Since India and China should be attributed to the East and connected with the prospect of pan-Asian integration, only the Islamic world remains, stretching from the Philippines and Pakistan to the Maghreb countries, i.e. Connecting the Iranian geopolitical line here instantly removes the appearance of a clash between "Islam and Orthodoxy" in the Caucasus, which Turkish and Russian "agents of influence" of Atlantism are trying to give to conflicts in this area, and will restore peace and harmony. The Foundations of Geopolitics: The Geopolitical Future of Russia is a geopolitical book by Alexander Dugin.The book has had a large influence within the Russian military, police, and statist foreign policy elites and was allegedly used as a textbook in the General Staff Academy of Russian military. The main integrating moment of this New Empire will be the fight against Atlantism and the tough rebuff of that liberal-market, "marine / Carthaginian" civilization, which the USA and planetary political, economic and military structures that serve Atlantism embody today. A direct appeal in our conditions to the restoration of this triad is likely to lead to the restoration of the skinny and more demagogic compromise that in practice was hidden behind these three principles in the late Manomanian era (in which they, by the way, were formulated). The creation of the Berlin-Moscow axis as the western supporting structure of the Eurasian Empire involves several serious steps in relation to the countries of Eastern Europe lying. When it was precisely this model that began to take root in Europe from the 18th century, Russia desperately resisted it by any means. However, as the Russian Eurasianists rightly remarked, the Uvarov formula (Orthodoxy, Autocracy, Nationality) in the last periods of tsarist Russia was more an idealistic slogan than a real content of political life and social structure. Differences in the regional interests of the Eurasian states, in religious, ethnic, racial and cultural orientation are all important factors that cannot be ignored. Mackinder rightly considered Russia to be the main land power of our time, which inherits the geopolitical mission of Rome, the Empire of Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan, etc. Russia has never been an analogue of those "nation-states" that are characteristic of modern Europe and whose model was projected onto Asia and the Third World as a whole in the colonial and postcolonial era. Liberalism was propagated in China by totalitarian methods, and that is why the reform was fully successful. Russia must inevitably be at the center of such an association. The Foundations of Geopolitics: The Geopolitical Future of Russia - English Translation eBook: Dugin, A: Amazon.co.uk: Kindle Store Select Your Cookie Preferences We use cookies and similar tools to enhance your shopping experience, to provide our services, understand how customers use our services so we can make improvements, and display ads, including interest-based ads. Part 4 - Geopolitical future of Russia - Previous, Next - Part 4 - Geopolitical future of Russia. In order to be the geopolitical heart of Europe, Germany must acquire a supranational, civilizational, imperial character in itself, abandoning the contradictory and impracticable attempts to create a racially homogeneous "nation-state". Despite all the internal civilizational, religious and socio-economic differences between the Eurasian powers among themselves they have a strong and unshakable "common denominator" hostility to the totality of Atlantic control, the desire to free oneself from the transatlantic custody of that Trade Order, which the USA is strenuously planting, the stronghold of the "marine" civilization. At the next, lower level, the New Empire will be the "confederation of Large Spaces" or secondary Empires. However, at the moment, the Islamic world is extremely fragmented and within it there are various ideological and political trends, as well as opposing geopolitical projects. China in the eastern regions of the New Empire should be compared in the West not to England, but to France, since in relation to its Eurasian Empire will be guided by two criteria in case of active opposition to Eurasian projects, China will have to be treated as a geopolitical adversary with all the ensuing consequences, but if it succeeds to create a powerful pro-Japanese and pro-Russian political lobby at the same time, in the future China itself will become a full-fledged and equal participant in the continental project. Economic and bureaucratic centralism did not take into account either the regional, let alone ethnic and religious features of the internal territories. The same thing happened in the southern direction in Asia and the Far East, where the USSR had direct neighbors or controlled by the West (Pakistan, Afghanistan, pre-Homei Iran) or rather hostile powers with a non-Soviet socialist orientation (China). The Soviet state was perceived by the people as the construction of the "New Empire", the "kingdom of the world", the "monastery of spirit", and not as the creation of the most rational device for administering and managing quantitative units. At each stage of the expansion of their state, the Russians went to the next stage of messianic universalism, first rallying the Eastern Slavs, then including the Turkic stream of the steppes and Siberia, then moving south into the deserts and mountains, and finally forming a gigantic political bloc controlling in the Soviet period, literally, half the world. were deeply alien to Russian Bolshevism and the Russian people as a whole. The only universal integrating reality in the future Eurasian Empire will be a categorical imperative strategic alliance , i.e. Pan-Asian project. Mongolia (possibly even Inner Mongolia and Tibet, which are currently under Chinese occupation), Kalmykia, Tuva, Buryatia form the Eurasian Buddhist enclave, which could serve as a strong connecting element between Russia and Japan, and provide intermediate links for the Tokyo axis of Moscow. All other aspects of intra-Eurasian integration will be decided on the basis of flexible, differentiated principles, depending on each specific case. Covering a wide range of geopolitical schools and beliefs and actual problems. political democratization allowed China to become dependent on Western financial groups without conflict, while maintaining a totalitarian system and the appearance of political independence. Given the specifics of Russian national imperial self-identification, it becomes quite obvious that the adoption of the status of a "regional power" by Russia cannot become the last line of defense. Given the strategic need of the Japanese factor in the Eurasian project, it becomes clear that the issue of restitution of the Kuril Islands is not an obstacle to the Russian-Japanese alliance. The geopolitical mission is recognized at the cultural level, and vice versa, culture conceptualizes, shapes and activates the geopolitical impulse. With regard to Egypt, Algeria and Morocco, the situation is somewhat different,since the ruling pro-Atlantic forces in these states do not express national trends, do not completely control the situation and rely only on American bayonets and American money. Plus, the US controlled almost all coastal zones in the south and west of Eurasia,creating a gigantic threat to the USSR, while remaining virtually out of reach for potential destabilizing actions of the Soviet Union. Moreover, from a purely pragmatic point of view, the strategic alliance of Russia with China to create a single bloc will immediately push Japan away from the Russians and, accordingly, will again hostile that key Pacific region on whose participation in the common Eurasian project the ultimate geopolitical success of the confrontation between Sushi and the Sea depends. In the meantime, US dominance continues, all intra-Eurasian conflicts and contradictions are artificial in character, since such a clarification of relations makes sense only in the absence of a more global factor, which, in practice, organizes and controls these conflicts in order to maintain disunity and fragmentation in Eurasia. such a geopolitical alliance that will allow in all strategic directions to effectively resist the Atlantic influences, American geopolitical pressure and political and economic dictatorship. relations should not initially be considered as bilateral, but as tripartite with the participation of Germany. Naturally, against the backdrop of such a contradiction, petty-ethnic frictions are also aggravated, and the activities of the Atlantist “agents of influence”, which directly or indirectly (through Turkey and Saudi Arabia) seek to destabilize the Asian territories in their key centers, are also facilitated. Axis Moscow Tokyo also solves a number of critical problems in both countries. China's economic successes are a rather ambiguous reality, since they have been achieved at the cost of a deep compromise with the West and cannot be combined with any clear geopolitical concept that could serve as a guarantee of political independence and independence. Therefore, the Eurasian imperial project carries simultaneously several dimensions of cultural, strategic, historical, economic, political, etc. An alliance with Japan is vital. Discussion The Foundations of Geopolitics: The Geopolitical Future of Russia self. In order to be the geopolitical heart of Europe, Germany must acquire a supranational, civilizational, imperial character in itself, abandoning the contradictory and impracticable attempts to create a racially homogeneous "nation-state". The specifics in ascertaining the status of this or that people, this or that "country", this or that "Empire of Large Spaces" within the framework of the common continental bloc will become relevant only, creation of the necessary axes, and only then can the Eurasian peoples and states to solve their internal problems completely. For understandable reasons, “pan-Arabism” cannot be among the Turkic-speaking peoples of Central Asia for the most part. There is no doubt that the Chinese perestroika that began in the 1980s was the final turn from the Maoist period to the pro-Atlantic model, which should have finally fixed the gap between China and the USSR and its orientation towards the West. Most likely, the new liberal China,having two serious competitors next to it, economically powerful Japan and strategically powerful Russia will again, like many times in history, return to a purely Atlantic function in the Far East, combining political dictatorship and the potential of capitalist development for this. Moreover, given the absence of unambiguous pretenders to the Russian throne, the unstable and uncertain state of the current Orthodox Church, as well as the abstract meaning of the term “nationality” (which is often understood only as a superficial, folkloric style or even fake imaginative intellectuals as a people), it is easy to foresee that a return to Uvarov’s ideology will become even more a parody than the pre-revolutionary tsarist regime. Moreover, from a purely pragmatic point of view, the strategic alliance of Russia with China to create a single bloc will immediately push Japan away from the Russians and, accordingly, will again hostile that key Pacific region on whose participation in the common Eurasian project the ultimate geopolitical success of the confrontation between Sushi and the Sea depends. From the unification of Slavic and Finno-Ugric tribes near Rurik to the gigantic scale of the USSR and territories under its influence, the Russian people steadily walked along the path of political and spatial integration, imperial construction and civilizational expansion. On the other hand, there is the problem of the former Soviet Central Asia, where three geopolitical tendencies “pan-Turkism” (Turkey, Atlantism), “Wahhabism” (Saudi Arabia, Atlantism) and “fundamentalism” (Iran, anti-Atlanticism) compete today. In practice, these provisions borrowed from Marxism (by the way, and in Marxism itself, which are rather arbitrary elements of a tribute to the old-fashioned positivist humanism in the Feuerbach style) were recognized by the Russian Communists in the spirit of folk mystical, sometimes unorthodox eschatological aspirations, and not as rationalistic fruits of Western European culture. relations should not initially be considered as bilateral, but as tripartite with the participation of Germany. The same can be said, for example, of the French, who will remain a people or a “country” within the framework of the European Empire, along with Germans and Italians, associated with them by a common European imperial tradition, Christian religion and belonging to the Indo-European race. In Russian history, the "nation-state" did not arise. And the Russo-German and Russo-Japanese conflicts were actively provoked precisely by the Atlantists, acting both within the Eurasian governments and from the outside, using diplomatic and power levers. The Saudi Wahhabi type of fundamentalism (geopolitically solidarity with atlantism). To this end, Britain and France tried in every possible way to destabilize the Eastern European peoples, to instill in them the idea of the need for "independence" and liberation from German and Russian influences. The most global are the following trends: Iranian fundamentalism (continental type, anti-American, anti-Atlantic and geopolitically active). Of course, the geopolitical restorationism of neocommunists is justified, and their nationalism is more organic and "national", rather than romantic and irresponsible in form (and subversive in results) narrow-nationalist projects of the Slavophil, Orthodox-monarchist or racist wing of the patriots. At first glance, China is a continental land mass, its civilization is traditional authoritarian (non-trade) in nature, and the very preservation of communist ideology during the liberal reforms in modern China, it would seem, would finally contribute to the choice of China, in contrast to the capitalist, island Japan. This process cannot be attributed to the distant future, hoping for favorable conditions in the future. This books publish date is Aug 01, 2017 and it has a suggested retail price of $23.99. The Russian bourgeois firmly took the place of the state and military aristocracy, the clergy, displacing officials and employees. For understandable reasons, “pan-Arabism” cannot be among the Turkic-speaking peoples of Central Asia for the most part. On the one hand, these regions are closely and inextricably linked with Russia, and on the other hand, they are culturally and racially close to Japan. At this and. Iran is geopolitically Central Asia, just as Germany is Central Europe. The sphere of its geopolitical influence is limited, however, by Hindustan and a small zone in the Indian Ocean, located south of the peninsula. Buy, rent or sell. And finally, the “Nationality” of the famous slogan was rather purely declarative, and the people themselves were deeply alienated from political life, which was manifested, for example, in general indifference to the February and later October revolutions, which radically destroyed the monarchist model. In the south of Eurasia, there are several geopolitical entities that could theoretically act as the south pole of the New Empire. The Great Russians, for example, can be considered as a separate people or even a “country” within the Russian Empire, along with Ukrainians, Belarusians, possibly Serbs, etc., but at the same time they will all be closely connected with the jurisdiction of the Slavic-Orthodox type embodied in a specific state system. In this perspective, it is advisable to return the Kaliningrad region (East Prussia) to Germany in order to abandon the last territorial symbol of the terrible fratricidal war. However, this time too, the process was thwarted by a revolutionary outburst, which absorbed (albeit unconsciously) an in-depth national protest against a type of state structure in which there would be no place for the manifestation of a spiritual people's mission. Skip to comments. At present, after the collapse of the USSR, the West seeks to impose another geopolitical function on Russia, to turn Russia into such a political structure that would be unable to directly participate in world politics and have a broad civilizational mission. The denial of Atlantism, the rejection of the strategic control of the United States and the rejection of the supremacy of economic, market-liberal values, are that common civilizational base, that general impulse that will open the way for a lasting political and strategic alliance, will create the axial skeleton of the coming Empire. level, the New Empire will be a holistic geopolitical entity. Therefore, studying the evolution of Russia’s military doctrine means predicting, a contrario, much of the strategic future of Europe and obviously of NATO as well. The last form of imperial organization of the Russian people was the USSR and the geopolitical area dependent on it (Warsaw Pact countries). Sooner or later, the Eastern bloc would inevitably collapse. The atlantists themselves see the Islamic world as a whole as their potential adversary, and therefore the Eurasian Empire has in his person loyal potential allies, striving for a common goal, undermining and, in the long term, the complete cessation of American, Western domination on the planet. However, they can be talked about seriously and fully only if the stifling economic and strategic influence of the “common enemy” disappears, imposing a model that is alien to almost all Christians, socialists, Muslims, national capitalists, and Buddhists, and Communists and Hindus. The responsibility for this lies not only with the "agents of influence" and "anti-Soviet", but, first of all, with the central Soviet ideologists of both the "progressive" and the "conservative" wing. An attempt to follow such a Late Manomanian, "Slavophil" line in our conditions cannot but lead to a similar result. The Armenian question occupies an important place on the Moscow axis issue, as it traditionally serves as a center of destabilization in the Transcaucasus. The effectiveness of this factor is beyond doubt, and all arguments against this consideration either naively ignore the objective seriousness and totality of the atlantist domination, or deliberately divert geopolitical attention from the only responsible and realistic perspective in favor of secondary regional problems that have no solution at all without taking into account the global alignment forces. This fundamental consideration must be constantly kept in mind in order to avoid unreasonable doubts and objections that may arise if, instead of a. , someone mistakenly believes that the case concerns a political, ethnic, cultural, religious or economic association. The new Eurasian Empire is inscribed in the geographical and political predetermination of world history and world geopolitics. Given the historical logic of the geopolitical development of the Russian nation, it makes sense to talk about the late periods of the Romanov rule, when Russia reached the borders of its maximum territorial imperial volume. Its principles and main directions take into account geopolitical constants, and the current political situation, and really existing international trends, and the strategic balance of forces, and economic and resource patterns. Although the desacralization of the tsarist government never, up to the abdication of the last Emperor, never reached the level of that empty parody in which European monarchies, primarily the French and English, turned, the influence of Europe in this area was very great. All the tendencies towards European unification around Germany (Central Europe) will have a positive meaning only if one fundamental condition is observed for the creation of a solid geopolitical and strategic. The strategic unification of the continent in question should provide control over the sea borders of Eurasia on all sides of the world, continental economic, industrial, and resource autarky, and centralized management of the Eurasian armed forces. European nations should be equal partners in building the western bridgehead of Eurasia and adapt the general imperial impulse to their own national and cultural specifics. This is a categorical imperative of the East, Asian component of Eurasianism. But unnatural geopolitics, compliance with capitalization, underestimation of ethnic and religious factors among small intra-imperial peoples, anti-German, anti-Japanese and anti-Ottoman orientations of the late Romanov Empire, all this should be recognized as a dead end political path,having nothing to do with the genuine interests of the Russian people, which was proved by the historical collapse of this model. The Soviet Empire and ideologically and actually destroyed. "Ukraine … It is around this axis that the basic principles of the Asian policy of Eurasia should take shape. At this and only at this level, the New Empire will be a holistic geopolitical entity. At the same time, the solid axis of Moscow Tehran will remove all the contradictions between Russophilism and Islamism (Iranian type), make them. Consequently, this aspect of the Soviet model, operating not with specific ethnic groups,culture, religion, and with the abstract "population" and "territory" should not be revived in any case. However, if the restoration of the USSR will take place under the banner of an ideology that has abandoned materialism, atheism, totalitarianism, state socialism, the Soviet geopolitical space, administrative structure, internationalism, centralism, etc., is it right to speak of “USSR” or "Soviet state", about "communism", "restoration", etc.?
Eth Zürich Ranking,
Bus 36 Frankfurt,
Mauerfall Berlin Datum,
Kalender 2023 Berlin,
Python For Loop Length Of List,
For Each Folder Python,
Rezept Grünkohl Vegetarisch,
Die Fischerei Föhr Speisekarte,
Wie Lange Milchflasche,
Umsteigen Hannover Hbf,
Gartentor An Hauswand Befestigen,