By Rostislav Ishchenko
Translated by Ollie Richardson and Angelina Siard
cross posted with http://www.stalkerzone.org/rostislav-ishchenko-filling-the-vacuum/
source: http://actualcomment.ru/zapolnenie-vakuuma-1808131003.html
When the Western Roman Empire collapsed, in Europe the so-called dark centuries came there for a long time. Modern historians claim that they were not that dark, and cite as an example the Justinian attempt to restore the empire, the Carolingian renaissance, and say that Levantine trade continued not only before, but also after the Arab conquests. Nevertheless, the level of comfort, prosperity, personal security, education, transport connectivity, the organisation of society and the state, and the technological development reached by the Roman Empire by the third century of our era was surpassed by Europe only in the 18th century.
The main problem was that neither barbarous kingdoms, nor the feudal states that succeeded them, neither Byzantium, nor the Caliphate (especially its fragments) had enough resources to organise normal life on the territories that were liberated from imperial guardianship. In fact, almost a millennium of European feudalism (prior to the beginning of the Renaissance) represents the consecutive atomisation of society and state institutions (even within the framework of existing ones: the empires of the successors of Charles the Great, the Holy Roman Empire of the German nation, and the so-called Angevin empire). For small semi-independent feudal possessions that united only for the sake of military campaigns or to defend against external aggression, it was easier to keep conditional order on limited territory on the basis of a common law and local traditions. They didn’t possess neither the technologies of building roads and the organisation of regular communication, nor enough administrative staff for the organisation of a uniform system of governance, nor enough material resources in order to educate this staff. The simple system within the framework of which the fighter (a knight – a feudal lord) was at the same time not only a defender, but also an administrator, an economic leader, a judge, and a police officer, appeared to be the only organisation of state and public life for a certain period of time.
When the Russian Empire collapsed, external forces (interventionists) laying claim to the partition of imperial inheritance tried to fill the arisen vacuum, but their forces weren’t enough to cope with the internal force that declared a claim not only for the inheritance of the Romanov dynasty, but also for the reconstruction of the whole world. The Bolsheviks quite successfully filled the vacuum on imperial lands, quickly returned temporarily lost territories, and even moved on to political and ideological expansion.
However, after colonial empires failed and the vacuum captured huge territories of Asia and Africa, it became clear that not only the resources of the USSR, but even the joint resources of the USSR and US would be enough to fully fill the vacuum. As of this moment the majority of African countries are represented by tribal regimes, which in terms of their level of stability are rather comparable with early feudal formations, and not European states of the 16th-17th centuries.
The strain stemming from the dominating ideology was one of the reasons that the USSR fell. If the US was establishing purely neocolonial control and some of the spent resources were compensated for by looting controlled territories, then the USSR unproductively injected huge resources into a tribal vacuum, trying to provide subordinated countries with a jump from tribal or early feudal society directly to communism.
After the collapse of the USSR, the US and the EU at first filled the vacuum quite successfully, having concentrated on mastering its European heritage (both the former states of the socialist commonwealth and the territories of the former Union). However, it soon became clear that even global military-political hegemony doesn’t allow to, on the one hand, concentrate enough resources in order to fill the post-imperial vacuum, and on the other hand, to reliably control the rest of the world.
The US started feeling resource hunger already at the turn of the 20th and the 21st centuries. Hence their attempts to reduce the price of mastering the post-Soviet space with the help of colour revolutions, which transferred victim countries to the status of colonies whose resources had to help further expansion in principle.
The idea by itself was beautiful. All calculations showed that the resources of the victim country must tie down two-three times more resources of Russia – the only opponent of the US in the post-Soviet space. Even disregarding the general resource superiority of the US, three-four colour revolutions had to completely nullify the free Russian resource and lead to more catastrophic external/internal political consequences for Moscow than was expected from the sanctions imposed in 2014.
The mistake was that in such kinds of coups it is possible to place a stake only on the comprador bourgeoisie, the business of which objectively revolves around plundering their own country. Of course, the national producer and a considerable part of society starts resisting compradors at the stage of their journey to power. As a result, the US was required to commit considerable resource investments to ensure the seizure of power by their own “son of a bitch“, and a considerable part of the resources of the victim country was spent on the internal political fight.
But the most unpleasant thing started after the victory. The compradors who seized absolute power and weren’t constrained by anything performed such a brilliant plunder operation that the resources of the victim country – however large they may seem – disappeared in two-three years, after which the US was obliged to put this regime on its maintenance. I.e., instead of using its resources to tie down the resources of Russia, the US tied down its own resources.
The 2008 crisis, against the background of the strategy of colour revolutions failing, led to it being Obama who came to power with a program that was very similar to Trump’s program (only softer). However, it not only wasn’t succeeded to realise this program in eight Obama years – it was necessary to continue the previous policy. By this time the US’ own comprador elite developed, which controlled power and plundered both other countries and the US in the interests of abstract globalism and, specifically, in its own interests. Changing the foreign policy vector is like death for this elite, because it cuts it off from both power and the source of profits (it leads to the financial-economic and political crash of very specific and more-than-successful people – whole clans that governed America and laid claim to controlling the whole world over decades). That’s why their resistance was extremely rigid. Even in 2016 they risked putting the US on the brink of civil war in order to not allow Trump and the national capital standing behind him to come to power. Even now they fight to the death, not to live, and its outcome isn’t clear.
But what interests us today in all this story is that after 1.5 decades of struggle, the national capital of the US, leaning on conservative public circles, broke through to power in order to relieve the US of a resource-intensive policy. The impossibility for the US to fill by itself the post-imperial vacuum in connection with a shortage of resources and the partial restoration of the forces of opponents became not only obvious, but the continuation of the policy of building a global empire started to destroy the US.
Trump’s slogan “Make America Great Again” is not just an apt invention of technologists and not the audacity of an aged billionaire. This is a key to the program not only and not so much even for Trump, but for the national capital [money – ed] standing behind him. Trump, with his ambitiousness, implements this perhaps not in the best way, and not always consistently, but in general he doesn’t deviate from the general line.
Despite the regular recurrence of an imperial policy, in reality the US leaves several key zones of the planet that they kept under its complete military-political control for the past two decades. In the near future they are going to leave several more. The European Union without the military-political support of the US isn’t capable of filling the vacuum even in North Africa, not to mention other regions of the planet. Huge territories must plunge into new dark centuries.
This indeed concerns a situation that is quite comparable with the one that caught up with Europe after the Western Roman Empire fell, but only this time in the scale of the entire planet. Regardless of how we relate to the US, it is necessary to recognise that over last 20-30 years they indeed carried out the function of the world police officer. This police officer was corrupted and inclined to using violence in an unjustified way. But it provided some order, trying to dictate norms that are uniform for all. The Roman Empire, by the way, also wasn’t a gift in this respect either.
Now the US leaves, and the huge regions of Eurasia and Africa remain without supervision and are sucked into the post-imperial vacuum. Moreover, even the EU (especially its Eastern European neophytes) isn’t guaranteed against being split up and slipping into the vacuum. Now Europeans had an epiphany and try to build some strategy that will provide them a place in the sun in the post-American world. Maybe they will be in time and will be able to find the answer to the post-imperial challenge that suddenly fell at their feet. But there is no guarantee. Firstly, the time was hopelessly missed, the answer should’ve been looked for outside the chessboard. Putin warned them 11 years ago in Munich, but they didn’t want to hear. Secondly, Europe is tied to the US by millions of personal, corporate, political, and economic threads. The EU in relation to the US represents some kind of Ukraine in relation to Russia. All these ties could be reformatted smoothly for a couple of dozen years, but now there is a need to be urgently engaged in this in real-time. We saw the example of the instant collapse of the Ukrainian economy, and we saw what happens in such cases where wrong decisions are made. European bureaucracy, of course, is manyfold more qualified than the Ukrainian one, but it is also not guaranteed against mistakes when decisions have to be made based on incomplete information. In addition, the US started playing against Europe, and this additionally complicates the situation, reducing the space of possible decisions. Thirdly, in Europe there is an influential layer of politicians that doesn’t want to change anything and dreams of surrendering to the US on any conditions, even if Europeans at this time will be subjected to the fate of Ukrainians, but the politicians themselves won’t suffer (at least that’s what they think).
So, the US leaves and Europe itself is in crisis. Only Russia and China can fill the post-imperial vacuum. But their joint resources aren’t enough to be able to quickly establish military-political and economic control over the territories liberated from the US. If to hurry and to try to instantly swallow everything, you with guarantee will choke. Quick capture leads to an instant resource overstrain, which over almost thirty years consistently ruined the USSR, destroyed the world hegemony of the US, and now threatens to disintegrate the European Union.
Meanwhile, the growth rates of free post-imperial zones aren’t too great, and the common strategy of Russia and China aimed at consolidating Eurasia and occupying several key strategic points in other regions justifies itself, allowing to quickly react to the changing situation without serious overstrain.
However, now neither Russia, nor China (despite huge gold and foreign exchange reserves) have no extra resources. We are practically on the verge of having possibilities. At the same time, the government of the Russian Federation prepares for the probable (even not probable, but almost inevitable) deterioration of the world’s economic environment, trying to create a safety cushion should large global financial and economic shocks – that can occur at any time – happen.
In such a situation neither Russia nor China will be able to carry out a more active (i.e., expensive) foreign policy without jeopardising internal stability. Russia has already been forced to refuse a number of chances to fill the post-imperial vacuum. For example, Russia ignores Khalifa Haftar’s requests for help to establish control over all of Libya, despite the fact that this would allow to receive not only the foundations of the fleet in Benghazi, but also control over Libyan energy exported to the EU.
It would seem that this is profitable – Europe’s energy dependence on Russia amplifies, but, taking into account the common situation in Libya and the involvement in the Libyan crisis of both some EU countries and some gulf monarchies, Russia obviously doesn’t have enough cash resources to carry out a successful operation following the Syrian example. At least, until the Syrian crisis is solved – and this will require no less than a year (or maybe more). Russia occupied a strategic point in the Central African Republic, from where the possibility of controlling over half of Africa, including Libya, starts to arise. The operation in the CAR demands minimal resource expenses and allows to occupy a quite good bridgehead in the future. But whether this base will be used, and if it will be used, then when and how, depends on the general global situation.
Should events take place according to the soft scenario and Moscow and Beijing will be able to consolidate Eurasia within the framework of the SCO and other integration projects, then the accumulation of resources for a more active policy in other regions will happen quicker. If the EU isn’t able to find an adequate answer to internal and external challenges and we will face a large-scale European crisis (with another “decline of Europe”), then even scurrying around for resources for a fully-fledged solution to the Ukrainian question will turn out to be a problem.
Meanwhile the Ukrainian crisis at the moment is the most acute crisis of the post-Soviet space, having the greatest destabilisation potential. Its settlement would considerably improve the general strategic situation of Russia. However, the scale of the degradation of the Ukrainian economy, finance, society, and governmental institutions is too big. This settlement will demand huge resources – considerably bigger than what was spent on the Syrian operation. But without having the reliable resource base to start a full-scale settlement, this would be too risky. Failure will nullify most of the achievements of the past few decades and will be reflected in both external prestige and internal stability.
Thus, today we have two main problematic regions in the post-imperial vacuum left by the Americans: Africa and, with a high share of probability, Europe – or at least Eastern Europe almost with a guarantee. There are problems in Central Asia, but the joint Russian-Chinese influence and possibilities to stop possible destabilisation there are rather great.
Africa is rather far away and can be controlled remotely, and also by the targeted deployment of small forces, like in the CAR. I.e., resource expenses in this direction mustn’t grow critically. But the European crisis – which already affects us in the form of the Ukrainian crisis, but at worst can expand to the scale of a continent – represents a non-trivial problem. The most adequate version of its settlement lies in the preservation of the German-French kernel of the EU and its reorientation towards Russia. But this depends not only on Moscow, but also on the quality of the work of European politicians. If the main part of Western Europe is able to remain an effective system, the filling of the post-imperial vacuum in Eastern Europe through joint efforts represents a task that is difficult and expensive, but can be solved all the same. If this doesn’t happen and Europe will politically and organisationally return to the times before the 30 years’ war, the least resource-intensive exit for Russia will be the creation of a chain of buffer states and the gradual expansion of this buffer to the West with the simultaneous launching of integration processes. This must be reminiscent of the American frontier, which moved (by the way, also to the West of the US) thanks to the gradual accumulation of the necessary internal resources.
The biggest danger of the post-imperial reality for new leaders consists not in the presence of big weakly controlled territories, but in a natural attempt to establish a new global order as soon as possible. The advancing of values always demands resource expenses. If one overestimates one’s own possibilities, one will quickly overstrain.
But in general we have to be grateful to the group of American globalists, whose symbol is Hillary Clinton, for the fact that they delayed the curtailing of the American imperial presence at least for a decade, having allowed Russia and China to accumulate enough resources during this time to ensure the defence of their interests at least in strategic points of the post-imperial space. If a concept similar to Trump’s started being implemented in 2008 (not to mention 2000-2004), then it would be extremely difficult for us [Russia – ed], and most likely impossible, to combine the principle of the rational expenditure (economy) of scarce resources with the need to exercise post-imperial control in crucial regions.
The US wasn’t “police”, but was (and is) the criminal. Without the US the world would be a much better place. Just take islamic terrorism as an example: it was created by the US (and “allies”, whatever this means).
So the perspective of the author seems completely out of touch with reality. However it may reflect one aspect of “fifth column”, which seems to critique the “hegemon”, but in such a cynical way, that in reality it supports it. Because it claims “realities” (of mass murder), which “we can’t ignore” (sure — we must FIGHT them).
”The US wasn’t ’police’, but was (and is) the criminal. Without the US the world would be a much better place. Just take islamic terrorism as an example: it was created by the US (and ’allies’, whatever this means).”
Excellent assessment, Oliver K.
And, regarding Africa, it seems to have been lost on Rostislav Ishchenko that Its southernmost part is thriving thanks to booming Chinese investment. The contrast to Northern and Western Africa forever cursed by Western imperial diktat and lawlessness is striking.
However, the following passage of Ishchenko’s is most definitely a true gem — hats off:
”This must be reminiscent of the American frontier, which moved (by the way, also to the West of the US) thanks to the gradual accumulation of the necessary internal resources.”
Since the context is how Russia should set up buffer states to keep an ever more regressing, degenerating Europe in check, what Rostislav Ishchenko hints at here is, actually, genociding the Euro-trash. I couldn’t agree more!
@ Oliver K
“The US wasn’t “police”, but was (and is) the criminal.”
Your perspective is based upon morality.
That does not put break in your plate.
That does not make up for a good strategic planning.
Should the US have been successfull militarily or economically such consideration such moral consideration would be worthless.
The author is correct. The US simply failed miserably in major strategical planning and major policy orientations for the least 30 years.
It is too late now.
Chinese, Russian and Iranien planned better and benefited from US mistakes.
And the US elite and political system just proved total losers.
No, that’s incorrect, it’s not just morality.The author is suggesting the American Empire as a force that has kept parts of the world from going towards a tribal,feudal,unstable,fragmented,warring direction, that is a complete inversion of the truth, USA has been actively trying to bring about such a status-quo(everywhere except where they live of course), with limited success(see Iraq,Libya,Ukraine).
@ anon12309846
IMO the author is correct when stating that pax Americana brought stability to the world and brought enormous profits to west Asia for instance.
The same applies to Europe or Russia.
However the US suffered great strategic loss in economic sphere there with such nonesense as WTO.
Without WTO China would still be lagging behind today.
And with tremondous “sanctions” 30 years ago, Russia would not be in the shape it is today.
Competitors simply have been catching up.
Surely the US also tried under zionist influence to bring change, integrate and digest ME through war and violence into their NWO.
And there again US suffered great strategic and financial loss.
The point is such policies supported by US deep state and establishment “left” or “right” is an utter failure and proved total BS. Driven by delirious ideology and corrupt establishment self-interest.
Be it the WTO (supported by the Clinton gang) or the ME warring (supported by the Bush/McCain gang).
And some competitors such as Russia, Iran and China gained enormously from US mistakes.
Allies gained also enormously from US umbrella.
Trump as an ousider clearly goes against establishment policies from the last 30 years.
That is not small feat.
By doing so he is breaking the existing world order with the related risks and potential failure.
From the author :
“But in general we have to be grateful to the group of American globalists, whose symbol is Hillary Clinton, for the fact that they delayed the curtailing of the American imperial presence at least for a decade, having allowed Russia and China to accumulate enough resources during this time to ensure the defence of their interests at least in strategic points of the post-imperial space”
It’s not a simple difference in opinion to say a country that is actively destabilizing parts of the world even right now, has brought stability to the world.The world would be far more stable(and peaceful) today had the USA, in the 90s after the collapse of the Soviet Union, disbanded NATO, pulled back their military bases and generally developed trade relations with other nations instead of trying to take over the world politically.And taking natural resources of a country and giving back paper dollars(for the puppet elite) is not exactly something to be proud of.
@ anon12309846
Sure you love peace.
I understand.
Surely the world as it is and all countries and civilization were build up and cimented with peace and flowers.
”IMO the author is correct when stating that pax Americana brought stability to the world /…/ ”
FYI: ”Pax Americana” is the worst buggered oxymoron ever invented. US and peace are mutually exclusive. This shows most admirably among the Pindos themselves too.
@ Nussiminen
What do you mean ?
No WTO for China ?
No medecine for Africa ?
Military Invasion of Russia after soviet collapse ?
IMO you are deeply mistaken.
Western Globalist gang is after mixed race everywhere, open border and unified world government under atheist religious doxa.
Their aim is world peace by breaking Nations. Which they consider the origin of conflict and war in capitalistic societies.
Their analysis is the same as Marx. Their medecine is only quite the opposite.
They keep capitalism and break down evrything else.
The pax Americana brought tremendous peace and prosperity. Only the globalists brought also misery in pursuit of their messianic ideology.
The other option is capitalist society with independent Nations, ethnic differences, different religions. With capitalist societies centered on Nations. Imperialism and war against mal is the logical issue. As demonstrated by historicao experience and political philosophy.
Or maybe you assume fascist or communist ideology is better adapted ?
You assume Capitalism + independent Nations = Peace
And that US should have donne just that.
On what ground do you assume that and that it would have proved better ???
All historical fact on the grounds and political philosophy weight against such notion.
Therefore IMO your point is quite weak.
At the end of the day with Trump it seems we are turning back to savage capitalist fight between independent Nations.
Do you assume it will bring more peace ?
Maybe… Maybe… Wait and see.
What utter tosh. Suffice it to say that the British Empire also brought immense wealth and stability at home, accompanied by famines, wars and genocide on an equally massive scale. This was the template carefully emulated by Nazi Germany, the US, and Zionist Israel.
The West’s military invasions after the Soviet collapse were perpetrated against Yugoslavia and Iraq. Russia at the time was so weakened that the West could rule the place ”peacefully”; a genocide by ”liberal reforms”.
Pax Americana = Unending terror
@ Nussiminen
The choice in our fallen state is not between good and evil but between evil and less evil.
You assume that US could have been much less “evil”.
I assume that the US empire could have been much more “evil”.
Terror is part of our fate.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_man
You can fume about “the west”
That does not change the very fact that just like Roman empire, the US empire is no angel and nevertheless brought great prosperity and progress.
Your point about morality makes no sense.
That is the nature of capitalism.
Do you expect the snake not to eat the rat ?
Communism and fascism lost against capitalism.
If you want to change the world you could tell Xi, Trump and Putin that capitalism is the Devil and offer your advices to sort it all out.
A truly stunning, in-depth analysis — hats off (not).
Dear Saker readership: I feel disposed to believe that it’s none other than Mr. Francis ’End-of-History’ Pyjamas submitting his pearls of wisdom under the ”Anonymous” label here. It seems we are attracting truly big fish, LOL.
Yes, not the world’s policeman but the world’s capo, or hit-man, who does the dirty work for the mafia boss.
Actually the role of the police is primarily defense of the property system. The economically disadvantaged view their role as much more oppressive and brutal than do the well-off. So the comparison may be more apt than we would think.
Actually ‘capo’ is Italian for ‘head’.
The capo is not the hit-man, he’s the guy with cotton balls stuffed in his cheeks, giving orders to the hit-men.
I believe that the time for over consumption and wastefulness is over. We have to the world can not expect ever increasing spending an profits. This is where the constant cry’s for constant population increase have to stop. There is nothing wrong about population decline (while some other countries are extremely overpopulated because they do not have effective population control).
So, bottom line is I do not agree with an underlying concept of this article.
Thank you Mr. Mind-Like-A-Steel-Trap Ischenko for your article. I’d like to add to your sentence…” when decisions have to be made based on incomplete information” the following..”or during times of information overload in which outmoded analytical templates are used”. It seems that when the expected does not happen, people fall back to emotional positions like the group-think harping in the USA about “Russian collusion this and Russian collusion that.”
it seems that one of the largest intelligence gathering apparatus in the world has plenty of raw data on Russia … that is Russia, the gas station nation; Russia entering Syria, its “Vietnam”; Russia having to sell its gold reserves to survive the sanctions of 2014; Russia of the Olympics whose team did spectacularly, its toilets flushed fine and its transportation system held up well under the influx of tourists; Russia who was smart enough not to take the bait in Ukraine; Russia whose missiles hit targets spot on;Russia who talked turkey with the Armenian liberal elite; Russia which sealed its soft underbelly in the Caspian sea…etc. etc.
It just needs to hire Prof. Stephen Cohen, pay him well, and heed his words. One can hope.
Excellent comments, your examples are primo.
Excellent article. However, I have to disagree with only one point that was made, namely the reorientation of France and Germany towards Russia. Yes, Germany is slowly moving towards the East. As for France, can anybody guess what it will do ? It’s President is a Rothschilds banker, while the country has a huge immigration problem, which will certainly destabilize it if it’s not not reversed, if such a thing is possible at all.
The main point is that Russia knows that empires don’t work, as they lead to bankruptcy. Instead of following an aggressive foreign policy and going outwards, Russia has applied the inward strategy, applying the soft approach and asking countries to join it and China in the international trade organizations they have created.
The US, on the other hand, has still to learn that empires don’t work. It is continuing with it’s aggressive, imperial foreign policy. The worst part for the US is that it has an elite which does not care about repercussions, only about it’s personal gratification. If this attitude is not reversed, then the US will follow the path of ancient Rome.
I’d like Ishchenko to expand on the concept of Russia using buffer states to expand this buffer Westward.
“the least resource-intensive exit for Russia will be the creation of a chain of buffer states and the gradual expansion of this buffer to the West with the simultaneous launching of integration processes.”
Belarus. Transnistria, Novorossiya? Where are these supplicant states?
And retreat? Retreat into Eurasia Integration I assume he means.
Well, Putin just added Iran to EAEU.
And Belarus has to be brought home soon. It is too low hanging fruit for the West to leave outside the Union State any longer.
RF needs to buy off Lukashenko and family and take Minsk, roll in significant Western District assets and integrate the Belarussians.
I agree.
I have a question, What Roman Empire? The Western Roman Empire practically seized to exist the minute it was burned to ground by the German Barbarians, and it was burned to ground by them three times if I am not mistaken. Germans seized the control of it, and only the name stayed, until the the Germans decided to completely change the name. Besides, south of the Rome was always Magna Graecia, which was not controlled by the Vatican, but the Greeks in Byzantium. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greeks_in_Italy
Yes, Constantinople was sacked by the Western Crusaders in 1204. but Byzantium limped along until the Turks came in 1453. So, some of his arguments do not really ad up. Til today Turks speaking about Greeks call them Romli (Romei in Greek or otherwise Romans). Yes the west had about 1000+ years of darkness, until the Greeks came from Constantinople in 1453 and enlightened them, hence the Renaissance started. As it always happens one person’s tragedy becomes an enrichment of the other.
Anonius
In fact the Greeks started coming to the West before 1453. The Renaissance is indeed a Greek achievement, although it’s glory is awarded to Italians. Yes, the Italians implemented the Renaissance but it was the Greeks who taught them.
The Greek Hellenic culture has always been overshadowed by the Roman, even though the Roman is based on the Greek. This belittlement of the Greeks has been passed on to the Russians, no doubt because both are Orthodox Christians. Even today the elites in the West like to portray Russia as inferior in every respect, no doubt justifying all those invasions of Russia. One has to wonder what Russia has when it has been invaded all those times.
“Now the US leaves, and the huge regions of Eurasia and Africa remain without supervision and are sucked into the post-imperial vacuum. ”
Which “huge regions” of where ever it is you are referring to as
“Eurasia” Mr, Ishchenko, are “without supervision”
Eur—- means Europe
——asia, which means “that which is east of “here” [where ever “here” is] is generally taken to mean the Orient, i.e. China, Japan, Korea, etc.
I am not aware of these areas as being “without supervision”.
Once again, by using this vague, indeterminate word you leave your meaning undefined and there for open for anyone to put their interpretation on it .
Could you tell us, which parts of Europe and the Orient is it that are left without “supervision” if the invaded, unwanted and indeed, non-existent for thousands of years US goes home.
Isa, Excellent comment. I believe that when Russians talk about Eurasia, they really mean Russia – China and maybe the “Russia’s soft underbelly”. They would like to see Mongolia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, India and Iran in it as well. Some of them may be questionable , though. Other south Asian countries, like Indonesia, Philippines, and the likes are under “US protectorate”, from which they may be trying to wiggle themselves out.
”But the European crisis – which already affects us in the form of the Ukrainian crisis, but at worst can expand to the scale of a continent – represents a non-trivial problem. The most adequate version of its settlement lies in the preservation of the German-French kernel of the EU and its reorientation towards Russia. But this depends not only on Moscow, but also on the quality of the work of European politicians”
Given the ’quality of the work of European politicians’, any ’non-trivial problem’ is bound to become absolutely unmanageable. And Moscow should stay clear of getting involved except by resorting to confrontation.
Fine dose of optimism, thanks to author Ishchenko.
To this I would only suggest an addition:
“…Europe is tied to the US by millions of personal, corporate, political, and economic threads. The EU in relation to the US represents some kind of Ukraine in relation to Russia. All these ties could be reformatted smoothly for a couple of dozen years…”
I would add that the “United States” is no longer a stable entity itself, and might well need to be “reformatted”.
The Ruling Elite know their house of cards economy is crumbling. They also know that the 50 State Capitals have been nothing but mini-Washington, DC clones for a long, long time. With the oldest borders in the world and a corporate-run government, it’s reaching the point where scrapping the “American Experiment” might be a better option for most of the people… who could determine the future format on their own. As of now the people have no voice. Voting for normalcy and strong borders in 2016 got them neither. Plus the current politics of the absurd.
The American Security State, like Alexander the Great of Macedon, must keep as many or more guards on its own people as troops overseas. This is deadly for a country with a mostly non-productive Middle Class.
How many other “empires” had suicide epidemics during an economic “boom”? The bright and capable young fellow who stole an airplane to kill himself was the tip of an enormous iceberg.
Were I a group of nations, say, who’d been on the receiving end of American destabilization programs in the past, I’d consider returning the favor.
”The American Security State, like Alexander the Great of Macedon, must keep as many or more guards on its own people as troops overseas. This is deadly for a country with a mostly non-productive Middle Class.”
If I were the American Security State, I would see to it that the parasitic middle classes were given (yes: given) highly lethal weapons just like their squatting White trash ancestors in the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries. It would finish off the whole lot within a few years’ time — each proud, solitary warrior furiously waving the American flag, of course.
”Were I a group of nations, say, who’d been on the receiving end of American destabilization programs in the past, I’d consider returning the favor.”
Well put! Even the Pindos should recognize gratitude when they see it.
I do not believe the author, like most europeans – really understands the Imperial system. He is assuming that the empire has failed in the MENA region when in fact it has simply passed it off to its Israeli, Saudi, and perhaps Egyptian proxies.
The American Deep State is not a monolithic entity – it is a stochastic sum of disparate individuals, agencies and corporations swimming like a school of fish in only a statistical line whose direction is guided by the general principles of profit, and positive growth on quarterly reports as well as career oppurtunities.
Globalism is epiphenomenal to this for the simple fact that the equations for power and wealth contain no elements relating to long term conditions or benefits to the human condition. Any elementary financial textbook would bear this out.
The $Dollar still reigns supreme, and still has the power to break any and all contenders to the Imperial will. Or if not, marginalize them, the way Rome did to the Parthians.
Putin whimpers, and Xi complains, but both have neither the courage, nor perhaps the political power to truly counter the Masters of the Universe. Volodya brings a chessboard, and Winnie the Pooh brings a slingshot – to a gunfight.
The Chinese and Russians may win the hearts and minds of Africa, but as long as the IMF is there, the Empire owns its resources, and has zero interest in its human populations. Other than perhaps a testing ground for its bioweapons.
The author senses danger to Europe, but doesnt see it as the obvious next target of the Imperial Borg. Deutsches bank is to be the first morsel, with Turkey and iran merely being foils to accomplish that end. The Turks and Persians will be bled slowly to death by their own countrymen in their search to exchange their sovereign wealth for $dollars, as the Fed keeps its interest rates high enough to attract the ‘hot money’ in the pump-and-dump game that has persisted since the early days of the British Empire.
Cashing in T-Bills is a meaningless gesture. The dollars coming back to our borders will simply be used by the banks to pump up the stock market and other financials, making the elites of other nations even wealthier, unless their investments happen to be in our crosshairs.
There are two seperate economies here – Main street (for the rabble) and Wall Street (FIRE Sector for the world elite). And no political analysis can be possibly done without factoring in the nasty reallity that peoples of all nations (Zio or otherwise) – will follow the money. And money = power. It that dichotomy which gives the $dollar at least another generation of life.
Try starting a revolution without it. (Hint: The reason Washington was selected comanding general of the Revolution, although he was instrumental in the two worst debacles of the Colonies at the time.)
There is another key element also missing on most political analyses. The fact that Eurasian powers mentioned have successfully created an antidote to the Western aerial supremacy. This does not change the role of the Hegemon, only complicates it. Now bombs/missiles when used, need to be swarmed. More profits to Raytheon. It also makes economic warfare more practical, though the principle of destroying infrastructure to rebuild it in dollar denominated debt has been going strong since the Marshall Plan.
Bozie
Reads like a list of excuses used by Europe back in their imperial days when they were ‘civilizing’ the world.If Russia and China follow in the footsteps of the West, then naturally they will come to the same end as the West.
While there maybe many parties that wish to end the American Empire and Western Hegemony, I doubt many(if any) would want Russia and China to replace them.And that’s some nice wordplay there, writing of ‘post-imperial control’ while writing about Russia/China controlling territory outside their borders, shouldn’t that be ‘post-imperial-American control’?Or did the definition of empire get updated recently?Also that ‘post-imperial vacuum’, the space in question was made for and by an empire, so unless we’re talking about a new empire to replace the USA, there is no vacuum/space to be filled.
Lots of interesting points in this article.
The one thing that I disagree with is the idea of Russia incorporating buffer states to their west. I don’t think that will happen. The former USSR made too many enemies in Eastern Europe. It will take a generation or more before the attitude of Eastern Europeans changes on that. Until that time, much of Eastern Europe will remain a fanatical American proxy.
”The former USSR made too many enemies in Eastern Europe.”
This is something I had on my mind too. But now, there is a crucial difference. The West is bankrupt and its ”Elites” couldn’t possibly care less as to what happens to the West’s middle classes and labour aristocracies. During the Cold War, the glorious West could ”make a statement” by being generous at home with other peoples’ labour output and natural resources, while there still was a vibrant productive industrial sector in the West as well. The peoples in socialist Eastern Europe were shut off from the gravy train of Western imperialism. That is much the basis of the hatred of Russia/the USSR there. The most die-hard, reactionary populations such as the Ukros, the Psheks, and the Balts seek consolation by sucking up to today’s disintegrating West, but it won’t help. Ukraine is an excellent case in point.
I agree, I also believe that this can be attributed to Stalin, but not only. Stalin believing that to victor’s go the spoils started to rearrange the borders of the Eastern European (including Baltic statelets) countries. Mind you, Bulgaria and Romania took active role in attacking Soviet Union as German allies (Romania had 100,000 strong army attacking Stalingrad if I remember correctly). Also, Bulgaria committed many atrocities in Balkan countries (Yugoslavia and Greece) as a part of German occupying force. So, rightfully Stalin made them pay by grabbing some of their territories. Similar thing can be said about Hungary. As far as Poland is concerned the story goes back to shortly after the 1917 revolution, when Piłsudski, a Marshal in Polish army as well as the President of Freshly created Polish Republic decided to join in and attack Russia (I do not think the USSR was created yet) in an attempt to grab Ukraine, and some Baltic states, mind you some of them were part of Prussia (Eastern Prussia, etc). Finland, Estonia participated in German attack on USSR. So, personally I do not blame Stalin, as they all had it coming to them. Well, they conveniently blame Soviet aggression.
”So, personally I do not blame Stalin, as they all had it coming to them. Well, they conveniently blame Soviet aggression.”
Exactly. The one thing which I believe Stalin shouldn’t have made was giving Poland all that German territory, expanding Poland westwards. Poland, forever staging aggressive wars against each and every neighbouring country deemed sufficiently weak and defenceless — at least in the presence of bigger and stronger thieves for Poland to join forces with — should have been promptly dissolved with the lion share going to the USSR, and the remaining parts to Germany and Czechoslovakia. Today, Poland has proudly resumed her time-honoured role of pestering all of Europe as the enabler of Western fascist reaction against Russia.
Nussi, I agree with you. Because Poles conveniently forget all the German lands gifted to them and continuously complain about losing the Russian lands on the east (Ukraine or at least part of it, Lithuania, Belarus) which they think belong to them.
“After the collapse of the USSR, the US and the EU at first filled the vacuum quite successfully ….”
This isn’t so simple, it is very complex.
First they hijacked the Ruling party in USSR long time before collapse.
Second they created a pseudo elite with the money power. In 1996, Khodorkovsky and his business partners invested in a majority stake in Yukos at a cost of $309 million, the price set by the state in the privatization process under the Yeltsin administration’s ‘loans for shares’ program.
Third they control the finance, economy and media of RF.
There isn’t any vacuum. They filled the vacuum long before collapse of Soviet Union.
Was not EU whom filled the vacuum? In fact was the Hegemon through Privatization, and Democracy. In fact there are big corporates looting Russia through Privatization, and controlling the Economy.
Sometimes I ask myself if the writer and myself live in the same reality of whether the writer just want to believe his version of reality. The facts are clearly different and way more simple than one would like to assume.
Trump is a bully and a sales man. He has one objective. Subjugate everyone to his whim and have them buy from him. That is it. He is a single minded (I should say simple minded) individual. His objective is to have the EU buy as much from the US as possible. That is it. The US has not left the EU, on the contrary, the US increased its military presence in the EU 10 fold in the past 3 years, building more bases, improving existing ones and sending more troops as permanent deployment.
Germany has one fear. To get the same treatment Trump is giving china hence she called putin and asked to figure out a way to slow down the NS2 and keep the ukraine transit option working. The problem is that the infrastructure of the Ukraine transit system is crumbling and will not hold pass 2020 without significant investment. Merkel has to pacify trump so he will not impose sanction on german cars (which will kill not only germany but the whole eastern europe which exports 26 Billion in 2017 to germany in terms of car productions/car parts productions).
That coupled with a potential global slowdown or even recession in 2019/2020 is the main reason merkel called putin. Politically she is on a shaky ground and she cant afford another shock.
Russia has NOTHING to offer in this scenario. NOTHING. It can not be a security guarantor, the eu has no army (there is an announcement but no more than this) and the eu is acutely aware the US can easily create a provocation in any of hot spots (let it be ukraine, balkan or baltic (lesser degree) and drag the eu to a conflict it cant stomach.
Bottom line is – China and Russia are defending their realm. Trying to hold tight to their positions, hoping not to loose ground. US is still on the offensive (economically not militarily) and the rest of the world is scrambling for defense.
Both Russia and China are petrified of internal strife. The worse the economy, the larger the chance. Putin approval dropped below 50% in the last levanda pool and the rubble is 77/Euro. The pressure on the russian economy is rising and PMI for the first 6 months of 2018 was officially revised down (significantly)
Russia is not looking good. Raising VAT in 2019 will have another blow and a chance for banking sanction will bring the russian economy on its knees.
China still has room to maneuver and it is doing that by devaluating the rumbini trying to offset the trade war. The problem is it will create internal pressures and can hit the stock and RE market where most Chinese middle class are using as store of wealth. That is not going to end well.
In short, there is no vacuum and there is not going to be a vacuum for the foreseen future. I am not saying that the US is wining and I am not advocating what the US is doing. However, the facts are the facts and so far, the game is far from over and the US has a bigger depth and a longer breath than all other 3.
I wonder what would have happened if all the refugees fleeing to Europe had gone south rather than north across the Med. It seems to me that there is much better country ‘down south’ in that continent. Am I just a dreamer or were the ‘fleers’ going the wrong way?