Rostislav Ishchenko develops his theme first posted here: Russian World as a global project into global multipolarity and covers why and how the West ran into a dead end, and where the multipolar situation may lead.
Please note it is a machine translation with some human assistance, and it is not a perfect document. It however makes his points clear enough, for the discussion on this massive global change.
Today we are in a unique situation – for the first time in the history of mankind, a global empire is breaking up.
Humanity is constantly living in an era of decay. At the same time, humanity is constantly living in an era of centralization. The dialectic of history works simply: the centers of disintegration and centralization are constantly changing places both horizontally (some states are weakening, others are strengthening) and vertically (against the background of a weakening center, power in the shires is always strengthening, and the weakness of the regions leads to the strengthening of the center). The art of leading a state is to correctly determine its internal and external state.
Accordingly, you need to move the control center of gravity from the regional level to the central level and back. In the field of foreign policy, in an era of weakness, try not to be too active in order to suffer as few losses as possible (and it is better not to lose anything at all), while at the time of strength, try to carefully acquire additional resources. Depending on the era, this resource can be nominated in terms of land, people, industrial power, market access, ideological leadership, information superiority, and other resources. As a rule, several interrelated factors from among the above play an important role.
The Empire of the Collective West
Today we are in a unique situation. This has never happened before in the history of mankind. For the first time, a global empire is breaking up. We used to call it the American world, because after the collapse of the USSR, the United States remained the only superpower for twenty or twenty – five years (who thinks so) and became a symbol of Western dominance. But in reality, it was the empire of the collective West.
The United States did not share the profits made by robbing the rest of humanity with Canada and Australia, New Zealand and South Korea, Japan and the EU out of a love of art or an innate desire for charity. It’s just that without the support of these vassal regimes, Washington was unable to manage the globalized world.
And, as has been known since classical feudalism, the vassal owes the master exactly the same amount as the master owes the vassal. If a prince or duke does not dress his retinue luxuriously, does not provide it with expensive horses and weapons, does not feed it to the brim and does not drink it to the point of drunkenness, then the retinue has every right to abandon such a leader and look for a new master (the right to leave).
In politics, these relations are expressed in a change of allies. For example, when the USSR could no longer provide Eastern Europe with an influx of additional resources (at the expense of its own population) The ATS and COMECON instantly disappeared in time and space, and their yesterday’s members lined up in NATO and the EU. Next in line were the Union republics, which fled the Union in full confidence that they were feeding Russia and would live better on their own. At the same time, the republics did not really think about any independence either. They took the queue “to the West” for Eastern Europeans, fully confident that they only need to join the EU and NATO and everything will be like in the USSR, only even more satisfying and better.
Some managed to join, some did not, but everyone was disappointed. And not at all because, as some think, the West did not want to feed freeloaders. The EU and the US were well aware of their responsibilities to their vassal countries, and they also understood that spending on their “weapons, horses, clothing, food and drink” would pay off by strengthening Western dominance around the world. The annexation of Eastern Europe and the post-Soviet states (except for Russia and the Asian republics) was supposed to significantly improve the geopolitical position of the West, strengthen its military capabilities and make its political and economic dictates insurmountable.
When the West overestimated its strength
At first, it worked that way. The costs of maintaining Poland and demonstrating the success of the Baltic Tigers were more than repaid by predatory exploitation of Russia (in the 1990s, the West established direct or indirect control over most of Russia’s resources through local oligarchs) and outright piracy in the rest of the world (Iraq, Afghanistan, Yugoslavia, and after it Serbia).
Economically booming, China was unable to stand up to the collective West militarily. Russia seemed completely destroyed and only temporarily preserved the appearance of unity. At this point, the West overestimated its strength.
In any society, there are always different groups that see the purpose and meaning of existence and the direction of development of the corresponding society in different ways. And as long as there is an obvious external danger, these groups reject internal contradictions, rallying against the external enemy. If, for some reason, the authorities lose the ability to reconcile and balance internal contradictions, a catastrophe of the 1917 model occurs.
In the 1990s, the collective West believed in the “end of history”, that the world is forever Westernized, that the roles of governors and governed are assigned to different countries forever. Being in a state of euphoria, the Western left liberals launched an ideological offensive not only on the external front, but also on the internal one, trying to make their “tolerant new world” mandatory for everyone, not only in the conquered countries, but also among those who, in their opinion, “won the Third world war (cold war).”
As long as the leftists did not dig in, the resistance to their expansion in Western society was provided by certain marginal groups of conservatives, who were branded fascists by the” new left”. Broad strata of Western society were virtually untouched by the confrontation between these groups until the mid-noughties of the third millennium. Moreover, the main ideological expansion of the West was aimed at the development of “conquered territories”. It was there that the most “advanced” “public organizations” were created, spreading the propaganda of equality of norm and perversion to Western grants, even the advantages of perversion over the norm, because it “suffered for a long time”.
There, on the” new lands”, the” Soros funds ” and their many similarities worked. And left-liberal ideas, having fallen into the post-communist ideological void accustomed to the presence of a” leading and guiding ” people, were in the greatest demand. The additional appeal of these ideas was given by the fact that their local adherents, due to the support of Western funds, instantly became super-successful people against the background of the rapidly impoverished (in the 1990s) post-Soviet society.
It is difficult to say how all this would have ended if the West had had the wit and patience to wait, not to immediately cut the post-Soviet “chicken”, but to give the liberals the opportunity to demonstrate at least some success. Then it was inexpensive. But, having invested in a thin layer of people temporarily in power, the West decided that all the problems were solved. The elites will cope with educating the masses. And it was seriously mistaken.
Split in the Western family
I don’t know if Russia and China would have had a chance to stand up to the united West, which by the end of the 1990s was totally superior to them in all indicators, except for Chinese industrial growth (but it is not enough to grow quickly, you need to have time to grow), if the expansion of Western neolithic ideas would have remained exclusively external. But the left-wing liberals, sensing that they had significantly strengthened their positions due to external expansion, launched an offensive against conservatives inside the West. This was the beginning of the end, for” Every kingdom divided against itself will become desolate; and every city or house divided against itself will not stand ” (Matthew 12: 25).
The West faced several divisions at once. First, there were divisions between conservatives and liberals within each individual country. Second, there is a split between conservative Eastern Europe and liberal Western Europe within the EU. Third, a split has emerged between the European bureaucracy and national Governments.
Moreover, since the European bureaucracy came out from radical left-liberal positions, in the fight against it, even liberal national governments were forced to seek the support of conservatives, which weakened the position of liberals in each individual country.
An increasing amount of Western resources began to be directed not to maintain the hegemony of the West, but to the internal struggle of liberals for an ideological monopoly. The West has lost the ability to control planetary processes, but, being in euphoria, on the wave of success, it did not immediately notice this. When it noticed, it was too late. The divided Western society could no longer unite and was increasingly slipping into a state of cold, and then almost hot, civil war. The struggle between liberals and conservatives, like any struggle of roughly equal forces, began to devour almost all available resources, and the West began to feel resource hunger.
Since the opportunity to pay off the resource shortage at the expense of Russia and/or China was lost (the West thought it was temporary, but in fact it turned out to be forever), cannibalism had to be engaged: the stronger countries of the West began to redirect resources that had previously been used to support weaker and poorer countries in their favor. Immediately, the internal split deepened. In Europe, in addition to the division into West and East, there was a problem of “rich North” and “poor South”. These two parts of the EU had different views not only on the prospects of economic and financial policy of the European Union, but also set different foreign policy goals for themselves.
Divisions between the US and the EU, the US and Israel, the US and Turkey, Turkey and Israel, Israel and the EU, and the EU and Turkey have emerged and begun to deepen. Washington’s position began to weaken even in the traditionally loyal monarchies of the Arabian Peninsula.
Political laws are inexorable
The West is still trying to present a united front. In particular, the United States is forming an all-Western coalition against China and is trying to bind Russia’s forces in the European direction by forming a single pan-European anti-Russian front. In the statements of government officials, on the paper of signed agreements and according to the estimates of expert offices funded from Western budgets, it seems to work, but not so much in terms of the self-perception of the population of Western countries, which the press is increasingly forced to reflect with minimal objectivity.
The collective West still retains a sense of civilizational unity, but in the face of growing resource scarcity, this cannot help it in any way. Still, the strong, in order to survive, is forced to withdraw resources from the weak. At the same time, even if the weak does not rebel, but allows themselves to be robbed to the end, the weakening of the West will progress at an increasing pace. On the example of Ukraine, Moldova, Bulgaria, and the former “Baltic tigers”, we see that sooner or later there comes a time when the robbed statehood loses the ability to support itself. Starting from this period, it is necessary either to pump additional resources into it just for the sake of preserving it, or to accept that it will de facto disappear, first as an economic unit, and then as a political one, which will reduce the amount of available resources, respectively aggravating the problem.
Today, the West is already clearly divided into three clusters: the American one (the main one, torn apart in the United States by the struggle of right-wing conservative Trumpists and left-wing radical Bidenites); the European one (whose economic interests require cooperation with Russia, but the ruling elites of most countries are afraid that they will not be able to retain power if they leave the American umbrella); and the Asia-Pacific one (which has already fallen into the sphere of Chinese economic influence, but does not want to admit it for the same reason that modern Europe does not want to break with America).
Historical experience shows that political laws are inexorable. If you try to slow down the development of natural processes, then the longer you delay, the more terrible the final catastrophe will be. In the 1990s, the West could still win, in the noughties conclude a compromise peace, being in a favorable position, in the tenth it was still possible to talk about a compromise, but the main bonuses were already received by Russia and China.
At this stage, the West can only count on a complete and unconditional surrender. Further delay will lead to the fact that there will be no one to capitulate. People, houses and cities will remain, but the western system will disappear.
Yet the United States is trying to continue playing the game of victory, and its allies have no strength to step out of the American shadow. Further decisions should be made in the next three to five years. Either the United States will risk starting a war against China (then it should be started as early as possible, since it may be too late), or they will have to admit defeat in the global confrontation. For the collective West, this will be a greater shock than the one that shook the Soviet sphere of influence during the collapse of the USSR. The wreckage of the collective West in the form of junior partners of the United States will start looking for new patrons even more frantically than the post-socialist countries did in the 1990s.
At this point, the question will arise: where is the new assemblage point, around whom will the new centralization take place?
The square trinomial and its political roots
So far, we believe that such an assemblage point can be the Russian-Chinese Eurasia based on the SCO, the EAEU, the CSTO and other structures created and being created by Russia and China. However, China, which is trying to protect itself against a sudden (but more than likely) collapse of Western markets, has recently taken several cautious steps to establish its own control over the Trans-Eurasian trade routes under Russian control. A possible clash of interests is in Africa and Latin America, where both powers are actively increasing their economic expansion.
Finally, while not yet obvious, but in the long run, the most dangerous contradiction is that the fragments of the collective West that fall into the Chinese sphere of influence (the Republic of Korea, Australia, and New Zealand), along with the Southeast Asian states already located there, have interests diametrically opposed to the interests of Europe that potentially falls into the Russian sphere of influence. Plus, India and Japan are too big a prize for Beijing and Moscow to allow each other’s sole influence there.
These contradictions are objective, and whether they can be overcome depends on the collective will of Russia and China. Today, we cannot say unequivocally that this will be achieved, if only because we do not know in what geopolitical conditions we will have to move on to building a “beautiful new world”. One thing is clear: Washington’s belated recognition of multipolarity in the form of a statement that there are three centers of power in today’s world (Russia, the United States, and China), although formally true, cannot satisfy anyone, because the dynamics of global processes are negative for the United States, and they will still try to change it, which means that the three-member structure will not be stable due to American opportunism.
In general, today the crisis is developing, the catastrophe of the collective West seems inevitable, but the subsequent catharsis does not promise peace.
Congratulations… One of the best readings I have had. The autor’s
opinión is happening now, western allíes are fighting for resourses…poor states will fall in russias side… Later de rich ones Germány first and france, no need more. Latín América next.
UK must be ready for war with Russia, says armed forces chief.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/nov/14/uk-must-be-ready-for-war-with-russia-says-armed-forces-chief?utm_term=Autofeed&CMP=twt_gu&utm_medium&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1636892810
Operation Barbarossa 2 is just the thing NATO has been itching for to justify its existence after failing in the colonial police role.
A task force of up to 600 UK troops including elite SAS special forces is ready to deploy in Ukraine amid fears Russia is poised to invade its neighbor, according to media reports
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/british-special-forces-ready-deploy-25453247
Aeroflot could be blacklisted according to EU sources.
And Putin is on capitulating mode once again on tv R1.
https://tass.com/politics/1361151
Russia will end up with her strategy of no retaliations, with the Biggest Nato bases in the World at her borders, full of nukes.It will be Kosovo 2.0.. x 50
If there is any conflict stirred up with Russia by these “Atlanticists” I will list for you the Top 9 Non-Military Nuclear Targets for Russia.
1. Washington DC
2. New York
3. London
4. Berlin
5. Paris
6. San Francisco/Silicon Valley
7. Los Angeles
8. Brussels
9. Amsterdam
10.Warsaw + Kiev
Article does not include the views, agenda and the work of those people from the 1.7 Billion Islamic-Arab World who are no longer interested to play 2nd fiddle to anyone (just like Russia and China) and who are focused on the re-building of Islamic civilization (as opposed to say paying attention to the agenda and interests of those countries that are not part of the Islamic Arab World but are rather an alien body hostile and negative to it.) From this standpoint, it should be self-evident to the author that the 21st century world will be BI-POLAR or DUAL which is stable and perhaps ironic from a Soviet point of view.
One of the key passages Ishchenko hits upon is this:
“The West faced several divisions at once. First, there were divisions between conservatives and liberals within each individual country. Second, there is a split between conservative Eastern Europe and liberal Western Europe within the EU. Third, a split has emerged between the European bureaucracy and national Governments.”
An Empire divided in three dynamics. The cross-border ideologies were fighting it out for total (necessary to their ideologies) control. Just as the US is divided, so too, the EU in two power struggles.
Meanwhile, Russia and China came together generating pressures on those divisions, like moving tectonic plates put pressure on fault lines. Eventually, a shake and shudder, and a snap of the plates.
Ishchenko offers a risky prediction:
“Historical experience shows that political laws are inexorable. If you try to slow down the development of natural processes, then the longer you delay, the more terrible the final catastrophe will be. In the 1990s, the West could still win, in the noughties conclude a compromise peace, being in a favorable position, in the tenth it was still possible to talk about a compromise, but the main bonuses were already received by Russia and China.
At this stage, the West can only count on a complete and unconditional surrender. Further delay will lead to the fact that there will be no one to capitulate. People, houses and cities will remain, but the western system will disappear.”
In summation, this article needs reading and re-reading to fully understand how Ishchenko has captured “the collapse” most others talk about but could never truly explain. This article is like Einstein’s E = mc2. It explains the most dynamic global human event, the end of Empire.
”The United States did not share the profits made by robbing the rest of humanity with Canada and Australia, New Zealand and South Korea, Japan and the EU out of a love of art or an innate desire for charity. It’s just that without the support of these vassal regimes, Washington was unable to manage the globalized world.”
Exactly.
The ”trente glorieuses” (1945-1975) came about very much because the US decided to put a lid on imperialist rivalries. Every state in the West except those where fascism was left intact — Portugal and Spain — was to have its fair share of imperialist booty. Of course it also helped that the affluent Western states had thriving domestic industries producing tangible material necessities.
What Western Marxists failed to see was that the EU and Japan never were ”in conflict” with US imperialism. Instead, they were happy vassals because US largesse allowed them social peace and a strong capitalist legitimacy. What was to set off the decline of the collective West was the advent of neoliberalism and its inseparable expressions of deindustrialization and finance ”industry”.
It could have continued if the West had succeeded in finishing off Russia and China, but that was when defeat was snatched from the jaws of victory. Now the world is in a state which looks very much like the exact opposite of 30 years earlier. The West is imploding.
Ishchenko is a master thinker, we are most fortunate to have him. It is a pity he spends much of his time on Ukrainian politics; I understand it is his niche among Russian intelligentsia, but we are deprived of the bigger picture he otherwise provides.
I was disturbed by his Chinese views in his last work posted on this forum.
I know Russian elite are as fickle and unreliable as elites everywhere else – reminds me of their self-humiliation in times of Peter (“the Great”) where they spoke French and pranced around in fancy French frocks and powdered wigs with dainty kerchiefs at ready to wipe away slightest hints of perspiration! Didn’t Cicero say something about the rites of “civilization” and its hidden objective of unmanning “the barbarian?”
Orlov just said of the Russian people that they have “…𝘢 𝘤𝘶𝘭𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘳𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘥 𝘢𝘣𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘵𝘰 𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘤𝘶𝘭𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘮𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘢𝘪𝘯 𝘤𝘰𝘳𝘥𝘪𝘢𝘭 𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘢𝘤𝘳𝘰𝘴𝘴 𝘨𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘵 𝘤𝘶𝘭𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘢𝘭 𝘥𝘪𝘷𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘮𝘺 𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘴.” Does this hold true for most current Russian elites too? Putin will not live for ever and state policy is usually the sum of vector elements of the elite factions and their usually lamentable tastes. To be blunt, have they imbibed the racism and arrogance of privilege of the West to which they gaze so much? If so, this will be fruitful pressure point for Empire hybrid war to chisel apart the Russo-Chinese concert. As Chinese and all ancient civilizations note, the fish rots from the head. It is the elites who determine the course of their societies, for ill or for better.
I read his last work late, so never posted this query from September 27, 2021:
—–
For Russians/Russia watchers:
Re: /russian-world-as-a-global-project/
Very interesting perspectives from Ishchenko on Russian-Chinese relations.
He said: “𝘐𝘯 𝘧𝘢𝘤𝘵, 𝘟𝘪 𝘑𝘪𝘯𝘱𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘥𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘥𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘭𝘰𝘱𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘊𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘴𝘦 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘩𝘰𝘰𝘥 𝘢𝘭𝘰𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘢𝘵𝘩 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘯𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘤 𝘥𝘪𝘤𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘴𝘩𝘪𝘱 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘺 𝘢𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘰𝘤𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘺. 𝘛𝘰𝘵𝘢𝘭 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘰𝘭, 𝘶𝘯𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘢𝘭 𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘺 (“𝘷𝘰𝘭𝘶𝘯𝘵𝘢𝘳𝘺” 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘶𝘮𝘱𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘤𝘤𝘰𝘳𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘢𝘳𝘥𝘴 𝘥𝘦𝘧𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘥 𝘣𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘩𝘪𝘱), 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘭𝘪𝘷𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢𝘤𝘤𝘰𝘳𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘪𝘱𝘭𝘦: 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘨𝘰𝘰𝘥 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘨𝘰𝘰𝘥 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘤𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘻𝘦𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘪𝘵 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘧𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘢”𝘣𝘳𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘧𝘶𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘦” 𝘪𝘯 𝘊𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘴𝘦. 𝘐𝘧 𝘋𝘦𝘯𝘨 𝘟𝘪𝘢𝘰𝘱𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘶𝘳𝘨𝘦𝘥 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘵𝘰 𝘱𝘢𝘺 𝘢𝘵𝘵𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘭𝘰𝘳 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘢𝘵, 𝘪𝘧 𝘪𝘵 𝘤𝘢𝘵𝘤𝘩𝘦𝘴 𝘮𝘪𝘤𝘦 𝘸𝘦𝘭𝘭, 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘟𝘪 𝘑𝘪𝘯𝘱𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘥𝘦𝘤𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘢𝘵 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘢𝘭𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘥𝘺 𝘴𝘶𝘧𝘧𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘭𝘺 𝘴𝘬𝘪𝘭𝘭𝘦𝘥 𝘪𝘯 𝘤𝘢𝘵𝘤𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘴𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘪𝘵 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘣𝘦 𝘱𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘭𝘰𝘳 𝘢𝘱𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘥 𝘣𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘺 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘦𝘲𝘶𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦𝘴.
𝘊𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘢, 𝘰𝘧 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘳𝘴𝘦, 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘴𝘵𝘰𝘱 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘳𝘦𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘯 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘢𝘵𝘩 𝘰𝘧 𝘋𝘦𝘯𝘨 𝘟𝘪𝘢𝘰𝘱𝘪𝘯𝘨, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘰𝘥𝘢𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘪𝘵𝘶𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘪𝘴 𝘥𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘭𝘰𝘱𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘥𝘪𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘮𝘰𝘥𝘦𝘭 𝘣𝘢𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘧𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘴𝘮 𝘰𝘧 𝘤𝘢𝘵𝘴, 𝘵𝘰 𝘢 𝘮𝘰𝘥𝘦𝘭 𝘣𝘢𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘳𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘵 𝘤𝘢𝘵 𝘤𝘰𝘭𝘰𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨.
𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘧𝘪𝘳𝘴𝘵 𝘮𝘰𝘥𝘦𝘭 𝘪𝘴 𝘱𝘳𝘢𝘨𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘤 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯 𝘪𝘵𝘴 𝘧𝘳𝘢𝘮𝘦𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘬, 𝘸𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘮𝘰𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘰𝘸𝘢𝘳𝘥𝘴 𝘢 𝘮𝘦𝘳𝘨𝘦𝘳 𝘪𝘯 𝘢 𝘴𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘭𝘦 𝘙𝘶𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘢𝘯-𝘊𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘴𝘦 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘭𝘥 (𝘤𝘪𝘷𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘻𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭, 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘮𝘦𝘳𝘨𝘦𝘳). 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘥 𝘮𝘰𝘥𝘦𝘭 𝘪𝘴 𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘰𝘭𝘰𝘨𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭, 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘩 𝘮𝘦𝘢𝘯𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘯𝘰 𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘊𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘴𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘳𝘢𝘥𝘦𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘬 𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘪𝘵 𝘵𝘰𝘥𝘢𝘺, 𝘪𝘵 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘴𝘶𝘧𝘧𝘦𝘳 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘮𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘴𝘮 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘦𝘹𝘱𝘢𝘯𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘪𝘴𝘮. 𝘔𝘰𝘳𝘦𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳, 𝘢𝘴 𝘱𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘦𝘹𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘸𝘴, 𝘴𝘶𝘤𝘩 𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘰𝘭𝘰𝘨𝘪𝘻𝘦𝘥 𝘔𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘤 𝘮𝘰𝘥𝘦𝘭𝘴 𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘲𝘶𝘪𝘤𝘬𝘭𝘺 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘢 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘰𝘶𝘳𝘤𝘦 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘢𝘨𝘦. 𝘈𝘭𝘭 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮 (𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘭𝘭𝘢𝘱𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘜𝘚𝘚𝘙 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘶𝘳𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘉𝘦𝘭𝘢𝘳𝘶𝘴) 𝘳𝘦𝘲𝘶𝘪𝘳𝘦 𝘢 𝘳𝘦𝘨𝘶𝘭𝘢𝘳 𝘪𝘯𝘧𝘭𝘶𝘹 𝘰𝘧 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘰𝘶𝘳𝘤𝘦𝘴 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘰𝘶𝘵𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦. 𝘛𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘮𝘦𝘢𝘯𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘦𝘦𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘦 𝘧𝘶𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘦, 𝘊𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘴𝘦 𝘦𝘹𝘱𝘢𝘯𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘪𝘴𝘮 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘦 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘰𝘯𝘭𝘺 𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘰𝘭𝘰𝘨𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘢𝘭𝘴𝘰 𝘮𝘦𝘳𝘤𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘭𝘦. 𝘑𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦 𝘞𝘢𝘴𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘵𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘦𝘯𝘥 𝘰𝘧 𝘗𝘢𝘹 𝘈𝘮𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘯𝘢, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 “𝘊𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘴𝘦 𝘞𝘰𝘳𝘭𝘥” 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘯𝘦𝘦𝘥 𝘨𝘭𝘰𝘣𝘢𝘭 𝘩𝘦𝘨𝘦𝘮𝘰𝘯𝘺 𝘴𝘪𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘺 𝘵𝘰 𝘮𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘢𝘪𝘯 𝘪𝘵𝘴 𝘤𝘶𝘳𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘭𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘭 𝘰𝘧 𝘥𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘭𝘰𝘱𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘢𝘭 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘺.
𝘛𝘩𝘶𝘴, 𝘪𝘧 𝘊𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘢 𝘥𝘰𝘦𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘳𝘦𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘯 𝘵𝘰 𝘋𝘦𝘯𝘨 𝘟𝘪𝘢𝘰𝘱𝘪𝘯𝘨’𝘴 𝘱𝘪𝘭𝘭𝘢𝘳 𝘳𝘰𝘢𝘥, 𝘢𝘧𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘢 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘭𝘦 𝘪𝘵 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘦 𝘢 𝘤𝘪𝘷𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘻𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘦𝘵𝘪𝘵𝘰𝘳 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘙𝘶𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘢, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘨𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦” 𝘙𝘶𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘢𝘯 𝘞𝘰𝘳𝘭𝘥 “𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦” 𝘊𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘴𝘦 𝘞𝘰𝘳𝘭𝘥 ” 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘦 𝘪𝘮𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘣𝘭𝘦.”
I thought, as a Eurasionist, he would be more accepting of Chinese? Yet he is expressing views similar to Atlanticists. Or has this been a concern regarding aspects of China even among Eurasianists?
Has the Chinese mindset changed recently, prompting this disquiet? Most interesting is that he foresees that if Chinese continue on current trajectory, they will turn messianic and hegemonic! How? Surely not based on one speech by XJP, so he is calculating using additional metrics.
How does this mesh with China’s millennial history of non-messianism and peaceful commercial relations? Are Russians seeing something transferred to Chinese DNA with their strong adoption of Western capitalism in recent decades? Whoever adopts Western ways is profoundly changed.
If enough Eurasionists are similarly disquieted, then they will hedge their bets and help France/Germany rebuild faster after this AngloZionist collapse. This AUKUS stunt will help Russian realignment considerably.
In fact much of this article is an appeal to the Christian and Islamic world of their Abrahamic commonality and future destiny together vis-à-vis the Chinese civilizational model.
—
Ishchenko in this piece further develops this nascent rivalry and [coming clash?] of Russo-Chinese civilizations:
“𝘏𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳, 𝘊𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘢, 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘩 𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘳𝘺𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘰 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘤𝘵 𝘪𝘵𝘴𝘦𝘭𝘧 𝘢𝘨𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘵 𝘢 𝘴𝘶𝘥𝘥𝘦𝘯 (𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘯 𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦𝘭𝘺) 𝘤𝘰𝘭𝘭𝘢𝘱𝘴𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘞𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘯 𝘮𝘢𝘳𝘬𝘦𝘵𝘴, 𝘩𝘢𝘴 𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘭𝘺 𝘵𝘢𝘬𝘦𝘯 𝘴𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘭 𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘶𝘴 𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘱𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘪𝘴𝘩 𝘪𝘵𝘴 𝘰𝘸𝘯 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘰𝘭 𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘛𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘴-𝘌𝘶𝘳𝘢𝘴𝘪𝘢𝘯 𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘥𝘦 𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘵𝘦𝘴 𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳 𝘙𝘶𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘢𝘯 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘰𝘭. 𝘈 𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘣𝘭𝘦 𝘤𝘭𝘢𝘴𝘩 𝘰𝘧 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘴 𝘪𝘴 𝘪𝘯 𝘈𝘧𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘢 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘓𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘯 𝘈𝘮𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘢, 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘣𝘰𝘵𝘩 𝘱𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘭𝘺 𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘰𝘮𝘪𝘤 𝘦𝘹𝘱𝘢𝘯𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯.”
All this may be moot if West collapses quickly into its own footprint. So the race seems on between Western collapse and the rising Russo-Chinese antagonisms. Can the former occur before the latter unwinds the double helix?
One more ball to watch in the swirling Maelstrom!
Yes A.H.H., there sure is some good thinking here. Solid analysis, but as you probably noticed, posted in ‘watch list’ for us.
Compare the view on China with that of Orlov.
I think what we need here is a good primer on what is truly meant by a multi-polarity which I believe China understands. Lavrov has stated this definitionally a few times, but I’ll have to go and search for it. I’ve just been through the Communique after the Chinese Plenum, and see no sign of seeking hegemonic power.
New governance is certainly also on the discussion list at the Valdai Club for example. Read the overview here: https://valdaiclub.com/programmes/2020/global-democracy-and-international-governance/
We would not be the only ones paying attention to the future for sure.
I just found such a great example of the idea of all these smaller poles moving and attaching themselves to someone else. Take a look ..
Chinese netizens react warmly to Panama’s move to list Chinese New Year as national holiday
https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202111/1238921.shtml
The analysis is good as is usual for Ishchenko. However, on the domestic situation within the Outlaw US Empire, he has the dynamics incorrect: there are two radical camps, both on the authoritarian side reflected by the Duopoly which supports Neoliberal anti-human policies and has control of the federal government, while the Duopoly is opposed by a much greater mass of those deemed Independents by political pollsters and are generally from the traditional Conservative and Liberal political realms, which when closely examined are closer rather than father apart, both being alienated by Neoconservative and Neoliberal policies both of which are Authoritarian and Anti-Human. I’m a representative of that Independent force which if informed would have more in common with Xi and Putin’s vision of human development than that of the Anti-Human Duopoly. Key to understanding this dimension is close examination of the mechanisms being used in an attempt to maintain Divide and Rule–Woke, BLM, AntiFa, and others including basic racism and the longstanding anti-abortion mechanisms.
If Independents can find a way to bridge the contrived divides and stand together, they would become the dominant political actors by eventually ousting members of the Duopoly and retaking the federal government. The R and D political parties would then die with the dissolution of their bases. As one can tell, that IF is a very large mountain to climb and remain atop. Fortunately, both factions within the Independents already have achieved a basic level of solidarity. The task remains to marry/meld/blend/intermix/scramble those two factions into one mass aimed at ousting the Anti-Humans. And that’s also true for many of the vassal nations.
There’s only one real war, and that’s the 4,000 year-old Class War between elites and everyone else.
Everything ends eventually. This is a historical time. The Empire is essentially done. We are just waiting for the storm and fire that this is about to cause, and it is causing already, and also whatever comes after that.
It’s an extreme thing to be able to even a tiny bit foresee what is coming after that. Something has to come after that. If an end is not a new beginning, then it would be the end of the world. New beginnings come from the ashes. It’s like death and resurrection.
No, it’s very hard to believe that the US and the West would go down without a major bang. But once they go, there should be peace for some time. I also don’t believe that China is the “next big thing”. I’m preparing myself for a surprise.
As St. Augustine remarked as the “barbarian” peoples were bearing down on his part of North Africa, “It’s not that an old world is ending but that a new one is beginning”. How hard it is to foresee what may come after the Empire does collapse. I believe God will have his hand in things through the Virgin Mary: an era of peace of some kind and of uncertain length.
A better title might be THE POST IMPERIAL WORLD.
“At this point, the question will arise: where is the new assemblage point, around whom will the new centralization take place?”
There should be 5 major assemblage points centralized on continents – one for Africa, One for Asia, One for Europe and one for the Islamic-Arab World. There should also be 2 SUPER-POWER assemblage points – one representing the New world (North and South America) and one representing the 4 continents of the Classical world. Most likely China will be dominant in Asia, Russia in Europe, Persia, Arabia, Indonesia, Pakistan in the Islamic Arab World, and Nigeria/South Africa/Ethiopia in the African continent. Russia, China and the Islamic World do not need to wait for the west to “crash and burn,” as Arrnstrong put it. They can start work on this Assemblage model towards a stable, peaceful prosperous 21st century today. This assemblage Model is In my view unavoidable.