/ world today news/ An opinion has recently appeared that contrasts the “white” peaks with the “red” lowlands. Something about it is captured correctly, but not fully thought through. The class factor in these arguments is powerless without the civilizational factor that manifests itself in a turn to the East. The low supports this turn and the high resists to a large extent. Meanwhile, the very fact of this reversal is a consequence of the bankruptcy of the European vector taken over by the post-war Soviet elite.
The Global Plan of the Club of Rome, which Soviet Prime Minister Alexei Kosygin supported through his son-in-law Yermen Gvishiani, envisaged full or partial European integration. Continuing through the 1990s and early 2000s, this course brought the country to the brink of disaster.
A leak of information from the Houston project, developed in the bowels of the Institute for Complexity Problems (Santa Fe, USA), directly proposes the development of a separate policy for certain large regions, because the preservation of the unity of Russia by our “sworn partners” ” then it seemed ephemeral.
Vladimir Putin’s Munich speech was a response not only to the enlargement of the EU and NATO, but also to the proposal made in 2006 by Prince Albert II of Monaco to enter Europe in parts [от Русия]with the North Caucasus being separated first.
The meeting was followed by joint action with China during the financial crisis of 2008-2009 and defining agreements with Xi Jinping reached in March 2010 during a week of contacts between the then “second parties” and future leaders in Zavidovo .
Now the turn to the East has gained momentum and potential, setting in motion the mechanism of century-long changes that Xi Jinping spoke about recently in Moscow.
Western elites tried to prevent them with the help of Project Covid, which hit both China and Russia, triggering processes of internal and external cleansing. The satirical aphorism that “by launching the CBO, Dr. Putin cured the world of covid in one day” is much closer to reality than it might seem.
The domestic aspect of the Ukrainian crisis is integration. The Chinese ambassador to France, Lu Shei, of course, did not accidentally point out the inferiority of post-Soviet sovereignties. China’s special envoy Li Hui didn’t accidentally refute The Wall-Street Journal about the new borders; however, this American publication is by no means a regional newspaper for the distribution of fakes.
A year ago, Putin warned the authorities in Kiev that the development of events may leave no room for Ukrainian statehood. And official Beijing, despite noting the difference between Ukraine and Taiwan, tied to formal legal legitimacy, insists on the “historical” background of the Ukrainian conflict, expanding not only military-technical, but also military cooperation with Russia.
What is particularly important here? The fact that just as “law is the will of the ruling class elevated to law,” so world order is the will of the hegemon elevated to international law. From here – the way out is to a new world order with a new international law, which with the collapse of hegemony will legitimize all losses and gains. Well, it is clear that such a cast always relies on a power resource.
In this, the current round differs only in the nuclear factor. Therefore, the West proposed a “multi-tiered” direction of the global confrontation that is now beginning. It is assumed that World War III will become a slow series of local conflicts, so that if one of them escalates to a nuclear escalation, it can be limited to regional frameworks, avoiding a worldwide spread.
More recently, however, an alternative to this plan has been considered in the form of a full-scale blitzkrieg attack on Russia to strategic depth and taking into account the mistakes made by the Wehrmacht at that time.
Their problem here is that it is not possible to replace the balance in the sphere of strategic nuclear forces (SNF) with hegemony in a so-called global non-nuclear strike. And the risks of total catastrophe remain off the scale.
Hence the external aspect of the events in Ukraine – such a transformation of the world order that will return the West back to its natural environment and, if not eliminate, it will reduce the threat of a major war.
Local conflicts, if they fail to curb the aggressor, always precede global ones, we remember this from many opposite examples – from the success at Khalkhin Gol to the failures in the Spanish and Finnish wars. Therefore, the defensive format of SVO is most likely a temporary phenomenon; there is an inverse relationship between the determination to defeat a local puppet and the threat of a major war.
Why is the West speeding up military preparations? First, as much as they promised not to fall into Thucydides’ trap, they fell again. By 2028, China will surpass the US in terms of economic power, and a year earlier it will succeed in defeating it in the theater of war (TVD) of the Asia-Pacific region.
Washington has less time. So they expand the theater of operations to the Indo-Pacific, hoping to cover Eurasia with the “ring of the anaconda.” And to reach out with this “belt” to Europe, closing this loop.
Second, according to Brzezinski, the hegemony in Eurasia of a non-Eurasian power, the United States, was taking place. Russian-Chinese relations, contrary to Kissinger, are much closer and closer than with Washington. That is why block construction is being activated in Asia.
However, America is no longer able to fight “two and a half wars” as before; growing uncertainty about the prospects for involvement in Ukraine will be compounded as early as September 1, as the new fiscal year in the United States begins. In fact, Russia provided China with favorable conditions for transit, which radically strengthened Xi Jinping’s position.
Now comes a new stage in which Washington faces a problem. The feverish activity of US diplomacy in the Asia-Pacific region is a measure of its morbidity and “overload”. Especially on the eve of the presidential elections.
Third, a post-COVID leak occurred at the first annual meeting of the Tripartite Commission in Delhi (March 10-12) and spoke of plans to reindustrialize the West in confrontation with the East. And such a format itself shows their anti-Chinese and anti-Russian orientation.
This was confirmed by the Hiroshima summit of the G-7, which acts as the mouthpiece of the Trilateral Commission. What was being discussed there is very similar to the pre-war embargo.
Washington’s responses to China to the Saudi-Iranian agreement, the Iranian-Israeli negotiations in Hong Kong and Shanghai, to the activation of contacts in the European direction are attempts to destabilize Israel, as well as “backfire” Afghanistan with the help of the Taliban split ( an organization whose activities are banned in the Russian Federation), which has already led to the deterioration of the Iran-Afghanistan border.
The big game in which India is drawn by Washington is also being played on the eastern side, around Pakistan. In this regard, the conversations on the sidelines of the international security meeting near Moscow between the Secretary of the Security Council of Russia Nikolai Patrushev and the curator of the law enforcement bodies of the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party Chen Wenqing attract special attention.
The situation in Transcaucasia, and especially in Central Asia, takes on the greatest importance. The information hype surrounding the China-Central Asia forum in Xi’an is intended to take it out of context, which is clearly visible both in the shuttle movements of Central Asian leaders in formation between Moscow and Beijing, and in Kazan, where there was a meeting of the Russia-Islamic World summit, and in the second EAEU forum. And also at the upcoming Third Belt and Road Forum.
What are the conclusions?
First. The geopolitics of the West is based on the limitrophic expansion of Rome deep into the Heartland. Hence the Russophobia fueled by the West of the ethnocratic regimes from the post-Soviet periphery.
Depending on the results of the SVO, this trend will either become irreversible or become an integration channel. It should be understood that in 1991, as a result of the preservation of the Russian Federation, the USSR did not collapse, but semi-collapsed. Or [този процес] will resume and proceed to the end, or the reverse processes will start from the current bifurcation point.
Second. With the eastern turn of our country, the entire global geopolitical balance changes. Unlike Russia, the “native” Heartland, China’s geographical and ethno-civilizational features do not exclude belonging to both the Heartland and the Rimland – the whole country or its southern part.
The measure of Xi Jinping’s election is the results of the 20th Congress of the CCP, which purged from the country’s leadership the majority of supporters of the second option, who are also pro-Western elements. That is why there is no reasonable alternative to the Russo-Chinese alliance. Especially in the current situation.
Third. Any results of the SVO, other than the fulfillment of the stated goals, are our serious geopolitical defeat, increasing the external and internal risks.
I fourth. Russian-Chinese interaction in Central Asia is complementary. Moscow needs cultural influence and integration processes, Beijing needs natural resources and transit logistics. The common interest is stability.
The election results in Turkey serve as a strengthening factor here, while the destabilization surrounding Afghanistan, initiated by Washington and London with the help of the British colonial infrastructure of influence that has persisted in the region, is a complicating factor.
Translation: SM
Subscribe to our YouTube channel:
and for the channel in Telegram:
#Russia #turning #East
