico: Hasan al-Banna (1906-1949), il fondatore dell’organizzazione dei Fratelli Musulmani.

Ma, mentre Rashid Rida teorizzava la nascita di un nuovo Stato islamico destinato a governare la ummah, nella penisola araba prendeva forma il Regno Arabo Saudita, in cui vigeva un’altra dottrina riformista: quella wahhabita.

La setta wahhabita

La setta wahhabita trae il proprio nome dal patronimico di Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab (1703-1792), un arabo del Nagd di scuola hanbalita che si entusiasmò ben presto per gli scritti di un giurista letteralista vissuto quattro secoli prima in Siria e in Egitto, Taqi ad-din Ahmad ibn Taymiyya (1263-1328). Sostenitore di ottuse interpretazioni antropomorfiche delle immagini contenute nel linguaggio coranico, animato da un vero e proprio odium theologicum nei confronti del sufismo, accusato più volte di eterodossia, Ibn Taymiyya ben merita la definizione di “padre del movimento salafita attraverso i secoli”¹² datagli da Henry Corbin. Seguendo le sue orme, Ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab e i suoi partigiani bollarono come manifestazioni di politeismo (shirk) la fede nell’intercessione dei profeti e dei santi e, in genere, tutti quegli atti che, a loro giudizio, equivalessero a ritenere partecipe dell’onnipotenza e del volere divino un essere umano o un’altra creatura, cosicché considerarono politeista (mushrik), con tutte le conseguenze del caso, anche il pio musulmano trovato ad invocare il Profeta Muhammad o a pregare vicino alla tomba di un santo. I wahhabiti attaccarono le città sante dell’Islam sciita, saccheggiandone i santuari; impadronitisi nel 1803-1804 di Mecca e di Medina, demolirono i monumenti sepolcrali dei santi e dei martiri e profanarono perfino la tomba del Profeta; misero al bando le organizzazioni iniziatiche e i loro riti; abolirono la celebrazione del genetliaco del Profeta; taglieggiarono i pellegrini e sospesero il Pellegrinaggio alla Casa di Dio; emanarono le proibizioni più strampalate.

Sconfitti dall’esercito che il sovrano egiziano aveva inviato contro di loro dietro esortazione della Sublime Porta, i wahhabiti si divisero tra le due dinastie rivali dei Sa’ud e dei Rashid e per un secolo impegnarono le loro energie nelle lotte intestine che insanguinarono la penisola araba, finché Ibn Sa’ud (‘Abd al-’Aziz ibn ‘Abd ar-Rahman Al Faysal Al Su’ud, 1882-1953) risollevò le sorti della setta. Patrocinato dalla Gran Bretagna, che, unico Stato al mondo, nel 1915 instaurò relazioni ufficiali con lui esercitando un “quasi protettorato”¹³ sul Sultanato del Nagd, Ibn Sa’ud riuscì ad occupare Mecca nel 1924 e Medina nel 1925. Diventò così “Re del Higiaz e del Nagd e sue dipendenze”, secondo il titolo che nel 1927 gli venne riconosciuto nel Trattato di Gedda del 20 maggio 1927, stipulato con la prima potenza europea che riconobbe la nuova formazione statale wahhabita: la Gran Bretagna.

“Le sue vittorie – scrisse uno dei tanti orientalisti che hanno cantato le sue lodi – lo han reso il sovrano più potente d’Arabia. I suoi domini toccano l’Iràq, la Palestina, la Siria, il Mar Rosso e il Golfo Persico. La sua personalità di rilievo si è affermata con la creazione degli Ikhwàn o Fratelli: una confraternita di Wahhabiti attivisti che l’inglese Philby ha chiamato ‘una nuova massoneria’”¹⁴.

Si tratta di Harry St. John Bridger Philby (1885-1960), l’organizzatore della rivolta araba antiottomana del 1915, il quale “aveva occupato alla corte di Ibn Saud il posto del deceduto Shakespeare”¹⁵, per citare l’espressione iperbolica di un altro orientalista di quell’epoca. Fu lui a caldeggiare presso Winston Churchill, Giorgio V, il barone Rothschild e Chaim Weizmann il progetto di una monarchia saudita che, usurpando la custodia dei Luoghi Santi tradizionalmente assegnata alla dinastia hascemita, unificasse la penisola araba e controllasse per conto dell’Inghilterra la via marittima Suez-Aden-Mumbay.

Con la fine del secondo conflitto mondiale, durante il quale l’Arabia Saudita mantenne una neutralità filoinglese, al patrocinio britannico si sarebbe aggiunto e poi sostituito quello nordamericano. In tal senso, un evento anticipatore e simbolico fu l’incontro che ebbe luogo il 1 marzo 1945 sul Canale di Suez, a bordo della Quincy, tra il presidente Roosevelt e il sovrano wahhabita; il quale, come ricordava orgogliosamente un arabista statunitense, “è sempre stato un grande ammiratore dell’America, che antepone anche all’Inghilterra”¹⁶. Infatti già nel 1933 la monarchia saudita aveva dato in concessione alla Standard Oil Company of California il monopolio dello sfruttamento petrolifero, mentre nel 1934 la compagnia americana Saoudi Arabian Mining Syndicate aveva ottenuto il monopolio della ricerca e dell’estrazione dell’oro.

I Fratelli Musulmani

Usurpata la custodia dei Luoghi Santi ed acquisito il prestigio connesso a tale ruolo, la famiglia dei Sa’ud avverte l’esigenza di disporre di una “internazionale” che le consenta di estendere la propria egemonia su buona parte della comunità musulmana, al fine di contrastare la diffusione del panarabismo nasseriano, del nazionalsocialismo baathista e – dopo la rivoluzione islamica del 1978 in Iran – dell’influenza sciita. L’organizzazione dei Fratelli Musulmani mette a disposizione della politica di Riyad una rete organizzativa che trarrà alimento dai cospicui finanziamenti sauditi. “Dopo il 1973, grazie all’aumento dei redditi provenienti dal petrolio, i mezzi economici non mancano; verranno investiti soprattutto nelle zone in cui un Islam poco ‘consolidato’ potrebbe aprire la porta all’influenza iraniana, in particolare l’Africa e le comunità musulmane emigrate in Occidente”¹⁷.

D’altronde la sinergia tra la monarchia wahhabita e il movimento fondato nel 1928 dall’egiziano Hassan al-Banna (1906-1949) si basa su un terreno dottrinale sostanzialmente comune, poiché i Fratelli Musulmani sono gli “eredi diretti, anche se non sempre rigorosamente fedeli, della salafiyyah di Muhammad ‘Abduh”¹⁸ e in quanto tali recano inscritta fin dalla nascita nel loro DNA la tendenza ad accettare, sia pure con tutte le necessarie riserve, la moderna civiltà occidentale. Tariq Ramadan, nipote di Hassan al-Banna ed esponente dell’attuale intelligencija musulmana riformista, così interpreta il pensiero del fondatore dell’organizzazione: “Come tutti i riformisti che l’hanno preceduto, Hassan al-Banna non ha mai demonizzato l’Occidente. (…) L’Occidente ha permesso all’umanità di fare grandi passi in avanti e ciò è avvenuto a partire dal Rinascimento, quando è iniziato un vasto processo di secolarizzazione (‘che è stato un apporto positivo’, tenuto conto della specificità della religione cristiana e dell’istituzione clericale)”¹⁹. L’intellettuale riformista ricorda che il nonno, nella sua attività di maestro di scuola, si ispirava alle più recenti teorie pedagogiche occidentali e riporta da un suo scritto un brano eloquente: “Dobbiamo ispirarci alle scuole occidentali, ai loro programmi (…) Dobbiamo anche prendere dalle scuole occidentali e dai loro programmi il costante interesse all’educazione moderna e il loro modo di affrontare le esigenze e la preparazione all’apprendimento, fondate su metodi saldi tratti da studi sulla personalità e la naturalità del bambino  (…) Dobbiamo approfittare di tutto ciò, senza provare alcuna vergogna: la scienza è un diritto di tutti (…)”²⁰.

Con la cosiddetta “Primavera araba”, si è manifestata in maniera ufficiale la disponibilità dei Fratelli Musulmani ad accogliere quei capisaldi ideologici della cultura politica occidentale che Huntington indicava come termini fondamentali di contrasto con l’Islam. In Libia, in Tunisia, in Egitto i Fratelli hanno goduto del patrocinio statunitense.

Il partito egiziano Libertà e Giustizia, costituito il 30 aprile 2011 per iniziativa della Fratellanza e da essa controllato, si richiama ai “diritti umani”, propugna la democrazia, appoggia una gestione capitalistica dell’economia, non è contrario ad accettare prestiti dal Fondo Monetario Internazionale. Il suo presidente Muhammad Morsi (n. 1951), oggi presidente dell’Egitto, ha studiato negli Stati Uniti, dove ha anche lavorato come assistente universitario alla California State University; due dei suoi cinque figli sono cittadini statunitensi. Il nuovo presidente ha subito dichiarato che l’Egitto rispetterà tutti i trattati stipulati con altri paesi (quindi anche con Israele); ha compiuto in Arabia Saudita la sua prima visita ufficiale e ha dichiarato che intende rafforzare le relazioni con Riyad; ha dichiarato che è un “dovere etico” sostenere il movimento armato di opposizione che combatte contro il governo di Damasco.

Se la tesi di Huntington aveva bisogno di una dimostrazione, i Fratelli Musulmani l’hanno fornita.

NOTE:

1. Samuel P. Huntington, Lo scontro delle civiltà e il nuovo ordine mondiale, Garzanti, Milano 2000, p. 319.

2. Ibidem, p. 310.

3. Rédha Malek, Tradition et révolution. L’enjeu de la modernité en Algérie et dans l’Islam, ANEP, Rouiba (Algeria) 2001, p. 218.

4. Stefano Allievi e Brigitte Maréchal, I Fratelli Musulmani in Europa. L’influenza e il peso di una minoranza attiva, in: I Fratelli Musulmani nel mondo contemporaneo, a cura di M. Campanini e K. Mezran, UTET, Torino 2010, p. 219.

5. “When the enemy is armed with a totalitarian ideology and served by regiments of devoted believers, those with opposing policies must compete at the popular level of action and the essence of their tactics must be counter- faith and counter-devotion. Only popular forces, genuinely involved and genuinely reacting on their own behalf, can meet the infiltrating threat of Communism” (http://www.american-buddha.com/lit.johnsonamosqueinmunich.12.htm)

6. “- Les Américains vous semblent-ils plus conciliants que les Européens? – A l’égard de l’islam, oui. Il n’y a pas de passé colonial entre les pays musulmans et l’Amérique, pas de croisades; pas de guerre, pas d’histoire… – Et vous aviez un ennemi commun: le communisme athée, qui a poussé les Américains à vous soutenir… – Sans doute, mais la Grande-Bretagne de Margaret Thatcher était aussi anticommuniste…” (Tunisie: un leader islamiste veut rentrer, 22/01/2011; http://plus.lefigaro.fr/article/tunisie-un-leader-islamiste-veut-rentrer-20110122-380767/commentaires).

7. Massimo Campanini, Il pensiero islamico contemporaneo, Il Mulino, Bologna 2005, p. 137.

8. Cit. in: Maryam Jameelah, Islam and Modernism, Mohammad Yusuf Khan, Srinagar-Lahore 1975, p. 153.

9. Cit. in: Tariq Ramadan, Il riformismo islamico. Un secolo di rinnovamento musulmano, Città Aperta Edizioni, Troina (En) 2004, p. 65.

10. Massimo Campanini, Il pensiero islamico contemporaneo, cit., p. 23.

11. Cit. in: Tariq Ramadan, op. cit., p. 143.

12. Henry Corbin, Storia della filosofia islamica, Adelphi, Milano 1989, p. 126.

13. Carlo Alfonso Nallino, Raccolta di scritti editi e inediti, Vol. I L’Arabia Sa’udiana, Istituto per l’Oriente, Roma 1939, p. 151.

14. Henri Lammens, L’Islàm. Credenze e istituzioni, Laterza, Bari 1948, p. 158.

15. Giulio Germanus, Sulle orme di Maometto, vol. I, Garzanti, Milano 1946, p. 142.

16. John Van Ess, Incontro con gli Arabi, Garzanti, Milano 1948, p. 108.

17. Alain Chouet, L’association des Frères Musulmans, http://alain.chouet.free.fr/documents/fmuz2.htm. Sulla presenza dei Fratelli Musulmani in Occidente, cfr. Karim Mezran, La Fratellanza musulmana negli Stati Uniti, in: I Fratelli Musulmani nel mondo contemporaneo, cit., pp. 169-196; Stefano Allievi e Brigitte Maréchal, I Fratelli Musulmani in Europa. L’influenza e il peso di una minoranza attiva, ibidem, pp. 197-240.

18. Massimo Campanini, I Fratelli Musulmani nella seconda guerra mondiale: politica e ideologia, “Nuova rivista storica”, a. LXXVIII, fasc. 3, sett.-dic. 1994, p. 625.

19. Tariq Ramadan, op. cit., pp. 350-351.

20. Hassan al-Banna, Hal nusir fi madrasatina wara’ al-gharb, “Al-fath”, 19 sett. 1929, cit. in: Tariq Ramadan, op. cit., p. 352.

 

Die Kurden – Volk ohne Staat

„Die Kurden – Volk ohne Staat“ von Gunther Deschner

Herbig, Munchen 2003, 349 Seiten, 24,90 Euro, ISBN 3-7766-2358-6

Von Hans Wagner

 

Ex: http://www.eurasischesmagazin.de/

 

EM – Ein Buch von wahrhaft brennender Aktualität! - Der Krieg, den die USA in den Irak getragen haben, wurde von ihnen nach gängiger Lesart gewonnen. Carl von Clausewitz, der geniale Kriegstheoretiker, würde hier sofort vehement widersprechen. Er würde sagen: Die USA haben ihren Krieg erst dann gewonnen, wenn sie ihre politischen Ziele erreicht haben. Doch davon sind sie meilenweit entfernt. Daß sie auch nicht Frieden schaffen können, zeigt die Situation im Spätherbst 2003 Tag für Tag. Frieden herrscht in der Region Naher Osten allerdings seit Jahrzehnten nicht mehr. Gewalt gehört hier zum Alltag. Die Ursachen sind vielfältig: der Streit um die reichen Ölfelder, die von den einstigen Kolonialmächten England und Frankreich willkürlich gezogenen Grenzen, die widerstreitenden Interessen der verfeindeten Nachbarn und die Einmischung auswärtiger Mächte, insbesondere der USA und Großbritanniens.

Wenn die Kurden im Nahen Osten ins Rampenlicht traten, lag stets Krieg in der Luft

In der Region lebt ein 30-Millionen-Volk ohne eigenen Staat: die Kurden. Das Bergvolk, das seit Jahrtausenden zwischen Mesopotamien und Kleinasien siedelte, drohte oft in seiner Geschichte in Vergessenheit zu geraten – wenn es aber ins Rampenlicht trat, lag stets Krieg in der Luft. Das war so zu Zeiten der Perser, der Kreuzritter, der Mongolen und der Osmanen. Und auch in diesem Jahr ist es nicht anders, nachdem die USA in den Irak einmarschiert sind und dort den Krieg entfesselt haben.

Kurdistan, das Territorium, das die Kurden als Staatsgebiet beanspruchen und das mehrheitlich von ihnen bewohnt wird, ist heute zwischen der Türkei und Syrien, Aserbaidschan, Iran und Irak aufgeteilt. Der jüngste amerikanische Aufmarsch am Golf, der Krieg gegen den Irak, hat die Kurden im Norden des Landes auch in Deutschland wieder in die Schlagzeilen gebracht. Die Darstellung des Schicksals dieses Volkes durch Günther Deschner liefert alle Hintergrundinformationen, die zum Verständnis des ungelösten Problems nötig sind. Der Autor kennt die maßgeblichen kurdischen Politiker und militärischen Führer der vergangenen 30 Jahre persönlich. Kurdistan hat er mehrfach bereist, seine Kompetenz durch Reportagen und Sachbücher belegt.

Die Kurden sind eines der ältesten Kulturvölker der Erde

Die Kurden sind eines der ältesten Kulturvölker der Erde. Ihre Herkunft liegt weitgehend im Dunkel der Geschichte verborgen. Sie beginnt nach grober Schätzung am Ende des zweiten Jahrtausends vor Chr. mit der Einwanderung indogermanischer Arier in das Gebiet des heutigen Irans. Die kurdische Geschichte ist geprägt von einer glanzvollen frühen Vergangenheit, von tiefer Zerrissenheit, von Leid und Unterdrückung. All dies wird in dem Buch lebendig. (Siehe auch EM 02-03 DIE KURDEN).

In Vergangenheit wie Gegenwart waren die Kurden, so der Autor, stets nur Figuren auf dem Schachbrett anderer. Ihre Kultur konnten sie, allem politischen Wechselspiel zum Trotz, zwar über Jahrhunderte behaupten, ihre staatliche Souveränität allerdings nie über einen nennenswerten Zeitraum hinaus sichern. Verträge, die ihnen Eigenständigkeit versprachen, wurden gebrochen, ihre Interessen stets verraten. Die Liste derer, die das Volk der Kurden benutzte, ist lang: In den letzten Jahrzehnten waren es vor allem die Iraker, Iraner, Syrer und Türken, Briten, Franzosen, Russen und – gleich mehrfach – die Amerikaner.

Ob die Kurden jemals ihren eigenen Staat bekommen werden, ist zweifelhaft. Das Dilemma, in dem eines der Länder mit starker kurdischer Bevölkerung steckt, nämlich die Türkei, schildert Deschner ausführlich: Ankara will unbedingt Mitglied der Europäischen Union werden. Dem stand bislang die diskriminierende Behandlung der größten ethnischen Minderheit des Landes, der Kurden, entgegen. Zwar würden jetzt Zugeständnisse gemacht, vor allem was die bislang unterdrückte Sprache angeht. Aber gleichzeitig versucht die türkische Republik, eine kurdische Autonomie oder gar einen kurdischen Staat im Nordirak zu verhindern, weil er dem Unabhängigkeitsstreben der Kurden im eigenen Land nach der Zerschlagung der PKK wieder Auftrieb geben dürfte. Ein selbständiges Kurdistan im Irak würde, zumal, wenn es über Einnahmen aus den Ölfeldern des Nordens verfügen könnte, als Angriff auf die türkische Souveränität verstanden - so Deschners Einschätzung. Die mögliche Rückführung von Kurden, die unter Saddam Hussein aus dem Norden vertrieben wurden, belaste schon jetzt die traditionell guten Beziehungen der Türkei zu den USA. Prüfstein sei die 3000 Jahre alte Stadt Kirkuk, das „kurdische Jerusalem“, das unter Saddam entschlossen arabisiert wurde und das nun die nordirakischen Kurden zu ihrer Hauptstadt machen wollen.

Daß die Kurdenfrage in der internationalen Politik noch lange eine Rolle spielen wird, daran läßt der Autor keinen Zweifel. Ihre Komplexität und Sprengkraft wird durch Deschners sachlich fundierte, spannend geschriebene Darstellung deutlich. Er schildert in seinem Buch die politische Aktualität und das historische Schicksal gleichermaßen. Außerdem liefert er ein Bild dieses faszinierenden Landes, das sich vom biblischen Berg Ararat bis zum Persischen Golf, von Euphrat und Tigris bis zum Hochland des Irans erstreckt.

Ein Personenregister am Schluß des Buches erleichtert es, sich in der aufregenden Geschichte dieses Volkes zurechtzufinden, von den mythischen Gestalten ihrer Anfänge bis zum heutigen Kurdenführer Talabani.

Horseback Riding and Bronze Age Pastoralism in the Eurasian Steppes

Horseback Riding and Bronze Age Pastoralism in the Eurasian Steppes

Indo-European Dispersals and the Eurasian Steppe with J.P. Mallory

Indo-European Dispersals and the Eurasian Steppe with J.P. Mallory

The Pakistan-Russia Relationship: Geopolitical Shift in South and Central Asia?

The Pakistan-Russia Relationship: Geopolitical Shift in South and Central Asia?

By Stop NATO

Global Research, October 22, 2012

by Dr Rashid Ahmad Khan

The two countries have quietly been building a mutual relationship for the last few years through bilateral as well as multilateral contacts at the highest levels. Pakistan’s status as an observer state in the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) has provided it with an important opportunity to have interaction with the top Russian leadership.

In June 2009, President Asif Ali Zardari participated in the SCO Summit in Yaketerinburg and met the then Russian President Dmitry Medvedev. The Russian leader was reported to have expressed a strong desire to develop closer relations with Pakistan in all important areas, including defence, investment and energy.

The establishment of close contacts between the top leadership of Pakistan and Russia and the two sides readiness to open a new chapter in their relationship is not only in the interests of the two countries, it will also serve the interests of peace, security and regional integration in two of the world’  s important regions of Central Asia and South Asia.

* *

Despite being geographically contiguous, Pakistan and Russia had remained politically distant from each other during the last six decades. The framework of the Cold War and the East-West confrontation defined the relations between the two countries during that period.

Another factor that obstructed the development of close and friendly relations between Pakistan and Russia was the latter’s insistence on looking at South Asia only through Indian eyes, ignoring Pakistan’s vital national security concerns. But the post-Cold War transformation of global politics and fast changing geo-political situation in the region following 9/11 have created new and strong imperatives for the two to come closer and enter into productive bilateral cooperation in the political, economic and security areas.

This reality was manifestly recognised in the statements by Pakistan’s Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar and visiting Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov at a joint press talk in Islamabad earlier this month. “We are longing for better ties with Pakistan,” said Mr Lavrov; while Ms Khar termed the current millennium as “the millennium of (Pakistan’s) relations with Russia.” The visit of the Russian foreign minister has brought the relationship of the two countries to a new and historic threshold.

Pakistan has achieved significant diplomatic success by securing the Russian endorsement of its position on the peace and reconciliation process in Afghanistan. The Russian foreign minister, while talking to the media in Islamabad, had categorically said that his country was against any solution of the Afghanistan problem that is imposed from outside and is not Afghan-owned and Afghan-driven. Instead, Russia would back an indigenous peace and reconciliation process owned and led by the people of Afghanistan. Similarly, the Russian condemnation of drone attacks has strengthened Pakistan’s hands in ensuring the country’s independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity. The Russian position on Afghanistan as articulated by Foreign Minister Lavrov during his recent visit to Pakistan is clear evidence of the greater geo-strategic convergence between Pakistan and Russia on regional issues.

The two countries have quietly been building a mutual relationship for the last few years through bilateral as well as multilateral contacts at the highest levels. Pakistan’s status as an observer state in the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) has provided it with an important opportunity to have interaction with the top Russian leadership.

With the induction of a democratic government in Pakistan following the 2008 elections, the process gained momentum and the two sides took important initiatives to promote bilateral trade, economic cooperation and regional connectivity through multilateral frameworks. In June 2009, President Asif Ali Zardari participated in the SCO Summit in Yaketerinburg and met the then Russian President Dmitry Medvedev. The Russian leader was reported to have expressed a strong desire to develop closer relations with Pakistan in all important areas, including defence, investment and energy. According to some sources, Pakistan and Russia were contemplating entering into a commercial defence agreement enabling Pakistan to purchase Russian arms and weapons.

There is vast potential for the growth of bilateral cooperation between Pakistan and Russia in a wide range of areas. Since the two sides have shown a keen desire to explore new areas and strengthen already existing cooperation in multiple fields, the coming years if not months are certain to witness an expansion of cooperation between the two countries. The areas of energy, regional connectivity, infrastructure and trade are going to be the focus of these endeavours.

However, while discussing the future prospects of Pakistan-Russia cooperation in economic and other non-political areas, the political and strategic fallout of the newly-found Russia-Pakistan friendship should also be taken into consideration, particularly by Pakistan, which has to date followed a foreign policy based on a narrow regional and global perspective.

Russia, which is a successor state to a former superpower, has its own worldview. For example, despite the establishment of a strategic partnership between India and the United States symbolised by their deal on civil nuclear cooperation, and robust Sino-India trade and economic relations, Moscow still values New Delhi as a close friend and Russian relations with Pakistan will not be at the cost of the former’s relations with India. As a big stakeholder in peace and tranquillity in South Asia, the growth of the Pakistan-Russia relationship will be a further incentive for Pakistan to pursue peace and normalisation with its eastern neighbour.

The Russians have their own perspective on issues relating to militancy, terrorism and regional peace and security. They are concerned about the prospects of Afghanistan again coming under the rule of the Taliban. Although, as the statement of the Russian foreign minister in Islamabad indicated, the Russians are opposed to the permanent military presence of the United States in Afghanistan; they are frightened on the prospects of NATO failure in Afghanistan as that would lead to serious anarchy and chaos in the country. This is why they are helping ISAF in Afghanistan by allowing their supplies through Russian territory. The Russians are also very worried about the security and law and order situation in Pakistan, particularly, the presence of a large number of foreign militants from Central Asia and Chechnya. During the meeting on the sidelines of the SCO summit at Yaketerinburg in June 2009 between President Zardari and President Medvedev, the latter was reported to have called for the elimination of safe havens of terrorists in Pakistan’s tribal areas.

The establishment of close contacts between the top leadership of Pakistan and Russia and the two sides’ readiness to open a new chapter in their relationship is not only in the interests of the two countries, it will also serve the interests of peace, security and regional integration in two of the world’s important regions of Central Asia and South Asia.

The writer is a professor of International Relations at Sargodha University

Une nouvelle doctrine américaine : contenir l’Eurasie par le chaos

Pierre DORTIGUIER:

Une nouvelle doctrine américaine : contenir l’Eurasie par le chaos

Ex: http://mediabenews.wordpress.com/

 

 

Le magazine texan Stratfor que nous citons, et auquel nous renvoyons, The Emerging Doctrine of the United States | Stratfor est un thermomètre de la température américaine et vise surtout à préparer l’opinion à distinguer entre les intérêts apparents et réels des Etats-Unis, à court et à long terme, ; il n’est donc pas destiné à un très vaste public, ni non plus formellement confidentiel, mais répond aux questions des élites déconcertées par le tapage médiatique « à usage de l’Américain moyen »

« Au cours de la fin de semaine dernière, des rumeurs ont commencé à émerger que l’opposition syrienne permettrait  à des  éléments  du « régime d’Assad » (sic)  à rester en Syrie et de participer au nouveau gouvernement. …  Ce qui se passe en Syrie est importante pour une nouvelle doctrine étrangère émergente aux États-Unis – une doctrine selon laquelle  les États-Unis ne prennent pas la responsabilité principale des événements, mais qui permet  aux crises régionales de se déployer jusqu’à ce qu’un nouvel équilibre régional soit  atteint. »

Le magazine simplifie volontairement, par souci de pédagogie la formule géopolitique U.S, en insistant sur  ses « intérêts fondamentaux » », à savoir e que assure la base de la prospérité américaine : « cela se résume à l’atténuation des menaces contre les Etats-Unis par le contrôle des mers  en empêchant l’émergence d’une puissance eurasienne qui serait en mesure de mobiliser des ressources à cette fin. Cette nouvelle doctrine consiste « à empêcher le développement d’une substantielle puissance nucléaire intercontinentale qui pourrait menacer les Etats-Unis, au cas où un pays ne serait pas découragé par la puissance américaine pour un motif quelconque. »

Dans cette perspective de maintien de supériorité « l’intérêt américain pour ce qui se passe dans le Pacifique est compréhensible .Mais même là les Etats-Unis, du moins pour l’instant, laissent les forces régionales s’engager dans une lutte qui n’a pas encore affecté l’équilibre régional de la puissance des Alliés américains, et les mandataires de cette puissance, comprenant les Philippines, le Viêt-Nam et le Japon ont été joué aux échec des les mers de cette région »  –sous entendu contre la Chine, et l’on notera que le Viêt-Nam est dans la sphère politique antichinoise depuis sa dernière lutte frontalière, au mépris des sacrifices nationaux antérieurs !- »sans une imosition directe de la puissance navale américaine, même si une telle perspective », conclut Stratfor Global Intelligence, « semble possible » !

Viennent maintenant les leçons que les Américains auraient tiré des derniers engagements ! la campagne d’Irak et la résistance irakienne ont conduit au retrait des forces US et l’iran y aurait gagné une plus grande puissance et un sentiment de sécurité.

La campagne libyenne est présentée –avec une certaine hypocrisie- comme une initiative française et aurait été  plus difficile, voire un échec, sans le soutien de l’aviation US.

La guerre syrienne, naturellement justifiée par l’influence croissante de l’Iran, et visant moins un Etat que ses relations étrangères avec l’Iran, la Russie et la Chine amène à  préciser cette nouvelle politique ; le conflit est régional, les Alliés des Américains sont chargés de l’entretenir, même sans arriver à une solution radicale, et l’auteur Friedmann raconte qu’il a exposé ceci à ses interlocuteurs d’Asie centrale qui espéraient voir un engagement plus net des forces US !

Les conséquences en sont une poursuite indéfinie de la lutte intestine en Syrie et une pression continue sur l’Iran, dans laquelle l’arme économique prime sur tout affrontement utopique militaire.  Ce qu’il importe est de bien lire la conclusion de l’analyse, qui montre que les Etats-Unis sont  eux-mêmes dirigés par une force occulte qui veut l’affrontement général en négligeant les embrasements locaux.
Il s’agit de tester la force de la puissance émergente russo-chinoise !

«  Cela a forcé la fois le régime syrien et les rebelles de reconnaître l’improbabilité d’une victoire militaire pure et simple. Tant le soutien de l’Iran au régime et les diverses sources de soutien à l’opposition syrienne se sont révélés  indécis. Les rumeurs d’un compromis politique émergent en conséquence.

Dans le même temps, les États-Unis ne sont pas prêts à s’engager dans une guerre avec l’Iran, ni prêts  à souscrire à l’attaque israélienne en l’accompagnant de leur soutien avec le soutien militaire . Les USA utilisent  un moyen efficace de pression – des sanctions – qui semblent  avoir eu un certain effet par  la dépréciation rapide de la monnaie iranienne . Mais les Etats-Unis ne cherchent pas à résoudre la question iranienne, il n’est pas prêt à assumer la responsabilité principale, sauf si l’Iran devient une menace pour les intérêts fondamentaux des États-Unis. Il se contente de laisser les événements se dérouler et à n’agir que s’ il n’y a pas d’autre choix

Les Etats-Unis ne sont pas prêts à intervenir par la force militaire conventionnelle.

Cela ne signifie pas que les États-Unis se désengagent  de la scène mondiale. Ils contrôlent  les océans du monde et génèrent  près d’un quart du PNB mondial du produit intérieur. Alors que le désengagement est impossible, l’ engagement contrôlé, basé sur une compréhension réaliste de l’intérêt national, est possible.

Cela va bouleverser  le système international, en particulier celui des alliés américains. Il créera également des contraintes aux États-Unis à la fois de la gauche politique, qui se veut une politique étrangère humanitaire, et le droit politique, qui définit l’intérêt national au sens large. Mais les contraintes de la dernière décennie pèsent  lourdement sur les Etats-Unis et vont donc changer la façon dont le monde fonctionne.

Le point important est que personne ne décide cette nouvelle doctrine. Il émerge de la réalité à laquelle les  Etats-Unis sont confrontés. C’est la force des  de doctrines qui se font jour. Elles se manifestent d’abord et sont annoncés quand tout le monde se rend compte que c’est comme ça que les choses fonctionnent. »

Une fois cette leçon de la Stratfor bien lue, une question se pose : qui dirige la politique US, l’intérêt national capitaliste-come partout, avec ses limites et ses confrontations  ou une politique impériale qui prend les Etats-Unis pour écran et vise à non pas bâtir un ordre, mais régler un désordre général, la maintenir par sa théorie du chaos minimum, abattre un adversaire fort, plutôt qu’imposer la puissance qu’elle n’a pas ? A cet égard, une alliance avec les USA est un chèque en blanc donné à un inconnu !

Pierre Dortiguier

Russland zwischen Souveränität und Abhängigkeit

Fjodor Lukjanow für RIA Novosti

Ex:

 

http://de.rian.ru/opinion/20121005/264601140.html/

 

In dieser Zeit haben Russland und der Rest der Welt einen tiefgreifenden Wandel durchlebt.

Diese Wandlungen lassen sich schwer zusammenfassen, aber eines ist offensichtlich: Seit dem Ende des 20. Jahrhunderts verschwimmen die Grenzen zwischen den Staaten.

Den Regierungen fällt es zunehmend schwerer, die Prozesse um den Zustand ihres Landes unmittelbar zu kontrollieren. Russland ist da keine Ausnahme. In Russland ist dieser Trend sogar besonders deutlich zu sehen.

Russland und der Rest der Welt

Die stetig zunehmende Abhängigkeit von äußeren Faktoren kam nicht überraschend. Das Auseinanderfallen der Sowjetunion begann bereits in den 1960er-Jahren. Damals machte sich das Land wegen der Erschließung neuer Gas- und Ölvorkommen in Sibirien und deren Exports nach Westeuropa von der Konjunktur des internationalen Rohstoffmarktes abhängig. Der Öl- und Gasexport sowie die Einnahmen wuchsen kontinuierlich, aber auch die Situation auf dem Weltmarkt wirkte sich auf die Sowjetunion aus.

Bis in die 1980er-Jahre profitierte das Land vom permanenten Anstieg der Rohstoffpreise. Dann aber begann die Rezession, die für die UdSSR fast zum Verhängnis wurde.

Andererseits ging der Kreml, der seinen Einfluss in Europa stärken wollte, ein politisches Spiel im Rahmen des Helsinki-Prozesses ein. Am Ende erreichte Moskau sein Ziel: Die bestehenden Grenzen wurden anerkannt. Es musste sich jedoch dem kostspieligen Entwicklungsprogramm für die Dritte Welt anschließen, was später eine wichtige Rolle für die Wandlungen spielen sollte, die zum Zerfall der Sowjetunion geführt haben.

Im Grunde hatte die sowjetische Führung selbst die Voraussetzungen für diese Reformen geschaffen: „Frische Luft“ kam endlich durch den Eisernen Vorhang.

Mit den Folgen der Abhängigkeit vom Rohstoffexport und des „Imports“ der Sehnsucht nach Freiheit musste sich Michail Gorbatschow auseinandersetzen. Das Ergebnis ist allen bekannt. Der Einfluss des Westens hat die Erosion der Sowjetunion beschleunigt, aber nicht verursacht. Die Sowjetunion wurde das Opfer der eigenen Unfähigkeit, die Situation in den Griff zu bekommen.

Boris Jelzin kam an die Macht, als Russland sich bereits geöffnet und als Teil der Welt etabliert hatte. Dies geschah jedoch, weil Chaos nach dem Zerfall der Sowjetunion herrschte, und der äußere Einfluss sich in dieser Situation als gegenläufig und widerspruchsvoll erwies. 

Aber selbst damals, als der russische Staat den Anschein erweckte, nahezu handlungsunfähig zu sein, behielt er die Kontrolle über seine wichtigsten Funktionen und Prozesse innerhalb des Landes.

Vernetzte Welt

Um die Jahrhundertwende wurden die Staatsgrenzen noch durchlässiger. In seiner ersten Amtszeit als Präsident ging es Putin vor allem darum, Russland aus der Misere zu holen, während die Situation in der Welt stabil zu sein schien. Jahre später sollte sich jedoch alles ändern. 

Russland erstarkte, wenngleich die Methoden nicht unumstritten waren. In der Welt begannen dagegen destruktive Prozesse, die sich aber auch auf die Lage in Russland auswirkten.

Die Globalisierung, die ursprünglich in der Wirtschaft begann, weitete sich allmählich auf andere Gebiete aus. Einzelne Staaten verloren die Möglichkeit, sich gegen äußere Einflüsse abzusichern.

Innere Faktoren der Instabilität verschmelzen sofort mit den äußeren, mit der Reaktion der Großmächte bzw. mit deren Interessen, mit der Einflusskraft der ideologischen Dogmen usw.

Verantwortungsvolle Staatsoberhäupter müssen angesichts der weltweiten Turbulenzen einen Mittelweg zwischen dem eigenen Konservatismus und der gesellschaftspolitischen Entwicklung im eigenen Land finden. Übertreibungen könnten dazu führen, dass sie die Kontrolle verlieren.

Die Politiker blicken in eine ungewisse Zukunft und müssen deshalb in der Lage sein, wenigstens kurzfristige Entwicklungen zu erkennen.

Der hippokratische Grundsatz „Primum non nocere“ scheint der einzig vernünftige Weg zu sein. Jegliche Aktivitäten, harte Maßnahmen könnten die Welt ins Wanken bringen. Die Politiker müssen heute vor allem in der Lage sein, schnell auf  Ereignisse zu reagieren.

Selbstzerstörerende Welt

Putin ist in seiner dritten Präsidentenamtszeit ein erfahrener Politiker, der die Perspektiven der Welt eher skeptisch sieht.

Früher hatte Putin die Unfähigkeit bzw. Weigerung des Westens kritisiert, Russland als gleichberechtigten Partner zu akzeptieren. Zudem warf er dem Westen vor, Russlands Interessen verletzen zu wollen.

Mittlerweile rätselt er darüber, warum der Westen sich selbst zerstört und die ohnehin ernsthaften Probleme noch mehr zuspitzt. 

Die Ereignisse in der Welt, der Mangel an Vernunft lassen ihn offenbar an der Zweckmäßigkeit und Möglichkeit der eigenen Schritte gegenüber dem Westen zweifeln. Sein Credo ist: Auf innere oder äußere Impulse reagieren!

Wenn man genau weiß, wie eine Herausforderung aussieht und woher sie kommt, sind Antworten leichter zu finden. Wichtig sind nicht konkrete Verhaltensstrategien, sondern das eigene Potenzial und die Anzahl der Instrumente, die zum richtigen Zeitpunkt angewendet werden müssen.

Souveränität über alles

Ein wichtiges Thema für Putin ist die Unantastbarkeit der Souveränität Russlands. Dieses Denken kennzeichnet seine Vorgehensweise. Er ist überzeugt, dass Souveränität die letzte Stütze eines mehr oder weniger soliden Systems ist. Ohne Souveränität geht der letzte Faktor verloren, der das wachsende Chaos strukturieren kann.

Das seit dem 18. Jahrhundert existierende Westfälische Staatensystem bestimmte die Kooperationsprinzipien, die manches Mal hart, dafür aber klar und verständlich waren. Dieses Modell stütze sich auf souveräne Staaten, die als Struktureinheiten dienten. Wenn diese Elemente plötzlich verschwinden, stellt sich die Frage, worauf sich diese Konstruktion überhaupt stützen könnte. Denn eine konzeptuelle Alternative für Souveränität gibt es nicht.

In letzter Zeit redet Putin gerne von der „Soft Power“ – der russischen und anti-russischen.

Die jüngsten umstrittenen russischen Gesetzesänderungen sind  nachvollziehbar: Russland muss sich gegen den äußeren Einfluss zur Wehr setzen. Putin sieht sich offenbar von den traurigen Erfahrungen der Sowjetunion gewarnt: Damals konnte der Staat den attraktiven Ideen und Argumenten von außerhalb nicht widerstehen und fiel letztendlich auseinander.

Russlands Abhängigkeit von der internationalen Marktkonjunktur ist nach wie vor ein Problem. Ideologische und intellektuelle Einflüsse von außerhalb abzuwehren ist die eine Sache. Eine andere Sache ist aber, dass Putin jetzt eine eigene Idee vorschlagen muss.

Dazu ist Russland jedoch noch nicht bereit. Es entsteht aber der Eindruck, dass ein solcher Versuch in absehbarer Zeit unternommen wird. Wie dies in der unberechenbaren Welt funktionieren wird, steht aber in den Sternen.

Zum Verfasser: Fjodor Lukjanow ist der Chefredakteur der Zeitschrift "Russia in Global Affairs"

Die Meinung des Verfassers muss nicht mit der von RIA Novosti übereinstimmen.

 

 

 

A. Dugin, C. Preve e M. Fini, presentano "Eurasia" a Milano

A. Dugin, C. Preve e M. Fini, presentano "Eurasia" a Milano

1 + 2

 

Salafismo e CIA: destabilizzare la Federazione Russa?

Salafismo e CIA: destabilizzare la Federazione Russa?

F. William Engdahl, Global Research,  

 

Copyright © 2012 Global Research + http://aurorasito.wordpress.com/

 

Parte I: la Siria arriva nel Caucaso russo
Il 28 agosto Sheikh Said Afandi, noto leader spirituale della Repubblica autonoma russa del Daghestan, veniva assassinato. Un’attentatrice suicida jihadista era riuscita ad entrare in casa sua e a far esplodere un ordigno esplosivo. L’obiettivo dell’omicidio era stato accuratamente selezionato. Sheikh Afandi, 75enne leader musulmano Sufi, aveva svolto un ruolo critico nel tentativo di giungere ad una riconciliazione in Daghestan, tra i salafiti jihadisti sunniti ed altre fazioni, molti dei quali, in Daghestan, si considerano seguaci Sufi. Senza una sostituzione della sua statura morale e del suo ampio rispetto, le autorità temono un focolaio di guerra settaria nella piccola repubblica autonoma russa. [1]

La polizia ha riferito che l’assassino era una donna di etnia russa convertitasi all’Islam e legata alla rivolta fondamentalista islamica salafita contro la Russia ed i governi regionali fedeli a Mosca, nelle repubbliche autonome e in tutta l’instabile regione musulmana del Caucaso settentrionale. Le popolazioni musulmane in questa regione della Russia e nell’ex Unione Sovietica, tra cui Uzbekistan e Kirghizistan, e nella provincia cinese dello Xinjiang, sono oggetto di varie operazioni di intelligence degli Stati Uniti e della NATO dalla fine della Guerra Fredda nel 1990. Washington vede nella manipolazione dei gruppi musulmani il veicolo per indurre un caos incontrollabile nella Russia e nell’Asia centrale. Attuato dalle stesse organizzazioni impegnate nel creare caos e distruzione in Siria contro il governo di Bashar al-Assad. In un certo senso, come i servizi di sicurezza russi hanno capito chiaramente, se non riescono a fermare l’insurrezione jihadista in Siria, essa si rivolgerà in patria attraverso il Caucaso. I recenti omicidi dei leader moderati Sufi e di altri musulmani del Caucaso, fanno apparentemente parte di ciò che sta diventando sempre più chiaro come, forse, la più pericolosa operazione di intelligence degli Stati Uniti, che sempre opera a livello mondiale con il fondamentalismo islamico. In precedenza, i servizi segreti statunitensi e alleati avevano giocato a tira e molla con le organizzazioni religiose o settarie in tale o tal altro paese. Ciò che rende la situazione particolarmente pericolosa, in particolare dopo la decisione di Washington di scatenare gli sconvolgimenti della malnominata primavera araba, che hanno avuto inizio alla fine del 2010 in Tunisia, diffondendo come un incendio in tutto il mondo islamico, dall’Afghanistan in Asia centrale al Marocco, è l’ondata incalcolabile di uccisioni, odi, distruzione di intere culture che Washington ha scatenato in nome di quel sogno sfuggente chiamato “democrazia”. Utilizzando presunti gruppi salafiti di al-Qaida, sauditi o wahhabiti, o i discepoli del movimento turco di Fethullah Gülen, per incendiare l’odio religioso nell’Islam e contro le altre fedi, che potrebbe richiedere decenni per essere estinto. E che infine potrebbe facilmente sfociare in una nuova guerra mondiale.

La minaccia del fondamentalismo in Caucaso
Dopo lo scioglimento dell’URSS, i mujahidin radicali afghani, islamisti dall’Arabia Saudita, da Turchia, Pakistan e altri paesi islamici, dilagarono nelle regioni musulmane dell’ex Unione Sovietica. Uno dei meglio organizzati di questi gruppi era il movimento di Fethullah Gülen, leader di una rete globale di scuole islamiche e che risulta avere un’influenza importante sulla politica di Erdogan, del partito AKP della Turchia. Gülen si era affrettato a creare The International Daghestan-Turkey College nel Daghestan. Durante i giorni caotici del crollo sovietico, il Ministero della Giustizia della Federazione Russa aveva ufficialmente registrato e autorizzato la libera attività di una serie di fondazioni e organizzazioni islamiche. Tra queste, la Lega del Mondo Islamico, l’Assemblea Mondiale della Gioventù Musulmana, la sospetta fondazione saudita ‘Ibrahim ben Abd al-Aziz al-Ibrahim‘, vicina ad al-Qaida. La lista nera comprendeva anche la fondazione saudita al-Haramein, che sarebbe legata ad al-Qaida, e l’IHH [2], un’organizzazione turca vietata in Germania, che avrebbero raccolto fondi per i combattenti jihadisti in Bosnia, Cecenia e Afghanistan, e accusata dall’intelligence francese di avere legami con al-Qaida. [3]

Molti di questi enti di beneficenza erano coperture dei fondamentalisti salafiti e del loro ordine del giorno speciale. Molti islamisti stranieri in Cecenia e Daghestan erano coinvolti nei disordini regionali e nelle guerre civili, quindi le autorità russe revocarono il permesso per le attività alla maggior parte delle scuole e delle istituzioni islamiche. In tutto il Caucaso del Nord, al momento della guerra Cecena alla fine degli anni ’90, vi erano più di due dozzine di istituti islamici, circa 200 madrase e numerose maktabas (scuole di studio coraniche) presenti in quasi tutte le moschee. L’International Daghestan-Turkey College era stato costretto a chiudere i battenti in Daghestan. Il Collegio era gestito dall’organizzazione di Fethullah Gülen. [4] Al culmine della repressione della diffusione dell’insegnamento salafita in Russia, alla fine degli anni ’90, ci fu un esodo di centinaia di giovani del Daghestan e di studenti musulmani Ceceni in Turchia, Arabia Saudita, Pakistan e in altri luoghi del Medio Oriente, dove avrebbero ricevuto una formazione presso il movimento di Gülen e varie organizzazioni finanziate dai sauditi, tra cui quelle salafite. [5] Si ritiene che gli studenti formati in Russia dai sostenitori di Gülen o dai centri salafiti sauditi e di altri fondamentalisti, siano stati rimandati in Daghestan e nel Caucaso del Nord per diffondere il loro radicalismo islamico. Entro il 2005 la situazione nel Caucaso era così influenzata da questo intervento salafita, che il salafita ceceno Doku Umarov, citato dal Consiglio di sicurezza dell’ONU per i collegamenti con al-Qaida [6], aveva dichiarato unilateralmente la creazione di ciò che chiamava ‘Emirato del Caucaso’, annunciando che aveva intenzione di creare uno stato islamico basato sulla sharia, comprendente l’intera regione del Caucaso del Nord, tra cui il Daghestan. Modestamente si proclamò emiro dell’Emirato del Caucaso. [7]

Parte II: il salafismo in guerra con la tradizione Sufi
Il salafismo, noto in Arabia Saudita come wahhabismo, è un ceppo fondamentalista dell’Islam che ha attirato l’attenzione del mondo e divenne famoso nel marzo 2001, poco prima degli attacchi dell’11 settembre. Fu allora che il governo salafita dei taliban in Afghanistan, distrusse volontariamente le storiche gigantesche statue del Buddha di Bamiyan, sulla Via della Seta, risalenti al 6° secolo. I leader salafiti taliban vietarono come “anti-islamico” anche tutte le forme di immagini, musica e sport, tra cui la televisione, in conformità con ciò che consideravano la stretta interpretazione della Sharia. Fonti afgane riferirono che l’ordine di distruggere i Buddha proveniva dal jihadista wahhabita saudita Usama bin Ladin, che alla fine convinse il Mullah Omar, leader supremo dei taliban all’epoca, ad attuarlo. [8] Mentre i Sufi incorporano il culto dei santi e le preghiere cerimoniali nella loro pratica, i salafiti condannano come idolatria qualsiasi forma di culto non tradizionale. Chiedono inoltre l’istituzione del governo politico islamico e una sharia rigorosa. Il Sufismo è la culla del grande patrimonio spirituale e musicale dell’Islam, secondo gli studiosi islamici, fornisce una dimensione interiore e mistica, o psico-spirituale, all’Islam, che risale a secoli indietro. Uno studioso Sufi ha descritto il nucleo del Sufismo: “Mentre tutti i musulmani credono di essere sul sentiero di Dio e di avvicinarsi a Dio, in Paradiso, dopo la morte e il ‘Giudizio Universale’; i Sufi credono anche che sia possibile avvicinarsi a Dio e vivere questa vicinanza, mentre si è vivi. Inoltre, il raggiungimento della conoscenza viene ottenuta con una tale intimità con Dio, affermano i Sufi, che è il vero scopo della creazione. Qui parlano del qudsi hadith, in cui Dio afferma, ‘Ero un tesoro nascosto e ho apprezzato il fatto che io sia conosciuto, così ho creato la creazione, al fine di essere conosciuto.’ Quindi, per i Sufi c’è già uno slancio, una continua attrazione esercitata nei loro cuori da Dio, trascinando, con l’amore, verso Dio“. [9]

La corrente mistica del sufismo islamico e la sua aspirazione ad avvicinarsi a Dio, è in netto contrasto con la corrente salafita jihadista o wahhabita, che è armata con armi mortali, predica la falsa dottrina della jihad, e un senso perverso del martirio, impegnandosi in innumerevoli atti di violenza. Non c’è da stupirsi che le vittime della jihad salafita siano per lo più le altre forme pacifiche dell’Islam, tra cui soprattutto i Sufi. L’autorevole 75enne Afandi aveva pubblicamente denunciato il fondamentalismo islamico salafita. Il suo omicidio fece seguito a un attacco coordinato del 19 luglio, contro due alti mufti nella Repubblica del Tatarstan russa, sul Volga. Entrambe le vittime erano capi religiosi riconosciuti dallo Stato che avevano attaccato l’Islam radicale. Quest’ultima serie di omicidi apre un nuovo fronte nella guerra salafita contro la Russia, attacca in particolare i leader sufi musulmani moderati. Se il Daghestan sprofondi o meno in una guerra civile religiosa, che poi si diffonda in tutto il Caucaso russo geopoliticamente sensibile, non è ancora certo. Ciò che è quasi certo è che gli stessi circoli che alimentano violenza e terrore in Siria contro il regime del presidente alawita Bashar al-Assad, sono dietro l’uccisione dello sceicco Afandi, così come degli atti di terrorismo o dei disordini nel Caucaso musulmano in Russia. In modo assai reale, rappresenta uno scenario da incubo per la Russia, una “Siria che arrivi in Russia.” Dimostrando drammaticamente perché Putin ha compiuto uno sforzo così determinato nel fermare la discesa nell’inferno omicida della Siria.

Salafismo e CIA
L’esistenza del cosiddetto marchio jihadista salafita dell’Islam in Daghestan è piuttosto recente. È stato anche deliberatamente importato. Il salafismo è a volte chiamato anche col vecchio nome saudita di wahhabismo. Il wahhabismo era originariamente una forma minoritaria beduina di fede originaria dell’Islam, dominante in Arabia Saudita dal 1700. Irfan al-Alawi e Stephen Schwartz del Centro per il pluralismo islamico danno la seguente descrizione delle condizioni saudite sotto il rigido marchio wahhabita dell’Islam: “Le donne che vivono sotto il governo saudita devono indossare l’abaya, il mantello totale del corpo, e il niqab, il velo sul viso, hanno scarse opportunità di istruzione e di carriera, gli è fatto divieto di guidare veicoli, di contatti sociali con uomini che non siano parenti, e tutte le attività personali devono essere sorvegliate, anche aprire i conti bancari, da un familiare di sesso maschile o da un “custode“. Queste regole wahhabite vengono applicate dal mutawiyin, o milizia morale, conosciuta anche come “polizia religiosa”, ufficialmente designata dalla Commissione per la Promozione della virtù e la prevenzione del vizio (CPVPV), che pattuglia le città saudite, armata di bastoni rivestiti in pelle, liberamente utilizzata contro presunti ribelli. Compiono raid nelle case alla ricerca di alcol e droghe, e molestano i musulmani non-wahhabiti e i credenti in altre fedi“. [10] E’ ampiamente noto che l’oscenamente opulenta e la non così tanto moralmente elevata famiglia reale saudita abbia stretto un accordo faustiano con i leader wahhabiti. L’accordo, presumibilmente, rende i wahhabiti liberi di esportare il propria fanatica forma d’Islam alle popolazioni islamiche del mondo, in cambio di lasciare la famiglia reale saudita al potere. [11] Vi sono, tuttavia, altri oscuri e sporchi cucchiai che agitano lo stufato wahabita-salafita saudita.

Poco conosciuto è il fatto che l’attuale forma aggressiva di wahhabismo saudita, sia in realtà una sorta di fusione tra salafiti jihadisti importati dalla Fratellanza musulmana, in Egitto, e i fondamentalisti wahhabiti sauditi. Importanti membri salafiti della Fratellanza musulmana egiziana furono introdotti dalla CIA nel regno saudita, negli anni ’50, con una complessa serie di eventi, quando Nasser usò la mano pesante contro i Fratelli musulmani, in seguito ad un tentativo di assassinio. Negli anni ’60, l’afflusso in Arabia Saudita di membri egiziani dei Fratelli musulmani in fuga dalla repressione nasseriana, aveva occupato molte importanti cattedre nelle scuole religiose saudite. Tra gli studenti vi era un facoltoso giovane saudita, Usama bin Ladin. [12] Durante il Terzo Reich, la Germania di Hitler aveva sostenuto i Fratelli musulmani come arma contro gli inglesi in Egitto e in altre parti del Medio Oriente. Marc Erikson descrive le radici naziste della Fratellanza musulmana egiziana così: “…Mentre il fascismo italiano e tedesco cercavano una maggiore presenza in Medio Oriente negli anni ’30 e ’40, per contrastare il controllo degli inglesi e dei francesi, una stretta collaborazione tra gli agenti fascisti e leader islamici ebbe inizio. Durante la Rivolta Araba del 1936-1939, l’ammiraglio Wilhelm Canaris, capo dell’intelligence militare tedesca, aveva inviato agenti e denaro per sostenere la rivolta palestinese contro gli inglesi, così come il fondatore dei Fratelli musulmani e “guida suprema”, Hassan al-Banna. Un individuo chiave nel legame fascista-islamista tra i nazisti e al-Banna fu il Gran Mufti di Gerusalemme, Haj Amin el-Husseini.” [13] Dopo la sconfitta della Germania, l’intelligence inglese si mosse per assumere il controllo della Fratellanza musulmana. In ultima analisi, per ragioni finanziarie e di altro tipo, gli inglesi decisero di consegnare le loro attività con i Fratelli musulmani ai loro colleghi della CIA, negli anni ’50. [14]

Secondo l’ex cacciatore di nazisti del Dipartimento di Giustizia degli Stati Uniti, John Loftus, “nel corso degli anni ’50, la CIA evacuò i nazisti dei Fratelli musulmani in Arabia Saudita. Ora, quando arrivarono in Arabia Saudita, alcuni dei protagonisti dei Fratelli musulmani, come il dottor Abdullah Azzam, divennero insegnanti nelle madrasse, le scuole religiose. E unirono le dottrine del nazismo con questo strano culto islamico, il wahhabismo”. [15] “Tutti pensano che l’Islam sia una religione fanatica, ma non lo è“, continua Loftus. “Pensano che l’Islam, la versione saudita dell’Islam, sia tipica, ma non lo è. Il culto wahhabita è stato condannato come eresia più di 60 volte dalle nazioni musulmane. Ma quando i sauditi divennero ricchi, comprarono un grande silenzio. Si tratta di un culto molto duro. Il wahhabismo è praticato solo dai taliban e dall’Arabia Saudita, per quanto sia estremo. Non ha davvero nulla a che fare con l’Islam. L’Islam è una religione molto pacifica e tollerante. Ha sempre avuto buoni rapporti con gli ebrei, nei primi mille anni della sua esistenza“.[16] Loftus ha individuato il significato di quello che oggi sta emergendo dall’ombra, consegnando l’Egitto al Presidente Morsi dei Fratelli musulmani, e il cosiddetto Consiglio nazionale siriano, in realtà dominato dai Fratelli musulmani e pubblicamente guidato dal più “politicamente corretto” o presentabile degli artisti del calibro di Bassma Kodmani. Kodmani, portavoce per gli Affari esteri del CNS, è stata due volte ospite al raduno dell’élite del Bilderberg, più recentemente a Chantilly, in Virginia, all’inizio di quest’anno. [17]

La caratteristica più bizzarra e allarmante dei cambi di regime finanziati dagli USA, avviati nel 2010, e che hanno portato alla distruzione del regime arabo laico di Hosni Mubarak in Egitto, di Muhammar Gheddafi in Libia e del regime laico del presidente Ben Ali in Tunisia, e che hanno portato alla distruzione selvaggia in tutto il Medio Oriente, in particolare negli ultimi diciotto mesi in Siria, è l’emergente modalità di presa di potere dei rappresentanti salafiti della torbida Fratellanza musulmana. Secondo fonti informate, i Fratelli musulmani, islamici sunniti finanziati dai sauditi, domina i membri del Consiglio nazionale siriano in esilio, sostenuti dalla Segretaria del Dipartimento di Stato USA, Clinton e dalla Francia di Hollande. La Fratellanza musulmana siriana è legata, non a caso, alla Fratellanza musulmana egiziana del presidente Mohammed Morsi, che di recente, alla riunione dei Paesi Non Allineati in Iran, aveva chiesto apertamente la rimozione di Assad dalla Siria, un passo logico affinché i suoi Fratelli musulmani in Siria, presenti nel Consiglio Nazionale, prendano le redini del potere. I sauditi dicono anche di aver finanziato l’ascesa al potere in Tunisia del governo islamista del partito Ennahda, [18] e sono documentati i finanziamenti della Fratellanza musulmana, che domina il Consiglio nazionale siriano contrario al presidente Bashar al-Assad. [19]

Parte III: il regno del terrore salafita di Morsi
Indicativo del vero programma attuale della Fratellanza musulmana e dei jihadisti collegati, è il fatto che una volta che avranno il potere, faranno cadere il velo della moderazione e della riconciliazione, e riveleranno le loro radici violentemente intolleranti. Questo è visibile in Egitto oggi, con il  presidente dei Fratelli musulmani Mohammed Morsi. Non vengono trasmessi dai principali media occidentali, fino ad oggi, gli allarmanti rapporti diretti delle organizzazioni missionarie cristiane in Egitto, secondo cui i Fratelli musulmani di Morsi hanno già cominciato a far cadere il velo della “moderazione e conciliazione“, mostrando i loro colore da brutali salafiti totalitari, similmente a quanto fecero in Iran le forze radicali della Sharia di Khomeini, dopo aver preso il controllo nel 1979-81.

In una lettera diffusa dalla missione Christian Aid (CAM), un missionario cristiano egiziano ha scritto che la Fratellanza musulmana di Morsi “ha annunciato che avrebbe distrutto il paese, se Morsi non avesse vinto, ma hanno anche detto che si vendicheranno di tutti coloro che hanno votato per [il suo avversario Ahmed] Shafiq, soprattutto i cristiani, in quanto sono sicuri che abbiamo votato per Shafiq. Ieri hanno cominciato uccidendo due credenti ad al- Sharqiya, a causa di ciò“, ha aggiunto il missionario, parlando in condizione di anonimato. [20] La presente relazione è stata pubblicata poche settimane dopo che la TV di Stato egiziana (sotto il controllo di Morsi) ha mostrato le immagini del spaventoso video di un convertito dall’islam al cristianesimo ucciso da musulmani. Il filmato ha mostrato un giovane costretto da uomini mascherati con un coltello alla gola. Mentre si sente un uomo cantare preghiere musulmane in arabo, che per lo più condannavano il cristianesimo, un altro che teneva il coltello alla gola del convertito cristiano cominciava a decapitarlo, lentamente, tra grida di “Allahu Akbar” (“Allah è grande”), secondo le trascrizioni. Nella lettera, il missionario egiziano aggiungeva che, “subito dopo che Morsi ha vinto, ai cristiani in Egitto è stato impedito con la forza di andare in chiesa.” Molti musulmani, la lettera affermava, “hanno cominciato a dire alle donne, in strada, che dovevano indossare l’abbigliamento islamico compreso di copricapo. Si comportano come se avessero il controllo del paese, e lo hanno, ora“. [21]

Già nel 2011 i seguaci salafiti di Morsi hanno cominciato ad attaccare e a distruggere le moschee Sufi in tutto l’Egitto. Secondo l’autorevole quotidiano al-Masry al-Youm (l’Egiziano oggi), 16 moschee storiche di Alessandria appartenenti ad ordini Sufi, sono state contrassegnati per essere distrutte dai cosiddetti “salafiti”. Alessandria dispone di 40 moschee associate ai Sufi, ed è la sede di 36 gruppi Sufi. Mezzo milione di Sufi vive in città, su un totale di quattro milioni di persone. L’aggressione contro i Sufi in Egitto, include un raid contro la moschea più illustre di Alessandria, che prende il nome, e alloggia, la tomba del 13° secolo del Sufi Al-Mursi Abul Abbas. [22] In particolare, il cosiddetto regime “democraticamente eletto” in Libia, dopo il rovesciamento nel 2011 di Muammar Gheddafi, grazie alle bombe della NATO, è stato anch’esso zelante nel distruggere le moschee e i luoghi di culto Sufi. Ad agosto di quest’anno, la Direttrice Generale dell’UNESCO, Irina Bokova, ha espresso “grave preoccupazione” per la distruzione da parte dei jihadisti, dei siti islamici Sufi a Zliten, Misurata e Tripoli, e ha invitato gli autori a “cessare immediatamente le distruzioni“. [23] In fondo, dietro le quinte, il governo libico è dominato da jihadisti e dai seguaci dei Fratelli musulmani, come in Tunisia e in Egitto. [24]

Il cocktail esplosivo di violenze insito nel permettere l’ascesa al potere degli islamisti salafiti in tutto il Medio Oriente, è abbastanza chiaro; simbolicamente la notte dell’11 settembre scorso, una folla di sostenitori arrabbiati del gruppo salafita fanatico Ansar al-Sharia, assassinava l’ambasciatore degli Stati Uniti in Libia e tre diplomatici statunitensi, bruciando il consolato statunitense a Bengasi, in segno di protesta per la pubblicazione su YouTube di un film di un regista statunitense, che mostra il profeta Maometto indulgere in affari sessuali multipli e mettere in dubbio il suo ruolo di messaggero di Dio. Ironia della sorte, l’ambasciatore degli Stati Uniti aveva avuto un ruolo chiave nel rovesciare Gheddafi aprendo la porta alla conquista salafita della Libia. Allo stesso tempo, folle inferocite di migliaia di salafiti circondavano l’ambasciata statunitense a Cairo, in segno di protesta per il film degli Stati Uniti. [25] Ansar al-Sharia (Partigiani della “legge islamica” in arabo) sarebbe una derivazione di al-Qaida e reclama una presenza  in tutto il Medio Oriente, dallo Yemen alla Tunisia, Iraq, Egitto e Libia. Ansar al-Sharia afferma di voler riprodurre il modello ristretto di sharia o legge islamica abbracciato dai taliban in Afghanistan, e dallo Stato islamico dell’Iraq, un gruppo militante ombrello che comprende al-Qaida in Iraq. Il nucleo del gruppo sono dei jihadisti che provengono da uno “stato islamico”, sia  l’Afghanistan di metà degli anni ’90, o i jihadisti in Iraq, dopo l’invasione degli USA nel 2003. [26]

La detonazione deliberata, oggi, di un nuovo ciclo di terrore fondamentalista jihadista salafita nelle regioni musulmane del Caucaso russo, ha origini squisitamente politiche, in tempo per esercitare la massima pressione interna sul governo della Russia di Vladimir Putin. Putin e il governo russo sono i sostenitori più forti ed essenziali del governo siriano di Bashar al-Assad, e per la Russia il mantenimento della sola base navale del Mediterraneo della Russia, nel porto di Tartus in Siria, è di vitale importanza strategica. Allo stesso tempo, il messaggio subdolo di Obama a Medvedev di attendere la rielezione di Obama per valutare l’intenzione degli Stati Uniti nei confronti della Russia, e il recente commento criptico di Putin, secondo cui un compromesso con il ri-eletto presidente Obama potrebbe essere possibile, ma non con un Romney presidente, [27] indicano che la tattica di Washington con Mosca del “bastone e carota” o del poliziotto buono – poliziotto cattivo, potrebbe tentare la Russia a sacrificare le principali alleanze geopolitiche, forse anche la speciale e recente stretta alleanza geopolitica con la Cina. [28] Se ciò accadesse, il mondo potrebbe assistere al “reset” nelle relazioni USA-Russia, con conseguenze catastrofiche per la pace nel mondo.

*F. William Engdahl è l’autore di Full Spectrum Dominance: la democrazia totalitaria del Nuovo Ordine Mondiale

Note
[1] Dan Peleschuk, Sheikh Murdered Over Religious Split Say Analysts, RIA Novosti, 30 Agsto 2012.
[2] Mairbek  Vatchagaev, The Kremlin’s War on Islamic Education in the North Caucasus, North Caucasus Analysis Volume: 7 Issue: 34
[3] Iason Athanasiadis, Targeted by Israeli raid: Who is the IHH?, The Christian Science Monitor, 1 Giugno 2010.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Mairbek Vatchagaev, op. cit.
[6] UN Security Council, QI.U.290.11. DOKU KHAMATOVICH UMAROV, 10 Marzo 2011. La dichiarazione delle Nazioni Unite recita: “Doku Umarov Khamatovich è stato inserito il 10 marzo 2011 ai sensi del paragrafo 2 della risoluzione 1904 (2009) come associati ad al-Qaida, Usama bin Ladin o ai taliban per “aver partecipato al finanziamento, pianificazione, facilitazione, preparazione o esecuzione di atti o attività di, in collaborazione con, nel nome di, per conto di o a sostegno, reclutamento, rifornimento, vendita o trasferimento di armi e materiale bellico” e “altri atti o attività di sostegno” al Gruppo della Jihad islamica (QE.I.119.05), al Movimento islamico dell’Uzbekistan (QE.I.10.01), al Battaglione ricognizione e sabotaggio dei Martiri ceceni Riyadus-Salikhin (RSRSBCM) (QE.R.100.03) e all’Emarat Kavkaz (QE.E.131.11).”
[7] Tom Jones, Czech NGO rejects Russian reports of link to alleged Islamist terrorists al-Qaeda, 10 Maggio 2011.
[8] The Times of India, Laden ordered Bamyan Buddha destruction, The Times of India, 28 Marzo 2006.
[9] Dr. Alan Godlas, Sufism — Sufis — Sufi Orders
[10] Irfan Al-Alawi and Stephen Schwartz, Wahhabi Internal Contradictions as Saudi Arabia Seeks Wider Gulf Leadership, Center for Islamic Pluralism, 21 Maggio 2012.
[11] Irfan Al-Alawi and Stephen Schwartz, Wahhabi Internal Contradictions as Saudi Arabia Seeks Wider Gulf Leadership, 21 Maggio 2012.
[12] Robert Duncan, Islamic Terrorisms Links to Nazi Fascism, AINA, 5 Luglio 2007.
[13] Marc Erikson, Islamism, fascism and terrorism (Part 2), AsiaTimes.Online, 8 Novembre 2002.
[14] Ibid.
[15] John Loftus, The Muslim Brotherhood, Nazis and Al-Qaeda, Jewish Community News, 11 Ottobre 2006
[16] Ibid.
[17] Charlie Skelton, The Syrian opposition: who’s doing the talking?: The media have been too passive when it comes to Syrian opposition sources, without scrutinising their backgrounds and their political connections. Time for a closer look…, London Guardian, 12 Luglio 2012.
[18] Aidan Lewis, Profile: Tunisia’s Ennahda Party, BBC News, 25 Ottobre 2011.
[19] Hassan Hassan, Syrians are torn between a despotic regime and a stagnant opposition: The Muslim Brotherhood’s perceived monopoly over the Syrian National Council has created an opposition stalemate, The Guardian, UK, 23 Agosto 2012.
[20] Stefan J. Bos, Egypt Christians Killed After Election of Morsi, Bosnewslife, 30 Giugno 2012.
[21] Ibid.
[22] Irfan Al-Alawi, Egyptian Muslim Fundamentalists Attack Sufis, Guardian Online [London], 11 Aprile 2011
[23] Yafiah Katherine Randall, UNESCO urges Libya to stop destruction of Sufi sites, 31 Agosto 2012, Sufi News and Sufism World Report.
[24] Jamie Dettmer, Libya elections: Muslim Brotherhood set to lead government, 5 Luglio 2012, The Telegraph, London.
[25] Luke Harding, Chris Stephen, US ambassador to Libya, killed in Benghazi attack: Ambassador and three other American embassy staff killed after Islamist militants fired rockets at their car, say Libyan officials, London Guardian, 12 Settembre 2012.
[26] Murad Batal al-Shishani, Profile: Ansar al-Sharia in Yemen, 8 Marzo 2012 .
[27] David M. Herszenhorn, Putin Says Missile Deal Is More Likely With Obama, The New York Times, 6 Settembre 2012. Secondo un’intervista che Putin ha dato alla TV statale di Mosca RT, riferisce Herszenhorn, “Putin ha detto di ritenere che se Obama viene rieletto a novembre, un compromesso potrebbe essere raggiunto sulla questione controversa dei piani statunitensi sul  sistema di difesa antimissile in Europa, che la Russia fortemente contrasta. D’altra parte, Putin ha detto, se il signor Romney diventa presidente, Mosca dovrà temere che il sistema missilistico che è, nonostante le assicurazioni statunitensi, diretto in realtà contro la Russia, quasi certamente diventerà una realtà. “E’ possibile trovare una soluzione al problema, se l’attuale presidente Obama viene rieletto per un secondo mandato? In teoria, sì“, ha detto Putin, secondo la trascrizione ufficiale pubblicato sul sito Web del Cremlino. “Ma questo non è solo il presidente Obama. Per quanto ne so, il suo desiderio di trovare una soluzione è abbastanza sincero“, ha proseguito Putin. “L’ho incontrato di recente a margine del vertice del G-20 a Los Cabos, in Messico, dove abbiamo avuto la possibilità di parlare. E anche se abbiamo parlato per lo più della Siria, potevo ancora fare un bilancio della mia controparte. La mia sensazione è che è un uomo molto onesto, e che vuole sinceramente fare molti cambiamenti positivi. Ma può farlo? Saranno in grado di farglielo fare?”
[28] M.K. Bhadrakumar, Calling the China-Russia split isn’t heresy, Asia Times, 5 Settembre 2012.

Traduzione di Alessandro Lattanzio - SitoAurora

Verso una “relazione” Russia-Pakistan in sfida a Washington

Verso una “relazione” Russia-Pakistan in sfida a Washington

Farooq Yousaf, Global Research 

 

Ex: http://aurorasito.wordpress.com/

Si assiste ad un nuovo inizio dei legami Pakistan-Russia con la prevista visita del presidente russo Vladimir Putin, citata dei media del Pakistan per i primi di ottobre; la prima visita di un presidente russo in Pakistan. Una cosa considerata improbabile, in passato, potrebbe presto diventare una realtà con le due parti che si battono per un nuovo inizio nei rapporti bilaterali. Anche se i media statali russi hanno messo in dubbio la visita di Putin, è ovvio che anche se la visita venisse annullata, un altro funzionario di alto livello, come il ministro degli Esteri, si recherà in visita in Pakistan.

La visita, rivolta principalmente alla conferenza quadrilaterale sull’Afghanistan di Islamabad, porterebbe anche a un faccia a faccia con il presidente del Pakistan. È stato riferito dai funzionari del ministero degli Esteri russo, che i due stati firmeranno anche un MOU (Memorandum of Understanding) multiplo per lo sviluppo e gli investimenti nei settori dell’acciaio e dell’energia del Pakistan. Il presidente Asif Ali Zardari, che ha incontrato una delegazione di alto livello russa in Pakistan, all’inizio di settembre, guidata dal ministro dello sport russo, ha espresso il suo desiderio di cooperazione con Mosca nei settori succitati. [i]
Storicamente, la Russia e il Pakistan non hanno mai goduto di prolungati fruttuosi legami. Anche dopo la nascita del Pakistan, Liaqat Ali Khan, primo ministro del Pakistan, aveva preferito visitare gli Stati Uniti, anche se fu invitato per primo dal governo sovietico. Le relazioni videro il loro culmine solo durante il governo di Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, quando durante la sua visita, nel 1974 [ii], il governo sovietico decise di costruire l’Acciaieria del Pakistan a proprie spese, aiutandolo anche nel settore dell’energia nucleare. Poi con  il regime di Zia-ul-Haq, l’amministrazione Carter degli Stati Uniti, l’Arabia Saudita e il generale Zia collaborarono, con l’aiuto dei partiti di destra, per formare i mujaheddin contro i sovietici in Afghanistan [iii].

Tenendo a mente il contesto attuale della situazione politica del Pakistan, gli ultimi sviluppi hanno  la massima importanza per il paese.

Attualmente, gli Stati Uniti e i loro alleati hanno aumentato la pressione sul Pakistan per strapparne il supporto alla politica di Washington di rafforzamento della propria influenza nella regione, nonostante l’apparente contraddizione con gli interessi nazionali del Pakistan. Insieme a ciò, gli Stati Uniti stanno perdendo la loro influenza nella regione a causa del crescente sentimento anti-USA. È per questo che una maggiore cooperazione a livello bilaterale e nel quadro della Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), aiuterà a affrontare le questioni politiche ed economiche del Pakistan. Questo, a sua volta, offrirà nuove opportunità a Islamabad per una politica estera più indipendente e una minore dipendenza economica dagli Stati Uniti e dalle istituzioni finanziarie internazionali, apparentemente controllate dagli Stati Uniti [iv]. L’attuale politica di Washington nella guerra in Afghanistan, sembra essere volta a diminuire l’impatto di Islamabad nel paese e sul processo di pace, e a rafforzare il ruolo dell’India nella soluzione della crisi [v]. Non sorprende che i funzionari di Kabul abbiano anche mostrato un atteggiamento ostile nei confronti del Pakistan, che si riflette in regolari accuse nei confronti della dirigenza pakistana di sostenere la rete haqqani e le organizzazioni estremiste che operano in Pakistan [vi] [vii] [viii].

Con l’attuale dipendenza finanziaria e strategica, il Pakistan può agire solo come semplice spettatore contro le politiche e le pretese degli Stati Uniti. Solo aumentando la cooperazione con la Cina e la Russia nell’approccio regionale che affronti la questione afgana e garantisca la stabilità del paese, aiuterà il Pakistan a tutelare i propri interessi nazionali. E’ ovvio che i legami positivi con la Russia non solo rafforzeranno strategicamente il Pakistan, ma saranno anche una buona occasione per superare i problemi energetici del paese, stimolando anche gli scambi e la cooperazione regionali. Nel quadro della cooperazione militare, il Maresciallo dell’Aria Tahir Rafiq Butt, ha visitato Mosca ad agosto, e ha definito la sua visita uno sviluppo significativo verso una maggiore cooperazione con la Russia nel settore della difesa, in particolare nella difesa aerea. Inoltre, è stato segnalato che all’inizio di settembre il capo dell’esercito del Pakistan, Generale Ashfaq Pervez Kiyani, è stato in visita a Mosca per un incontro ad alto livello con il suo omologo russo. Questa visita potrebbe essere di enorme importanza, in quanto punta verso una svolta politica importante. Un portavoce del ministero degli Esteri di Islamabad, in condizioni di anonimato, ha detto: “Abbiamo voltato una nuova pagina nelle nostre relazioni con la Russia. Si tratta di un grande cambiamento.” [ix]
Il Pakistan è un membro attivo della comunità internazionale nella lotta al terrorismo e alla criminalità transfrontaliera. Tenendo conto di questo significato speciale e la pubblicità negativa raccolta dai media mondiali, anche dopo aver fatto tutti gli sforzi e sacrifici possibili, sarebbe utile ampliare la cooperazione con i paesi della SCO, in particolare Russia e Cina. Tale cooperazione può esservi anche in settori quali la prevenzione e la mitigazione dei rischi naturali e tecnologici, la gestione delle emergenze, la formazione e lo sviluppo di esperti locali – dove la Russia ha una vasta esperienza – in materia di risorse scientifiche e tecniche assieme alle risorse umane e finanziarie. L’attuale ripresa nei rapporti può essere utilizzata per sviluppare una cooperazione economica a lungo termine con la Russia.

Mosca ha espresso interesse a partecipare alla costruzione del TAPI (Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India, Trans-Afghanistan Pipeline), al programma energetico CASA-1000 (Commercio ed Energia per la Regione Asia Centrale – Asia Meridionale) e all’Acciaieria del Pakistan [x]. A questo proposito, Islamabad potrebbe elaborare proposte per la partecipazione di Mosca nella realizzazione di grandi progetti infrastrutturali del paese, portando a uno sviluppo positivo delle relazioni bilaterali. Il Pakistan gode di un grande vantaggio strategico, è un ponte e corridoio per diverse regioni. Questo lo rende, anche per la Russia, un luogo attraente per materializzare la sua profondità strategica. Pertanto, gli sviluppi in corso tra Mosca e Islamabad, le visite ad alto livello e il possibile ruolo del Pakistan nella SCO, le indicazioni per una grande alleanza Sud ed Est asiatica, nella forma dello SCO e di un asse del partenariato Cina-Russia-Pakistan-Iran, possono portare a presagi positivi non solo per la regione, ma anche per il continente asiatico nel suo complesso.

Note
[i] [ii] [iii] [iv] [v] [vi] [vii] [viii] [ix] [x]

Copyright © 2012 Global Research

Traduzione di Alessandro Lattanzio - SitoAurora

Global Blitzkrieg: West's Terror Battalions Eye Russia Next

Global Blitzkrieg: West's Terror Battalions Eye Russia Next

 

Reuters lays groundwork for Western support of Al Qaeda terrorists in Russia's Caucasus region.

by Tony Cartalucci 

http://landdestroyer.blogspot.be/search/label/Russia

August 31, 2012 - With the US openly supporting, arming, and literally "cheering" for Al Qaeda in Syria, it should be no surprise that their support for Al Qaeda's other operations is now slowly revealing itself. For decades, brutal terrorist campaigns have been carried out in Russia by Al Qaeda's Caucasus Mountains faction, constituting the backbone of the so-called "Chechen rebels."

Image: Must be seen to believe - screenshot of FP's article literally titled, "Two Cheers for Syrian Islamists." The writer, Gary Gambill, comes from the Middle East Forum which regular features the warmongering rants of Neo-Cons like Daniel Pipes and Islamophobia-propagandist Robert Spencer. With the West now embracing "Islamists" (Al Qaeda), it has now begun selling the terrorists' cause in Russia's Caucasus region.  

....

While there was a time the US feigned solidarity with the Russian government as it fought listed Al Qaeda affiliates carrying out attacks across the Caucasus Mountains in Russia's southern region, as well as attacks across the country including in Moscow itself, research reveals that the United States has been covertly backing these terrorists all along. Just as the US created, funded, armed, and directed Al Qaeda in the mountains of Afghanistan during the 1980's, they are to this day funding, arming, and directing Al Qaeda from Libya, to Syria, and in Russia.

US is Attempting to Undermine and Overrun the Russian Political Order

The US State Department has been recently exposed interfering heavily in Russian politics. From funding so-called "independent" election monitor GOLOS, who sought to write off recent elections as "stolen," to street protests led by US-funded opposition members who have been caught literally filing into the US embassy in Moscow, the US is clearly attempting to undermine and overrun the current political order in Russia. The recent "Pussy Riot" publicity stunt has also been arranged by US-funded opposition as well as fully leveraged by these organizations, their foreign sponsors, and the Western media.

While these so-called "soft-power" options are running their course, a more sinister plot is being prepared - one involving the resurgence of terrorism in Russia's Caucasus region, and sure to spill over into the rest of Russia. It is now revealed that many of the propaganda fronts acting as clearinghouses for the Chechen militants were in fact US subsidized.

Corporate Media Laying Groundwork for Renewed Terrorism

Just like in Syria, where foreign terrorists are fallaciously portrayed as indigenous, justified "pro-democracy" "freedom fighters," a similar narrative is being spun to whitewash terrorists operating in Russia's Caucasus Mountains. In Reuters' recent report, "Insight: Brutality, anger fuel jihad in Russia's Caucasus," readers are barraged by outright lies regarding the genesis and underlying cause of violence in the region.

Reading like a US State Department press release, we are told that Chechens are "sick of official corruption" and want change "like that seen in last year's Egyptian revolution." Reuters fails to acknowledge that "last year's revolution" has sprung this year's Muslim Brotherhood tyranny, already curbing civil liberties and muzzling criticism in the press at home, while supporting Wall Street and London adventures abroad. 

Like in Syria, where we are constantly reassured that the revolution "mostly" rejects the sectarian extremism that is demonstrably charging the violence, Reuters attempts to claim that while the violence in Russia seems "religious," most people reject the "Shairia law" that will inevitably be imposed by Al Qaeda. 

Likewise, we are introduced to Doku Umarov, who Reuters claims "leads an underground movement to create an Emirate across the Caucasus region." Reuters fails to mention that Umarov is listed by the United Nations as an associate of Al Qaeda. According to the UN:

Doku Umarov was directly involved in organizing a number of major terrorist acts: the capture of residential areas of the Vedenski and Urus-Martanovski districts of the Chechen Republic the Russian Federation (August 2002); the kidnapping of staff from the Office of the Public Prosecutor of the Chechen Republic (December 2002); and the bombings of the building housing the Department of the Russian Federal Security Service for the Republic of Ingushetia, in the city of Magas, and of two railway trains in Kislovodsk (September 2003). He was one of the main organizers of the raid on Ingushetia by militants on 22 June 2004, the sortie into Grozny on 21 August 2004, the hostage-taking in Beslan of 1-3 September 2004 and the terrorist attacks in Moscow metro stations on 29 March 2010.

Umarov, and the terrorists under his command, leading the so called "Jihad" Reuters is attempting to whitewash and spin, are unequivocally terrorists associated with Al Qaeda, and in no way "freedom fighters" - their cause and methods by no means justified in any manner.

Image: "Russia's Bin Laden," Doku Umarov led terrorist death squads in Chechnya during the 1990's up until 2011 when the UN finally listed him as an Al Qaeda-affiliated terrorists. At one point, Umarov even declared himself "Emir of the Russian North Caucasus." His propaganda clearinghouse, the Kavkaz Center, was funded by the US State Department, as well as several supporting fronts including the National Endowment for Democracy-funded Russian-Chechen Friendship Society. The former currently supports US efforts to overthrow the Syrian government. The latter organization is currently backing the US State Department's recent PR ploy, "Pussy Riot." 

....

 
Reuters does concede that Chechnya's Muslim faith has been transformed from traditional practices to Saudi-perverted teaching spread from madrases both abroad and now springing up across the Caucasus Mountains over the last 20 years. Coincidentally, Saudi Arabia had created as a joint effort with the US, Al Qaeda over the past 30 years. It is young men passing through these madrases, teaching this perverted revision of Islam, that keep the ranks topped off of the West's foreign legion, Al Qaeda.  

Reuters claims efforts by former-Russian President Dmitry Medvedev to rebuild the region and relax measures put in place to rein in sectarian extremism were widely praised. The recent violence flaring up in the Caucasus region is explained by Reuters as the result of Vladimir Putin returning to the Russian presidency - and more specifically the result of Chechen President Ramzan Kadyrov "crushing all dissent." However, this sophomoric excuse ignores the fact that Kadyrov was actually president throughout Medvedev's "progressive" term in office, and assumes that readers are simplistic enough to believe President Putin's 4 months in office is long enough to so drastically upturn Chechnya's political landscape, that it would spur people to already take up arms and suicide-bombing belts.

Reuters attempts to sell the idea that armed militants are rising up against the government, and the idea it attempts to leave readers with is that people are turning to terrorism for a lack of a better alternative. Paradoxically, Reuters writes in the same report that these terrorists are also targeting indigenous Muslim sects, because, Reuters claims, they are "state-backed." In reality, this Al Qaeda led militancy is attempting to carve out the entire Caucasus region by either indoctrinating or killing off the local inhabitants - which is in essence a form of US-Saudi-backed imperialism on par with anything the rebels accuse Russia of.

The Joining US State Department-funded Opposition with US-Saudi-armed Terrorists

In reality, the West is opposed to President Putin's return to office. The West is also opposed to providing him with the stability to advance Russia socially, economically, and geopolitically outside the Wall Street-London consensus. Therefore, it has been determined that foreign-armed and directed mercenary militancy, a much more realistic explanation for the sudden surge in violence, will be used to ensure President Putin rules over a destabilized nation instead.

The tool of choice, as it has been since the 1980's in Afghanistan, are US-Saudi-funded terrorists indoctrinated with sectarian extremism, armed to the teeth, and unleashed to spread regression and destruction against all targets of Western foreign policy.

While US-backed opposition groups attempt to lay the groundwork for demonizing President Putin and the current Russian political order in Moscow, Washington is working diligently to raise a militant threat that can throw off balance Russia's superior security apparatus in a very similar fashion prescribed by US policy makers in Brookings Institution's "Which Path to Persia?" report in regards to Iran.

Providing Russia with a sizable militant threat inside its borders also blunts Russia's ability to thwart the West's hegemonic campaigns elsewhere - such as in Syria, against Iran, and throughout Central Asia. Ideally, linking the militancy to US-backed protesters in Moscow, and portraying it as a singular "political uprising" as it has done in Syria is the ultimate goal, opening the door for wider covert operations to be carried out across the entire country, as well as justification for sanctions and other punitive measures to be taken.

The trick left to professional propagandists like Reuters, CNN, BBC, and others, is to somehow mesh the US State Department's stable of proxies in Moscow with the militancy in Chechnya. By adopting the same language and alleged causes of  fighting "corruption" and  "oppression," already the media is attempting to entwine both movements, even though the two are in no way related aside from their foreign backing.

Clearing a Path for the Hordes: From Libya to the Caucasus Mountains.

The creation of a united front against Iran was the immediate goal of the Arab Spring. It has left the Arab World in disarray and has outright toppled nationalist governments, replacing them with pliable Western proxies. Tunisia, Libya, and Egypt are run by direct proxies of US foreign policy, while Syria, Lebanon, and Iran are left fighting foreign terrorists fueled by emerging sectarian extremist governments across the region.

Image: AQIM from northern Mali, LIFG from Libya, Muslim Brotherhood from Egypt, and with support from Saudi Arabia, Israel, Qatar, Turkey, and others - all are converging on Syria (in black), and then Iran. Should Syria or Iran, or both fall to Western-backed terrorist brigades, and if the West manages to use Kurds across Turkey and northern Iraq to create a conduit (in red), a path will be cleared into Russia's restive Caucasus Mountains and onto Moscow itself.  Nations standing in the way of this horde, including Turkey and Georgia, risk being carved up or drawn into protracted, costly conflict. Other nations at grave risk from Western-backed terrorism include Algeria, Pakistan, and China.

....  

Libya has become a safe-haven for Al Qaeda, a nation-sized terrorist encampment funneling NATO weapons, cash, and trained fighters to the borders of the West's enemies. Syria is facing what is essentially a military invasion led by Libyan terrorists, facilitated by NATO, specifically Turkey, and the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), specifically Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

Should Syria or Iran, or both collapse, and the West succeeds in carving out a Kurdish region controlled by militants armed and loyal to its cause, militants from across the Arab World can be trained from Mali and Libya, to Syria and Kurdistan, with weapons and supplies from everywhere in between being directed together, up through the Caucasus Mountains and into Russia.

Turkey of course would be the big loser, being carved up and added as part of Kurdistan to form part of the conduit - a gambit current Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan is both aware of and maliciously indifferent to - to the perceived benefit of his own advancement within the Wall Street-London elite, and to the collective detriment of Turkey and its foreseeable future.  

While it seems unfathomable that such a gambit can be conceived let alone executed, it should be remembered that the Arab Spring and the subsequent violent subversion of Syria was planned as far back as 2007-2008, with the indirect consequence of undermining Iran as the ultimate objective. That this itself is part of a grander strategy originating from machinations hatched as far back as 1991, orchestrated by US policy makers who compare geopolitics and the world map to a "Grand Chessboard," is fairly easy to comprehend.

There is no better way to control the vast resources, geography, and populations of Eurasia and beyond than granting everything from North Africa, the Middle East, and Eurasia to ignorant, indoctrinated, medieval zealots led by duplicitous co-conspirators who will wheel-and-deal with the corporate-financiers of the West while keeping their own populations in fear and darkness - simultaneously, perpetuating Al Qaeda throughout the developing world allows the West to impose draconian repressive measures at home, stifling true political and economic independence and self-determination across their own populations.

The result is global hegemony uncontested both at home and abroad, with a world population subjected to the machinations and whims of a scientific dictatorship rooted in Hilterian eugenics and Malthusian ideology.