/View.info/ History did not end after the fall of the bipolar world order in 1990. The “West” failed to take advantage of the historical situation to homogenize the world in its own image, and soon the polarization of the world began/continued.
Some actors began to want, if not demand, a leadership role, if not global, then at least regional, something that the “West” never provided them, on the contrary, made them its targets. As a result, on the geostrategic map of the Old World, on the great chessboard, many “pieces” have been given or won roles and opportunities that they have begun to take advantage of in recent decades.
The Western euphoria soon dissipated as it had to face the cultural and religious diversity of the world. Many cultural and religious differences and the resulting divergent tendencies have succeeded in disrupting the desired coherence.
The “West” has not noticed or understood this – therefore it is surprised to see that other regions of the world, other global or regional powers, following different paths of development, succeed economically and politically slowly, to build an alternative reality of the “West”.
“The West” realized that if it played the chess game with the current distribution of chess pieces, according to the traditional rules of chess, it would be checkmated after a few moves.
This text will examine the challenges and even tipping points that threaten the global influence and engagement of the ‘West’, including the EU, and which could have profound implications for the future of ‘the West’ and for Western values themselves.
In the last two years, two wars have rocked the world, or at least the global public, that have extremely, if not definitively, divided the world and precipitated the emergence of two great camps: the West and the East.
In addition, the expansion of a new global trade and economic platform and network, the BRICS alliance, is now having a major impact on the coherence of a world that has until now been dominated by the “West”.
The present article aims to illustrate the three faults that are about to redraw the map of the global geostrategic balances of the Old World.
The Russian-Ukrainian war
The Russian-Ukrainian war was the result of a predictable Russian reaction [2]which could have been foreseen since 2014. It was obvious that Russia, still an empire, could not and would not allow NATO bases, possibly storing nuclear weapons, to be located within sight of Moscow, in Ukraine, a country which was to become a member of NATO.
Likewise, the United States (would) have had every right to keep Soviet Russian bases with nuclear weapons in Cuba. From this simple fact, one could have predicted with absolute certainty that the Russians would attack and try to invade Ukraine, or more precisely, overthrow the pro-Western Ukrainian government and prevent further NATO expansion eastward.
The result was a prolonged military conflict and the polarization of the world. The “West” has almost completely separated itself from Russia – in terms of symbolic politics and political marketing, completely, and above all in terms of economics (although the free flow of capital has no political and moral concerns and obstacles and will find its way to Russian resources and the Russian market, and Russian raw materials will also find their way to Western markets).
All this forced Russia and made it interested in starting, or rather continuing with greater energy, together with China – which the Western mainstream sees as a rival, even as an enemy – the construction of a new world order in rivalry with “the West” ;
– the launch of an emerging alliance system, which may consist of a number of other countries that do not have friendly relations with the “West” (including the United States), such as Iran and the Shiite countries, Afghanistan, all of Inner Asia, and perhaps even Pakistan.
Geostrategic consequences
The Russo-Ukrainian war divided the world and left Russia almost completely isolated from the West, but it also triggered processes of geostrategic planning, embodied in BRICS expansion, which may help accelerate the decline of the West (see below).
This new and expanding alliance, based on the Russian-Chinese axis, has not only significant economic but also military power and even a potential that exceeds that of the “West” in terms of nuclear capabilities.
Map 1 shows who might join this political/economic and perhaps military alliance. Also, this card leaves more questions open than it answers. Such questions include:
1) To whom would the countries of Indochina (Southeast Asia) gravitate if polarization disrupts the existing world order; also, how strong or predominant is chinese influence in the region?
2) The countries of the Arab world also have many ties to the Russo-Chinese axis and some of them have already made it clear by joining the BRICS that they see their place in the (economic) union of emerging regional powers vis-à-vis the “West ” (as will be discussed in the next part of this series).
In addition, the natural and obvious support of the “West” for Israel against the Islamist terrorism of the Palestinian Hamas has further polarized the region and alienated the unconditionally pro-Palestinian people of the Arab world, and with them their governments, from the “West” (see below) and them reached out to cease-fire and peace-supporting Russia, whose representatives hosted a Hamas delegation in Moscow to negotiate peace and the fate of Gaza.
3) Many African countries are also cautiously neutral. As we have seen in Mali, Burkina Faso and Niger, opposition to the colonial past and the growing Chinese and Russian commercial and partly military (Wagner group) influence in the region may eventually lead these countries to break with “the West”.
Despite all these considerations, the countries of the aforementioned regions are marked on Map 1—in this section—in neutral gray.
The rift discussed in this chapter was the result of a conscious decision by “the West.”
Conclusion
The rift described above and in the next two parts of this series of articles carries with it the danger that Western and European elites, who are largely unaware of the multipolar development in the world, will become increasingly isolated.
A geostrategic environment is developing around us which (as map 4 will show later) is slowly bringing “the West”, especially Europe’s neighbors and rivals, on a common platform, on different principles and interests.
In such a geostrategic context, the current leadership of the EU seems to be oblivious or deliberately ignores the threats to the future of the EU and the Western world and pushes topics such as gender ideology and open society that are largely symbolic, distracting from the real dangers and weakening the EU from within. instead of strengthening and increasing its internal coherence.
The EU — most recently in light of the mass pro-Palestinian demonstrations in Europe following the Hamas terrorist attack (see above) — must finally realize that uncontrolled immigration is not the solution but the problem itself, since, contrary to the expectations of western elites it has not had the “fertilizing effect” on the economy or society.
On the other hand, the unwanted processes that inevitably accompany the arrival of large numbers of immigrants from other cultures and backgrounds occur daily, whether on the southern borders of Hungary or on the streets of Western Europe.
The greatest danger of all is the security threat posed by Islamic terrorism. Pro-Palestinian demonstrations, for example, raise the question of whether Muslim populations in Europe can distance themselves from the Islamic radicalism of Islamic terrorism mixed with the liberation ideology of Hamas.
The Russo-Ukrainian war is the most senseless undertaking from the point of view of the geostrategic interests of the EU. It is the bloodiest armed conflict since the Iraq-Iran war, with at least half a million (500,000) casualties, the same number of mutilated families, seven million refugees and a partially destroyed country at least 50 years in debt.
Looking at the current and potential crisis zones, from a strictly geostrategic point of view, the Russian-Ukrainian front with its symbolic messages is the most pointless and bloodiest conflict that is not in the interest of the “West”.
Besides the crippling of Ukraine, the EU economy has suffered the most (out of control oil prices, inflation, the effects of the loss of cheap energy on the private and industrial sectors, a dramatic deterioration in the EU’s economic competitiveness, and the list goes on). In addition, the “West”, including the EU, has taken on financial burdens that strain its budget.
Moreover, Western strategic munitions stockpiles and weapons production are under unprecedented pressure, posing a significant threat to the security of the West.
He should also be on the lookout for other crisis hotspots (Israel) and avoid any escalation, as he is probably not prepared for challenges of this magnitude.
If the other two crisis points in the Far East (the Korean Peninsula and Taiwan) where there is a threat of military conflict also erupt, the “West” will face an almost insurmountable problem from a geostrategic and military perspective. point of view. At the same time, it can be said that for some time now the EU has been the fastest arming political community.
In summary, the geostrategic environment surrounding the EU and Europe, partly as a result of the EU’s conscious decision (break with Russia), partly through no fault of its own (the Palestinian issue) and its attitude of merely observing changes in the global economic environment from afar without being able to influence them in some meaningful way (BRICS+6), has reached a situation that risks being isolated.
From the point of view of preserving the current form and values of the “West”, the continuation of the migration policy is life-threatening because it triggers internal processes in the Western world that will lead to the sacrifice of the core values of the “West” on the altar of the progressive philosophy of inclusion and in the weakening from within of its geostrategic position, the loss of which could have fatal consequences in a world where the axis of global economic development, population growth, and history no longer revolves around Europe.
Europe and the European Union no longer sit on the global geostrategic chessboard as players, but at best they are spectators, even if the EU leadership refuses to admit it.
If the “West”, of which the author is an integral and committed part, does not change its current policy, it will soon find itself in a hopeless geostrategic situation.
In the next two parts, the geostrategic significance of the Israel-Hamas conflict and the role of the BRICS countries will be discussed.
[1] This paper is part of a larger overall geostrategic study by the author. As it stands, it raises more questions than it answers, but its basic premises allow clear geostrategic conclusions to be drawn.
[2] Western strategists who did not know this must resign, and those who knew it and allowed events to turn into war must also resign.
Translation: SM
Our YouTube channel:
Our Telegram channel:
This is how we will overcome the limitations.
Share on your profiles, with friends, in groups and on pages.
#Hungarian #Conservative #Geostrategy #World #Part
