academiccompositionab
Empowerment Equalizer
SSaragian
Antony Sammeroff
Ann Sterzinger
Rodney
RJ
busterjames
cainusmaxus
Craig FitzGerald
David Heleniak
Caity & Dan Greene
keirmartland
Keith Preston
Bill the Butcher
ljp711
MRDA
Jack Donovan
Rachel Haywire
comrade hermit
Michael
Vince
Regan
robertstark2014
Noonan
S E Pearson
Rachel Haywire
Nexus X HumectressI included some comments of my own about regional geopolitics in the Eurasian corridor and international relations generally at the end of Pete’s statement.
By Peter R. Quinones
Yesterday, I interviewed Scott Horton getting information as up-to-date as possible on what’s going on with Russia and Ukraine. Of course, relying on reporting that is run through a neo-liberal, New World-American/Israel order is troublesome. We get it, Putin is a bad guy, thanks. But that raises a question I beg everyone to ask; why should I care?
Sure, I don’t want people on either side to get hurt, and it’s always the case that innocents are injured or worse when militaries get involved, but still, not my bull, not my china shop. The thought that anyone reading this may have a loved one in the military who would be sent to the region in an attempt to repel a nuclear-armed country from exercising power and influence in their own backyard makes no sense to me. It’s madness.
I am aware that in the current climate this makes me a Putin “toady”, or whatever nonsense people with IQs 2-3 standard deviations lower than mine are told to call me, but there’s no reason this is the USA’s business. Unless of course, Ukraine must be protected so certain a politician’s children can get 50K month no-show jobs while banging Ukrainian hookers and hitting the pipe. I guess that’s as likely an explanation as there is out there.
Whatever it is, it’s none of mine/your business. And if you think it is, ask yourself why you believe that. I doubt most of the people crying about poor Ukraine could find it on a map or tell you the differences between the cultures of their western and eastern populations. But if you’ve been paying attention for the last 24 months you can understand why people believe this has anything to do with them.
[My comments are below-Keith]
Geopolitical advice to Europe and Russia: Build a Paris-Berlin-Moscow axis that gives Russia its space while containing America, China, and Islam. Strengthen relations with Iran against the Sunni forces from the Gulf and Turkey.
Geopolitical advice to South/East Asia: Build an Indo-Pacific alliance that can contain America, China, and Isalm. Strengthen relations with Europe and Russia against American imperialism, Chinese neo-colonialism, and Sunni insurgencies.
Geopolitical advice to Latin America: Build a hemispheric resistance block that can resist the US empire while maintaining cordial but independent relations with Europe, Russia, and Asia.
I know a lot of people who are Eastern European, Baltic, Caucasian, or Central Asian in their ancestry or who actually live in those countries who have a strong anti-Putin viewpoint. Some are “right-wing,” some are “left-wing,” and some are pro-Western liberals, but they all regard Putin’s Russia as a revanchist state whose goal is to reclaim lost Soviet territory and hegemony over Eastern Europe and the Baltic countries. I actually agree with them in the abstract as traditional Russian foreign policy has always been to maintain domination over these regions as a buffer for the Russian heartland and to extract resources, labor, etc. That was the policy of the Tsars, the Communists, and the Eurasianists. The only break in that pattern was during the Yelstin era when Boris was basically a Western satrap. It seems the only option for these regions other than trying to go the NATO route would be to form a defensive confederation and to seek the backing of other states in Asia that have an animus toward Russia. I have a friend who is Georgian and a specialist in international relations. This is her main area of interest. She thinks some kind of defensive confederation that seeks a rapprochement with Turkey might be the best best for these areas in terms of what is reasonably possible. I don’t know because I’m not nearly informed enough about those parts of the world to have a serious opinion on these questions.
Another friend writes: “Yeah, you’re pretty much on point with that assessment. Most of these countries either need NATO, their own military alliances, or nukes. The latter option is the one that guarantees the most sovereignty….but outside of Ukraine, Sweden, Poland, and Turkey…none in that region Have the capabilities…The Visegrad Group might have some potential like that, if they include Austria, Croatia, and Romania. Sort of like a Central European Bloc.”
I’ve seen some geopolitical analysts, often folks who have been associated with Stratfor, suggest that Poland could become a major player in the region in the future, while others think that is laughable. It does seem at least possible, however, that the countries you mentioned could become the political-economic-military-leadership of a “third block” that included the nations who feel threatened by Russia but who do not trust Brussels or Washington either. That’s just speculation and the probability may be minimal but it seems like a possibility. The Visegrad countries and the others we’re talking about all do have certain commonalities, such as being more culturally conservative than Western Europe or the USA, and preferring not to be under the domination of those, while generally regarding Russia as a more serious danger, at least on the immediate level, and for good reason.
Attack the System
Categories: Anti-Imperialism/Foreign Policy, Geopolitics
