by Georgi Stankov, September 12, 2014
The Russians win the undeclared Third World War with the Western cabal because they fight on the side of the light. Only blind people, such as some of my former readers from the Baltic republics, being completely mired in their Nazi past and current dark propaganda, may not be able to perceive this obvious fact. So much for the worse for them.
This conclusion is not a figment of my imagination, but the dominating reality on the political scene in these last days. Below, I have published an article by a Russian expert on the current foreign policy of Russia in comparison to that of the USA. It shows the moral superiority of the Russian foreign policy that has achieved some spectacular diplomatic and now military victories over the USA in the last one year and a half.
The reason for this is that the Russians, first and foremost Lavrov and Putin, observe the international law and the principle of sovereignty, the right of every country of individual development. Thus they automatically reject the self-proclaimed doctrine of US exceptionalism and the right to invade and ruthlessly destroy any country that opposes the NWO of Pax Americana.
Multipolar world versus unipolar US hegemony – this is the current conflict on this planet in its final, mortal throes and there should be no doubt as to who will win this final war – we, the new Logos Gods and Guardians of the New Galaxy because we have decreed that there will be no devastating nuclear Third World War on this mother planet. And this means a complete defeat of the dark Western cabal in their futile effort to install the NWO.
Currently Russia and Putin are the only obstacle for the dark Orion cabal to achieve this heinous goal and to enslave humanity. The forces of light, that is to say, we have decreed that Russia will not be defeated, but will be successful in its foreign policy of containment of the dark ones, until we ascend and take over the leadership of this humanity as the new Logos Gods.
There is no other scenario for this mother planet – make this truth to your inner conviction and it will be so. Because one single light warrior of the first and last hour is more powerful than all the cabal in the dark Western capitals. That is why their demise is imminent and inevitable.
Watch this sensational video with the legendary military leader of the Russian insurgents Igor Strelkov, who carries the same name as a previous communist leader in the civil war, described by Pasternak in his famous novel “Doctor Zhiwago”:
An exception to American exceptionalism
by Valeri Fadeev, Sept 6, 2014
The Ukrainian crisis has thrust Russia’s role in world politics sharply to the fore. In this risky game Putin is proving he has a good conceptual grasp of how to create a new world order to replace the tyranny of American exceptionalism.
Let us first examine the military and strategic aspects of the Ukrainian crisis from the Russian standpoint. What did Eastern Europe look like at the beginning of 2014? Russia was surrounded by a sea of American military bases. NATO expands steadily eastward, and there is now the possibility that it could incorporate Finland and perhaps Ukraine as well. When Kosovo was carved out of Serbia, the Americans immediately built there one of the largest military bases in the world. And one can’t ignore America’s weapons or its state of combat readiness and military targets. That nation is consistently at a high level of combat readiness and its primary targets are located within Russia. US missile defense systems are steadily approaching Russia’s borders, and Russia is still viewed as the enemy in NATO’s operational planning.
Twenty-five years ago the USSR’s (Russia’s) front line of defense in the West passed through East Germany, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, and Bulgaria. This line was located 500-800 kilometers from the Soviet border. The weakening of the USSR led to a loss of influence in Eastern Europe, the disintegration of the Warsaw Pact, the creeping spread of NATO, and consequently, to the serious loss of depth in the theater of military operations. Now Russia’s line of defense – running from the Kaliningrad region to the western border of Belarus to Transnistria (where a Russian peacekeeping contingent is located) to Sevastopol (the base for Russia’s Black Sea Fleet) – has been fractured. Ukraine’s metamorphosis (with America’s backing) will quite likely result in the eventual appearance of NATO troops in that country, and, of course, the elimination of the Russian military base in Sevastopol. At that point, Transnistria would be located deep within NATO’s territory and almost inaccessible to Russia. On that subject Vladimir Putin has commented, “We … could not allow our access to the waters of the Black Sea to be significantly limited, or for NATO troops to arrive … in Crimea or Sevastopol … radically changing the balance of power around the Black Sea.” The loss of Sevastopol would lead to a new and dramatic reduction in the depth of the theater of military operations. The northern border of Ukraine is less than 500 kilometers from Moscow. It is also less than 500 kilometers from the eastern border of Ukraine to a large division of silo-based missiles in the Saratov region. At such a close distance, the flight time of a medium-range missile is only a few minutes. That means there would be no time to respond.
In this context, Crimea’s reunification with Russia should be seen as an important strategic victory. Regardless of how events unfold in Ukraine, how aggressively our Western partners behave, or even the outcome of the uprising in the Donbass, a key strategic decision has already been made: Crimea will remain an important link in the Russian defense system. And although it is still possible for Ukraine to fall utterly under American control (which would entail the deployment of military systems there), by retaining Sevastopol, and all of Crimea especially, it will still be possible to maintain a strategic balance.
Edward Luttwak, the well-known American expert on strategy and geopolitics, recently offered this synopsis of the Crimean operation, “That’s how you have to look at Crimea, not as a simple land grab, but as part of a larger strategy …” And another quote from the same interview with Luttwak is also applicable, “Only two cultures in the world possess genuine strategic talent: the British and the Russians. And that’s why Russia is the biggest country on earth – the Russians have not always been strategically successful throughout their history, but they were able to hold onto their talent and replicate it with each new generation.”
Contemporary analytical journalism usually falls short by paying scant attention to strategic perspectives. The events in Yugoslavia in the 1990s offer a telling example. In very few of the many articles analyzing the civil war in that country and its subsequent collapse did the authors think to mention that strategic planners saw Yugoslavia as a key country in the European theater of military operations. Naturally the collapse of Yugoslavia was a boon to the West, in the military sense. Where once was a strong, independent country with a respectable army, now sit six weak states. When Serbia was definitively polished off, the Balkans ceased to be a headache for the West and now offer a wide-open field. The American military base already mentioned in Kosovo is a recent symbol of this strategic success.
The geopolitical status quo
Recently, the media in the US, Europe, and in some cases in Russia, have increasingly begun to advance the theory that President Putin is turning his back on the West, rejecting European values, and is even prepared to reduce the scope of Russia’s trade with Europe, disengaging his nation. Russia’s pivoting trajectory is supposedly Europe’s loss and China’s gain. But such an interpretation of Russian foreign policy seems overly simplified.
By retaining an open mind, one can see that over the course of 15 years of governing the country Vladimir Putin has never done anything to warrant accusations of any anti-European sentiment. Putin’s acclaimed speech delivered in German at the Bundestag in 2001 was a vivid symbol of Russia’s openness to the idea of cooperation with Europe on all fronts. During the “Putin” years, annual trade with Europe has expanded from $80 billion to $417 billion as of last year.
Putin has worked tirelessly to accommodate the needs of Europe and the West. Most of that interaction has been concentrated within the realm of energy, an area in which Putin has suggested that Europe make large-scale investments. As a result, as much as 25% of Russia’s energy assets are now foreign owned. Putin has proposed an exchange of assets, and some of those efforts have been successful. There is already some reason to believe that the creation of a future Russian-European joint energy industry could become a reality.
But when Russia suggested trading technology for access to Russian natural resources, tensions immediately arose. The West does not want to share its technology with us, even on what would clearly be very financially advantageous terms.
A similar discussion arose around the question of deploying elements of the American missile-defense system in Europe. All Russian admonitions and appeals to stop this process and to instead work together in this area, using the Russian radar station in Azerbaijan, for example, have fallen on deaf ears.
So it is not Russia that is turning to China, but the West whose actions are inadvertently pushing Russia to the East. Sanctions restricting the economic give-and-take between Russia and Europe are inadvertently forcing Russia to expand its partnership with China. Although trade with China is not quite $100 billion a year – only a quarter of the level with Europe – the momentum is clearly in China’s favor. One might well recall the recent mammoth deal between Russia and China to build the Power of Siberia gas pipeline, the construction of which will require an estimated $60-70 billion of investment. Today Russian-Chinese relations are proceeding more smoothly than ever before. And if that relationship will someday grow to include military cooperation, then a reorientation toward the East will be inexorable.
A new world system: the moral foundations
In addition to national interests, which are an eternal component of global politics, there is another factor with much greater impact, and this is the moral basis that underpins the players acting upon the world stage. International relations and diplomacy have always been grounded in a moral foundation. It has been hypothesized that the old, but still relevant moral foundations are no longer able to ensure the sustainability of the global system, that the old worldview is out of sync with the latest challenges, and that it is not possible to reconstruct the global system based on a vision from the past century. Another, more daring hypothesis is that Russia can offer a new frame of reference for this global system, as well as new principles to guide states’ interaction. Russians have always held a worldview that is somewhat distinct (significantly distinct during the Soviet era) from that of Westerners. Perhaps therein lies the root cause of the West’s reluctance to accept the idea of extensive cooperation with Russia. The risk to the West is that Russia’s understanding of how to arrange this world order may be too attractive for many, perhaps for the majority of the world’s population. And then the West would be stripped of its moral authority.
The foreign policy of the US has a clear and simple moral basis – the exceptionalism of the American nation.
Since the 19th century Americans have believed that they were building the most advanced society on earth, a society of freedom and opportunity, where each is free to find his own path. Democracy as a method of governance was the finest system to be devised in human history. America is held up as a model, and her values should hold sway throughout the world. But this raises the question of how to achieve the triumph of American values and of the American model of governance and society. Should one merely rely on the power of this example, remaining a beacon for all of humanity? Or should American foreign policy actively promote the dissemination of American institutions?
Prior to WWI, the US preferred not to intervene in international affairs outside of the Americas. The country adhered to the doctrines of its founding fathers, and those doctrines were fairly isolationist. But within its own sphere of influence America has never been loath to act. In just the first few years of the 20th century she intervened in the affairs of (and occasionally occupied) countries such as Haiti, Panama, Cuba, and the Dominican Republic. But the First World War was a turning point, and President Woodrow Wilson created a new foreign policy for the US.
Wilson made an intellectual and political U-turn. Building from the idea of the exceptionalism of the American nation, and seemingly without discounting the need to steer clear of European squabbles and wars, he radically changed US foreign policy: transforming it from local to truly global. Wilson’s logic was as follows (here I am expounding on ideas from Henry Kissinger’s book Diplomacy): the challenges confronting America were placed there by Providence itself (and it would be difficult to invent a more powerful moral basis for action). The security of the US is inseparable from the security of the rest of humanity. Thus it follows that it is America’s duty to resist aggression wherever that may be. The country’s exceptional nature requires that its own example be used to affirm freedom while simultaneously disseminating it. America’s providential moral foundation does not permit her to be limited in any way while pursuing her missions abroad – the country’s infallibility is foreordained. A global crusade to impose American values must be launched. Moreover, the strength of the United States will atrophy if America does not labor to spread freedom throughout the world.
I quote Woodrow Wilson, “We set this Nation up to make men free and we did not confine our conception and purpose to America, and now we will make men free. If we did not do that all the fame of America would be gone and all her power would be dissipated.”
This intellectual concept – which combines the exclusivity of America as a disseminator of freedom with her ability to intervene in the affairs of any country in the world, if such is deemed necessary in Washington DC – has been the moral foundation of America’s foreign policy for almost a hundred years. This is precisely why Vladimir Putin’s article in the New York Times last year generated such a hysterical reaction in the US. To quote Putin, “It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation. There are big countries and small countries, rich and poor, those with long democratic traditions and those still finding their way to democracy. Their policies differ, too. We are all different, but when we ask for the Lord’s blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal.” Putin “dared” to criticize the most sacred of American values – that nation’s exceptionalism. He made it clear that he did not share such a “messianic” view of how a global system of states should be organized, and that there may be other axiological bases, which he can describe, on which to ground such a system.
Even if we accept (or at least agree to tolerate) the values of Wilsonianism, we must critically assess the current practice of applying Wilson’s theory. Would not any critical analysis show that almost nothing remains of those 100-year-old messianic ideals? That humanity is no longer drawn to that “beacon of freedom,” but is instead frightened and repelled by it? That what was once an idealistic policy, and for many it truly was, is degenerating into the most cynical Realpolitik? The gross interference in the domestic affairs of other countries, resulting in the destruction of the apparatus of the state and heavy casualties, such as in Iraq, Syria, and Libya … The discourtesy toward one’s closest allies: the wiretapping of heads of state, the pressure on French banks, the refusal to return Germany’s gold, etc. The use of radical Islamic forces to achieve un-idealistic and entirely pragmatic and selfish goals. The unprecedented control over the mass media – this is clearly evident in the surging anti-Russian campaign that has accompanied the Ukrainian crisis.
The brief era of US hegemony is coming to a close, and with it – Wilsonian diplomacy.
The world’s economic and political structure is changing rapidly. “Never before has a new world order had to be assembled from so many different perceptions, or on so global a scale,” wrote Henry Kissinger [“Diplomacy”, p.26). There can no longer be any doubt that Russia is destined to play a major role in the creation of that new order.
The myth of isolation
Much of the international media claim that Russia’s conduct during the crisis in Ukraine has isolated the country, made her a pariah, and that all of the civilized world has turned from her in disdain. Is this really so?
Suffice it to recall the results of the voting on the UN General Assembly’s anti-Russian resolution immediately after Ukraine reunified with Russia. At that time the Americans were able to push through the resolution. One hundred nations voted in favor and only 11 were against it. However, it turns out that there were actually 93 countries that did not support the resolution – one of the representatives forgot to push his button, another was in the cafeteria at the time, and another did not even attend the discussion. Two-thirds of the earth’s inhabitants live in those 93 countries – and the representatives of two-thirds of humanity did not oppose Russia and did not support the United States.
Another episode occurred during the recent BRICS summit in Brazil. And although meetings between the leaders of those countries are fairly commonplace now, it is worth noting what happened after the summit. The leaders of every Latin American country – most of which are viewed as little more than American vassals – gathered in Brazil. They wanted to be part of a new international organization with a vision they can endorse, an organization with Vladimir Putin at its moral helm.
And even now, at the peak of the crisis in Ukraine, there is no solidarity in Europe supporting the sanctions against Russia. I believe that the proposal to “isolate Russia from the entire world” is in essence nothing more than a propaganda stunt.
Why are so many drawn to Russia? Two years ago, I fell into conversation with several prominent European scholars who were involved in the work of the Yaroslavl Global Policy Forum. I asked if they thought it would be possible to create a world-class debate forum in Russia. Their answer was surprising. They all claimed that a venue that could serve as an alternative to Western forums such as Davos could only be created in Russia. Russia would be the only destination that representatives from all countries would find acceptable and would be the best country in which to construct an alternate, non-Western agenda.
Pursuing a new agenda
What signals are coming from President Putin regarding a new agenda? How is he approaching the issue of modifying the world system and based upon what principles? Following is my interpretation, based on Vladimir Putin’s public statements.
First of all, it is very clear what Putin opposes, what actions he considers to be counterproductive and detrimental.
He stands against the imposition of a political regime of “democracy.” This type of imposition never seems to have been successful. Countries have different backgrounds and cultures and each moves at its own historical pace. Attempts to forcibly engineer such an institution are inherently risky. Unsystematically “ensconcing” such rights as freedom of speech usually results in the loss of other fundamental rights such as the right to life or the right to work. In this matter, countries such as China, which is led by its Communist Party, and Iran, with its Islamic regime, side with Russia.
He stands against intervention in another country’s domestic affairs unless it is clearly warranted. In recent years we have seen that intervention often destroys country’s infrastructures and leads to disaster.
He stands against the new imperialism that destroys states’ sovereignty – resulting in weakened countries that cannot defend their interests in a global world where the leading players set the rules of the game. Just as during the “old” period of imperialism, weakened countries develop slowly and cannot free themselves from their shackles of dependence, while in the end the profits go to the strong. On this issue Russia may find allies among low-income countries, as well as among many left-wing intellectuals, including from Western nations.
He stands against social racism. Try to find out how many people have died during the Iraq war. You can easily find information about the number of dead and wounded soldiers from the US and its allies. But there are only estimates of the Iraqi casualties, which vary almost 1,000%, ranging from 150,000 dead to over a million. No one is counting the number of Iraqis who have been killed, nor is anyone planning to. The West treats many nations today the same way it treated the “aboriginals” during the colonial era, although that relationship is now overlaid with a thin veneer of tolerance. But these people are not aboriginals. Iraq isMesopotamia, the cradle of civilization. Iran, which was cruelly suppressed until recently, is Persia, with a history stretching back many thousands of years. China, a country the West rightly hesitates to try to instruct, is several thousand years old.
Second, Putin supports multilateral diplomacy and the establishment of complex networks within which governments can interact. On one hand, such networks would allow for different interests to be taken into account while seeking out complex compromises and reducing the risk of confrontation. American messianism, which prevents them from admitting anyone as their equal, is inappropriate in this context. That was, incidentally, how the European Union was established. That entity can be criticized from many different angles, but no one could argue that the risk of war within the EU is not lower than it has ever been.
Third, Putin seems to think that an entity should be constructed that would make it possible to seek out a balance of interests, rather than a 19th-century-style balance of power. The simple fact is that the majority of states would be treated more justly by that type of entity.
And fourth, new international institutions like the BRICS Bank need to be created that would operate on new principles and replace the old institutions created by the West to manage the world economy primarily in its own favor.
In summary, the era of domination by the concept of American exceptionalism is at an end. And although, as the Soviet philosopher and dissident Alexandr Zinovyev once wrote, “Western theorists, politicians, and media are, as always, absolutely convinced that their system is the best,” strong new players with an alternative vision have emerged and cannot be ignored within a unified world. The global, political mission that Vladimir Putin has shouldered strongly suggests that Russia will play a leading role in the creation of a new global architecture.Valery Fadeev is the Editor-in-Chief of the Russian EXPERT magazine, member of the Civic Chamber of the Russian Federation.
Source in Russian: Expert