Military Review

The development of the theory of Mackinder and their implementation. Some patterns of expansion in relation to Russia and its allies

The development of the theory of Mackinder and their implementation. Some patterns of expansion in relation to Russia and its allies

One of the theoretical foundations of the expansion and hostile in its essence policy towards the Russian world (read - Russia, and its allies pursuing a friendly policy towards its policy) was considered the concept of “Heartland” by Helford Mackinder, a representative of the British school of geopolitics as a goal, and the concept of Anaconda "- the rule of the Navy over the land of the armed forces and foreign policy instruments (Alfred Mahan).

In developing geopolitics within the framework of the concept of US strategic security, he put forward the principle of "integrated control over territory" which should be exercised by America around the world in order to prevent the emergence and, especially, strengthening of geopolitical competitors. While adhering to the idea of ​​confronting the Sea and Sushi (USSR and America), Spikman, however, considered not the stationary Heartland as the geopolitical axis of the world, but the Rimland zone of confrontation — the border zone of Land and Sea, stretching across Europe, the Middle East, India and China. The “Heartland” state exercises pressure on this zone, trying to unite it under its control, while the US must pursue a policy of containment and “strangulation” of the continental power, saturating “Rimland” with its military bases and creating military-political alliances there. The concept of Spikman, as can be seen from the previous review, influenced the principles of American foreign policy, and especially the strategy of the Cold War, especially in the 1950-1960 years. It should be noted that during this period the Truman doctrine was also implemented, which consisted in the "containment" of the USSR throughout the world. This doctrine was an expression of the struggle of the United States and its allies for the homogeneity of the world they needed.

However, it is necessary to take into account that the factor of scientific and technical progress plays a crucial role in determining the main vectors of geopolitical development. After the Act on the unconditional surrender of the German Empire was signed, both the Soviet Union and Western countries made a "breakthrough" in technology, and especially in the military-industrial complex.

After World War II, rocket technology began to develop very strongly (this was in turn due to the fact that by the end of the war Germany had ready-made cruise missiles — Fau-1, and ballistic missiles — Fau-2). Further development of this technique led to the development of intercontinental and orbital rockets. Along with the emergence of the USSR from the “ring of environment”, its conquest of positions in Cuba, Africa, etc. led to a reinterpretation of the American geopolitical concept in the spirit of the principles of “dynamic containment” carried out throughout the geopolitical field, and the growth of the power of the third world countries led to the gradual abandonment of hard dualism in American geopolitics. Under the influence of Saul Cohen's ideas, the concept of regional geopolitics is being developed, based on a hierarchical principle. Cohen distinguishes four geopolitical hierarchical levels:

• geostrategic spheres - Marine and Eurasian, which were of paramount importance for the former geopolitics;
• geopolitical regions - relatively homogeneous and with their own specificity parts of the geopolitical spheres - such as Eastern Europe, South Asia, etc .;
• Great powers - the USA, Russia, Japan, China and integrated Europe, which have their key territories;
• New powers - recently entered third world countries, such as Iran, and not yet having a decisive impact on the global geopolitical order.
• Finally, the fifth hierarchical level –subnational territories - “gates”, international centers serving communications between states.

The destruction of the USSR by the West and the end of the rigid centering of world politics on the confrontation of Land and Sea led to the destabilization of the world system and its regionalization. Integration is taking place in the regions, and they are gradually becoming the leading geopolitical level, forming a “multi-polar world”. However, this multipolar world is increasingly stratified by levels of development, for differentiation of which Cohen proposes to use the concept of entropy - the level of uncertainty, chaos, loss of dynamic energy. The regions with low entropy include the countries of the West and, to a lesser extent, the Heartland, the Middle East; A very high level of entropy distinguishes "black" Africa and Latin America. It is the high-energy and low-entropic countries that form, according to Cohen, the global geopolitical balance, while the high-entropic countries act as a constant source of problems and instability - they form an “arc of crises”, in the words of the famous political scientist Zbigniew Brzezinski (which cannot be considered geopolitics proper).
The “regionalist” concept proposed by Cohen provides two opportunities for its further development - the idea of ​​domination of low-entropy highly developed countries leads to the formation of the concept of a “unipolar world”, centered on the United States, Europe and Japan as three forces with the same political system, highly developed economy and interests precluding their war against each other. The American politician, Ayr Straus, put forward the concept of a “global unipole,” based on friendliness, cooperation, and common democratic values. According to Straus, the strength of this unipole depends on the entry of Russia into it, without which the base for global unipolar leadership becomes limited. For geopolitics of this direction, the idea of ​​an eternity or long-term geopolitical order after the end of the “cold war” is characteristic, the idea of stories, According to the famous aphorism of Francis Fukuyama. The opposite direction is connected with the growth of “defense consciousness” in the United States, a statement of the fact that regionalization leads to the loss of global geopolitical domination of the United States, the emergence of opposing centers. This was most vividly expressed in the concept of the clash of civilizations by American political analyst Samuel Huntington. In his opinion, for our time, there is a tendency towards desecularization, a return to the religious identity of large regions, which means that local civilizations that oppose global Western civilization according to the West and the Rest principle now play a leading role. An illustrative model to illustrate the concept of Huntington is the growth of Islamic fundamentalism. Under these conditions, the West will have to make great efforts to maintain its dominance in the confrontation of several competing civilization centers.

Cohen's concept gives two opportunities for its further development.
• The idea of ​​domination of low entropy countries leads to the formation of the concept of a “unipolar world”, centered on the United States, Europe and Japan as three forces with the same political system, highly developed economy and interests that exclude their war against each other. Ayr Straus put forward the concept of a global unipole based on friendliness, cooperation and common democratic values. According to Straus, the strength of this unipole depends on the entry of Russia into it, without which the base for global unipolar leadership becomes limited. The geopolitics of this direction are characterized by the idea of ​​the long-term geopolitical order established after the end of the cold war, the idea of ​​the “end of history” proposed by Francis Fukuyama.
• A different direction is connected with the growth of the “defense consciousness” in the United States and the statement of the fact that regionalization leads to the loss of US geopolitical domination. A vivid expression of this found in the concept of the clash of civilizations of Samuel Huntington. According to him, for the present time there is a tendency towards desecularization - a return to the religious identity of large regions, which means that the leading role is now played by local civilizations that are opposed to the global civilization of the West. An illustration of this concept is the rise of Islamic fundamentalism. Under these conditions, the West will have to make great efforts to maintain its dominance in the confrontation of several competing civilization centers.

However, if the above representatives of the Western school of geopolitics, who built their theories on the military and economic and as a consequence of the political suppression of the USSR (Russia), then there is a slightly different approach to the problem of geopolitical confrontation between the West and the Russian world. And in light of this, I especially want to pay attention to the head of the residency of the Office of Strategic Services in Bern (Switzerland) during the Second World War, the director of the CIA (1953 — 1961) - Allen Welsh Dulles.
Further, the author considers it expedient to familiarize the reader with the full text of the so-called “Dulles plan” - the strategy of eliminating the USSR (Russia) as a sovereign state, and further incorporating this territory into the orbit of its interests.

However, in order to avoid various speculations, it should be noted that on the Russian-language Internet the “Dulles Plan” is usually called two rather short texts.
• A fragment of the attitudes attributed to Dulles, whose English-language source is not indicated anywhere.
• Fragments of the US National Security Council Directive 20 / 1 of 18 in August 1948. They are usually quoted in the book by N. N. Yakovlev “The CIA against the USSR”.

The first fragment is a composition of the statements of the character from the novel “Eternal Call”, the second fragment is the tendentiously translated “figure quotations” from the real NSC 20 / 1 document.

You can view the full text on this page So what is the "Dulles Plan"?

First of all, it is 20 / 1 August 18 of the United States National Security Council Directive, 1948 / 1945, from the compilation of Thomas H. Etzold and John Lewis Gaddis, eds. -1950). Below is a list of sections of this directive with brief comments (italics are the names of sections, as well as excerpts from the original translation of the above document).


I. Introduction - a problem statement is created here, and an algorithm for solving it is given, and the need to involve all branches and institutions of power in solving the problem is explained.
Ii. General considerations - two approaches are considered to link national objectives with factors of war and peace. The first approach says that the national tasks are consistent, and the approach is to consider national tasks during peace and national tasks during war as essentially different. An analysis was made of the general foreign policy of the USSR, as well as the characteristics of such a policy, and on the basis of this, general recommendations were given on the conduct of foreign policy with respect to the USSR.


Our main objectives in relation to Russia are actually only two of the following:
• Reduce the power and influence of Moscow to the extent that it will no longer pose a threat to the peace and stability of the international community;
• To make fundamental changes in the theory and practice of international relations, which the government in power in Russia adheres to.
And as it is written further: “With the solution of these two tasks, our problems in relations with Russia would be reduced to a level that could be considered normal
Before discussing ways to solve these problems in peacetime and military conditions, we will consider them in more detail. ”

1. Territorial reduction of Russian power and influence.

It is noted that there are two areas in which the power and influence of Moscow extends beyond the borders of the Soviet Union in forms harmful to the West - the first is the countries of the satellites directly adjacent to the borders of the USSR, and the second is groups or parties abroad, outside the zone satellites that turn to Russia as a political inspirer. With an additional analysis of these factors, it is concluded that this task can logically be addressed not only in the event of war, but also during peace by peaceful means, and that in the latter case there is no need to affect the prestige of the Soviet government, which would automatically make war inevitable.

2. Changes in the theory and practice of international relations followed by Moscow

Here is a somewhat modified (one can say very distorted) list of concepts of international relations that Moscow adheres to. Concepts are presented for which the above provisions of conducting international relations should be changed. Considered ways to solve this problem. From this section, it follows that the West needed to minimize (as far as possible) the growing influence of the USSR on various countries, but at the same time continue its expansion by various methods - as we see it now under the slogans of “bearing freedom and democracy”


1. Reducing Russian power and influence

Here two passages speak for themselves:
• “Our first goal with respect to Russia in peacetime is to promote and encourage non-military means to gradually reduce the disproportionate Russian power and influence in the current zone of satellites and Eastern European countries on the international stage as an independent factor.”

It also concludes that "we must by all means at our disposal encourage the development in the Soviet Union of institutions of federalism that would revive the national life of the Baltic peoples."
• “Our second goal in relation to Russia in peacetime is to undermine the myth with information activity and any other means at our disposal to undermine the myth, by which people, far from Russian military influence, are held in submission to Moscow, to ensure that the whole world I saw and understood what the Soviet Union is, and would draw logical and realistic conclusions from this. ”

2. Change of Russian concepts of international relations.

Here is a review of the next task “within the framework of the peacetime policy of the second main task, namely: amending the concepts of international relations that dominate the Moscow ruling circles”.

During the review, the following conclusion is made: “Although we cannot change the basis of the political psychology of the current Soviet leaders, there is a possibility that we will be able to create situations that, if they persist long enough, can make them gently change their dangerous and inappropriate attitude to the West and observe a certain degree of moderation and caution in relations with Western countries. In this case, it will indeed be possible to say that we have begun to move towards a gradual change in the dangerous concepts that now determine the behavior of the Soviets. ”

And there is also a designation of the following goal, which states that “in relation to Russia during peace, it is the creation of situations that will force the Soviet government to recognize the practical inexpediency of actions based on their current concepts and the need for at least such external behavior as if these concepts were replaced on the opposite. "

3. Specific targets

This section basically speaks about the absence of priority by military means to solve the above goals, as well as the need to create on the world stage such situations and circumstances that made it difficult and impossible for the existence of Soviet power in principle.


1. About impossible

An analysis is made of what circumstances the American military administration would have to face during a direct military confrontation. The result is a conclusion about the impossibility and the absence of the need to fully occupy the territory of the Soviet Union during a military operation.

2. The reduction of Soviet power

The analysis of the territorial consequences for the Soviet Union itself, as well as its size and, accordingly, the power of the armed forces, and the fate of the satellite countries during a direct military conflict. From this analysis, it was concluded “that one of our main military objectives in relation to Russia is the complete dismantling of the relationship structure with which the leaders of the All-Union Communist Party are able to exercise moral and disciplinary influence on individual citizens or groups of citizens of countries not under communist control ".

3. Changing Russian concepts of international relations

A description of the military objectives is given if political processes in Russia go their own way in the conditions of war, and the need is noted “to consider the situation that develops, if Soviet power collapses so quickly and so radically that the country will be in a state of chaos, and it will oblige we, as winners, make political choices and make decisions that will shape the country's political future. In this case, there are three main issues to consider. ”

4. Separation or national unity

The rationale for what was said earlier about giving independence to the Baltic countries is given, and also special attention is paid to Ukraine, as an integral part of the Russian Empire in the past and an integral part of the USSR. It justifies the need to give Ukraine the status of a federation. The following is a recommendation: “Our policy must first of all be aimed at preserving external neutrality insofar as our interests, military or otherwise, will not be directly affected. And only if it becomes clear that the situation comes at an undesirable dead end, will we promote a departure from the movement towards rational federalism. The same applies to any efforts to achieve an independent status by other Russian minorities. ” Those. in other words, to tear away Russian lands on which certain national groups are more or less allocated than, in turn, to reduce both the size of Russia (USSR) and weaken its economic and military potential. In principle, such a strategy could have been chosen taking into account the concept of the “Heartland”, and subsequently the creation of puppet regimes in such countries for the conduct of an anti-Russian foreign policy.

5. Choosing a new ruling group

It speaks of the political situation in the event of the fall of the Soviet power, and of the position that is most beneficial for the American government, which is to adopt a position in which any responsibility will be removed from the American government for what kind of ruling group is formed expanses of Russia after the fall of Soviet power. In practice, this should be understood as the adoption of a strategy in which there will not be more or less visible different support for the new government in Russia, but as we see from past events, such support was carried out very persistently, in all directions, mainly through hidden channels - inaccessible to the common man in the street.

6. The problem of “decommunization”

The strategy of actions in relation to the carriers of the Soviet power (members of the Communist Party) in the light of the Second World War is considered, an explanation is also given, indicating the need to “limit ourselves to observing that ex-communists do not have the opportunity to reorganize into armed groups that claim political power, and for local non-communist authorities to receive enough weapons and support in connection with any measures they wish to take in this regard. ”

The following statement is: Thus, we can say that we are not aiming to implement some large-scale de-communization program on our territory in the territory liberated from the communist government, and that, in general, we should leave this problem to any local government that can replace Soviet leadership.

That is, from this we see a qualitatively different approach to eliminating a geopolitical opponent. This approach consists primarily in the multi-vector and reasonableness of the implementation of each vector in relation to the further policy being implemented against the USSR.

As can be seen, this concept for the development of foreign American geopolitics includes not only a development strategy with respect to Soviet foreign policy and military might, but a national question and a question of a national idea.

One of the followers of the implementation of this concept (the overthrow of the USSR and the Soviet government) was and is (already in relation to today's Russia and in particular Orthodoxy - Zbigniew Kazimierz Brzezinski).

According to the official biography, he was born in Warsaw to a noble family of a Polish diplomat. According to others, was born in the Polish Consulate of Kharkov on the street. Olminsky, where his parents worked; recorded by them was born in Poland, and not in the USSR, so as not to spoil his biography. From 1938 he lived in Canada, in the 50-ies he became a US citizen and made an academic career: he graduated from McGill University with a master’s degree and Harvard University with a doctorate in political science (1953) (the dissertation was devoted to “the formation of a totalitarian system in the USSR”) , taught at Harvard, in 1961, he moved to Columbia University, where he headed the new Institute for Communism (Institute on Communist Affairs).

What is worth noting about this person is, first of all, that he hated Russia very much, and in fact all his activity was aimed at the destruction of Russia (USSR). It is also interesting to note an excerpt from the article "Komsomolskaya Pravda" from 18: 43 / 28.03.2013: His Russophobia has old family roots. Pope - Tadeusz Brzezinski - was still a diplomat of the same panic Poland and a staunch ally of Hitler against the USSR. According to a number of information, it was Zbigniew Pope, who worked in 1938 in Moscow, who contributed a lot to Warsaw’s refusal to allow Soviet troops to help Prague after the Munich Agreement on the surrender of Czechoslovakia to Hitler.

By the way, Poland, too, then bit off to itself a considerable chunk of a torn country. Surprisingly, the wife of Emilia Zbigniew, the daughter of the Czechoslovak president ousted by the Nazis, Edward Beneš, shared her husband’s Russophobic views.

“Iron Zbigniew,” as Brzezinski was nicknamed, played a prominent role in American foreign policy in the second half of the 20th and early 21st centuries. Suffice it to say that he, as a professor, shaped the views of his students Madeleine Albright and Condoleezza Rice, who later became US Secretary of State. He was engaged in Latin America and the Middle East, but most of all the main enemy of the United States - the USSR.

In the mid-1960s. Brzezinski developed a strategy for the fight against communism, which can be described with the short phrase “drive like a horse” and the concept of world American hegemony. His views were popular with the American elite, and Brzezinski was spotted at the very top. He was an adviser to the presidential administrations of John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson, advocating the toughest course towards the USSR. However, they did not always listen to Brzezinski. So, in 1968, the United States did not intercede for Czechoslovakia when the Soviet Union entered Tanks.

Further, it should be noted Samuel Phillips Huntington - American research analyst, social philosopher and political scientist. Founder of the leading US political journal Foreign Affairs. The steps of Huntington's career included numerous posts in universities, research organizations and government structures. He was president of the American Political Science Association. In his later years, he worked as director of the John Olin Institute for Strategic Studies at Harvard University and chairman of the Harvard Academy of International and Regional Studies. Author of numerous scientific works in the field of politics, international relations, the theory of democracy and social relations. He is the author of six books, among which the conceptual work “The Clash of Civilizations and the Transformation of the World Order” published in 1996 (The Clash of Civilizations and the World Order, see the publication), which describes the dynamics of modern international relations through the prism of civilization processes and related conflicts.

Huntington argues that the geographical neighborhood of civilizations often leads to their confrontation and even conflicts between them. These conflicts usually occur at the junction or amorphously delineated boundaries (faultlines) of civilizations. Sometimes these conflicts can be foreseen on the basis of the logic of development and interaction of civilizations. Huntington also exalts the West (Western civilization), putting its achievements above the achievements of other civilizations, which he distinguishes among the Western civilization the following:
• Islamic civilization
• Hindu civilization
• Sin civilization (civilization of China)
• Japanese civilization
• Latin American civilization
• Orthodox civilization
• African civilization

As it was said above in his works, Huntington gives an analysis of the development of the history of the world through the prism of civilizational processes and conflicts associated with them, and based on this, drawing some conclusions:
• The central axis of world politics in the future will be the conflict between the “West and the rest of the world,” as K. Mahbubani put it (Kishore Mahbubani - Dean of the School of Public Policy of the National University of Singapore. Author of the book “New Asian Hemisphere: An Overwhelming Shift of the Center for Global Influence on the East (The New Asian Hemisphere: The Irresistible Shift of Global Power to the East), and the reaction of non-Western civilizations to Western power and values.This kind of reaction usually takes one of three forms, or a combination of them.
• First, and this is the most extreme option, non-Western countries may follow the example of North Korea or Burma and take a course towards isolation - to protect their countries from western penetration and decay and, in essence, to withdraw from participation in the life of the world community dominated by the West . But such a policy has to pay too high a price, and only a few countries have accepted it in full.
• The second opportunity is to try to join the West and accept its values ​​and institutions. In the language of the theory of international relations, this is called "jump on the train tripping board."
• The third opportunity is to try to create a counterbalance to the West, developing economic and military power and cooperating with other non-Western countries against the West. At the same time, it is possible to preserve the original national values ​​and institutions - in other words, to modernize, but not westernize (to transform your appearance according to Western standards - auth).

What we ultimately see from the results of all of the above is that all these plans are fully implemented. The USSR was destroyed, the military potential of today's Russia was weakened, along the external borders of the former USSR, a “line of tension” was created and, with the further deployment of NATO bases, Russia was drawn not only into a “civilizational” confrontation with the West, but also fueled by all forces with the Islamic Civilization.

It should also be taken into account that all the activities of the West since the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 21st century, were directly or indirectly subordinated to one goal - maximum overthrow of various influences and, if possible, the destruction of Russia (the destruction of the USSR and further robbery of Russia pumping of natural resources from its depths). It should be noted that the confrontation is underway now, only the funds have become more veiled and I will not be afraid of this word “soft” from the point of view of a simple man in the street - when the military confrontation faded into the background, and an economic confrontation came to the fore, i.e. when the target countries are “hooked up on the West” through various debt obligations (loans are most often). However, for various reasons, the West applies military intervention as an instrument of foreign policy to countries located either in the immediate vicinity of Russia's borders, or to countries within the zone of Russia's economic and, as a result, geopolitical interests.

It is also clear from these two articles that behind all military interventions of the West are specific people (for example, H. Mackinder, A. Mehen, Z. Brzezinski, M. Albright, C. Rice, H. Clinton), who, most likely, are "Mouthpieces" of various foreign ministries solving geopolitical tasks, and deciding the fate of entire nations and states. But after all, the tasks of these departments, someone puts ...

PS In the course of studying this topic, the author concluded for himself that from the end of the XIX century and the beginning of the XXI century, the West began to realize on a scientific basis the general idea - to destroy Russia (read - Russian world). And it seems that not only the whole development of the West in all respects is subordinated to this idea, but also the very existence of the West (as a civilization with its own value system, etc.) is due to the goal of destroying Russia. But the question is: what are we, the people of the Russian world, displeasing them? What is our fault for throwing all our resources at our destruction? Why does the very existence of Russia, even if in a certain sense, modernized to the Western style with its veneration of Orthodoxy stand the West “across the throat?” Is there no better idea? Develop science, thermonuclear energetics, master outer space (not only in the halls of Hollywood), etc.

Apparently, this confrontation - geopolitical, as the quintessence of confrontation of military, political, economic, religious and cultural characters - is, in the opinion of the author, only a visible part of a deeper conflict whose roots go back to the distant past, the sources of which the author will try to examine further.
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. serge-68-68
    serge-68-68 22 July 2013 06: 28
    Some kind of chaotic article. Huntingon is generally far-fetched - his "clash of civilizations", which the author refers to, was written after the collapse of the USSR. He believed that modern Russia should modernize according to the Western model, but go its own way with its own values, and the West should take into account its interests and build allied relations with Russia.
    1. aksakal
      aksakal 22 July 2013 09: 18
      Quote: serge-68-68
      He believed that modern Russia should modernize according to the Western model, but go its own way with its values, and the West should take into account its interests and build allied relations with Russia.
      - called - take out of context.
      I'm also interested - "But the question is: what have we, the people of the Russian world, displeased them with? What is our fault that we need to throw all our resources on our destruction? Why is the very existence of Russia, even if in a sense modernized in the Western manner with its veneration of Orthodoxy, is the West "across the throat?" Aren't there any better ideas? To develop science, thermonuclear energy, explore outer space (but not in Hollywood pavilions), etc. " - That's right about the wolf and the sheep according to Krylov, Russia is guilty only because it is on this Earth -))). They in the West did not think about the fact that there will be no Russia - there will be no them, either. it is in the struggle with Russia that their meaning of life? There is no point - no life -))). This is already visible now, after the collapse of the USSR - which included Russia as a nucleus, but was not Russia - what pathological processes they started there -)))).
      Maybe, as is the case in the animal kingdom, Russia is pretending to be dead? Like, I don’t live -)))). A kind of information misinformation-duck. And then somehow it’s not good - the stronger Russia is — the better for the West, because from strong Russia it acquires more meaning in its existence, it mobilizes, etc. -))))
  2. valokordin
    valokordin 22 July 2013 06: 41
    Well, Brzezinski has achieved his goal, what's next.
    The analysis of the territorial consequences for the Soviet Union itself, as well as its size and, accordingly, the power of the armed forces, and the fate of the satellite countries during a direct military conflict. From this analysis, it was concluded “that one of our main military objectives in relation to Russia is the complete dismantling of the relationship structure with which the leaders of the All-Union Communist Party are able to exercise moral and disciplinary influence on individual citizens or groups of citizens of countries not under communist control ".
    And then the dismemberment of the country, and this they may succeed under the current bourgeois domination. They will set nations against each other, according to religious principles, which is happening now. By class contradiction, tension is also increasing, though not very much. The Communists are not making this effort, they are afraid for their seats and this is happening spontaneously.
    1. cosmos111
      cosmos111 22 July 2013 09: 33
      Quote: valokordin

      PS During the study of this topic, the author concluded for himself that from the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 21st century, the West began to realize on a scientific basis the general idea - to destroy Russia

      All these theorists were plotting against the Russians and Russia, but they were built up and now in the center of London, the Moors are publicly chopping heads, to the soldiers of Her Majesty am laughing Further it will only increase.
      Sow the seeds of enmity, and reap them yourself.
      Continue in the same spirit gentlemen Russophobia.
  3. serge-68-68
    serge-68-68 22 July 2013 06: 50
    Brzezinski's goal is service in the name of the United States. His attitude to Russia is only insofar as this is necessary for his homeland. I would like Russia to be served as well.
    Two of his quotes:
    "Russia is a country bankrupt in all respects, which in the coming years must plunge into chaos, poverty and continuous ethnic conflicts. Russia is a" black hole "that does not have any geopolitical choice in its life, because in fact it is only about its physical survival in its pure form.Russia must be divided into parts, it will then consist of a loose confederation of European Russia, the Siberian Republic and the Far Eastern Republic, which individually would be much easier to establish close economic relations with Europe, the new Central Asian states and the East. However, any integration of Russia into the extended world order of the West is impossible, Russia is too backward country, economically brought to poverty by communism, and therefore it is not able to become a more or less suitable democratic partner for the United States.Russia is a defeated geopolitical competitor, and takes the place of a weakened , backward, problematic and surroundedon all sides of a country that has been denied the role of any respected geopolitical player. " (The Grand Chessboard "1997)
    "If the West fails to conclude a long-term strategic alliance with Russia, this could turn into global isolation for it. This is all the more important, given the current rapprochement between China and Russia. The world domination of one single power - the United States in the world is no longer possible, regardless of whether how strong or weak it is. Especially when it comes to the situation when new regional powers have entered the world arena. The West can still avoid the fate of global isolation and international relegation to secondary roles. But for this it is necessary to breathe new life-giving forces into it and develop a new strategy and an action plan. For the West, this New Strategy should be to be able to integrate Russia and Turkey into the international system of the West. " ("Strategic Insight" 2012.)
  4. knn54
    knn54 22 July 2013 08: 48
    whose centers are the USA, Europe and Japan as three forces ...
    THEREFORE China is a "strategic partner".
  5. Grenz
    Grenz 22 July 2013 09: 07
    The West and the Orthodox World - this is the axis of confrontation from time immemorial.
    All theories, from the Crusades to current strategies, have one goal: DESTROY CIVILIZATION, which is fundamentally different from the postulates of Western religions and the principles of government. (Example: how Germany finishes Greece and Cyprus).
    Some comparisons from history:
    Feudalism. The feudal lord had a castle and vassals. When the enemy attacked, the vassals scattered or were captured, the castle was protected by raiders (mercenaries). The feudal lord did not give his people, he was afraid.
    Russia. Princes built the Kremlin. Posad people sat around. The enemy was going to Russia. Where ordinary people went. On the Kremlin walls. Each Kremlin has the most fortified building, which does not exist and could not be in any Castle. CHILD. On the Kremlin walls, people defended statehood and their children (UNION).
    The feudal lord came to the enemy, building a battle formation as a pig (not only for tactical reasons, but also so that the Landsknechts would not run away) - i.e. TEAM.
    Ours on Kulikovo field stood in SHELVES. POLK - there is a Russian military association. To stand on the battlefield IN THE ELBOW - brother on the right, father on the left, countrymen near. Here is the strength of the regiment.
    And so we can continue further.
    No matter how we (i.e. I apologize, not we, but ours ...) would not bend before the West - it will never recognize our values, And WE WILL NOT CHANGE THEM UNDER ANY GOVERNOR!
    And let them come up with theories. Bismarck also warned - never go to war with Russia ...
  6. Standard Oil
    Standard Oil 22 July 2013 09: 47
    The West has been trying to destroy Russia as a state not from the end of the 19th century, but from the very beginning, when, having killed Paul 1, they pitched Russia with Napoleon with the hands of their protege and liberal Alexander 1, while laying down hundreds, hundreds of thousands of lives of Russian soldiers, the British destroyed the hands of Russia its centuries-old rival France, which could no longer rise. Then the entire 19th and 20th centuries, from the defeat of Napoleon to the disgrace of 1991, with some interruptions, first the British and then when Great Britain bent the United States fought the Russian Empire / USSR / Russia and they absolutely do not care what the country was called or what political system was established in it, all forces are aimed at destabilizing and then destroying Russia as a state. The trouble is that at least twice for sure, Western henchmen came to power in Russia in 1917 and 1991 , and here and there the reason was not a military defeat, but the power itself, which turned a blind eye to the problems and slipped into "friendly events of the civilized world ", it creates the feeling that there will be no peace on earth until either Russia or the West represented by the United States is destroyed. It took the Anglo-Saxons about 200 years to bring down their first global competitors, France and Spain, to the UG, in which they and remain to this day, Russia, under one name or another, has also resisted for almost 200 years, and twice surrendered to the mercy of its enemies and both times stood on the brink of destruction. By the way, the West is very afraid when they start to play with it according to their rules, as they did Catherine the Great, Alexander II or Stalin, and immediately sensing this begins to squeal hysterically like a slaughtered pig about the "Russian danger" or "Red threat".
  7. Knizhnik
    Knizhnik 22 July 2013 11: 24
    Forecast analysts from the United States not only foresee a world fight for resources, and Russia seems to be the most likely target. The Russian Federation has only one way to survive - to create the Armed Forces so that the probable enemy thinks hard and whether it is worth attacking.
  8. Mikhail3
    Mikhail3 22 July 2013 11: 39
    "The American politician Ayr Strauss put forward the concept of a 'global unipole' based on friendliness, cooperation and shared democratic values."
    These people lie as they breathe. Then the inevitable happens - they begin to believe their own lies, because "if you live among the tar, you will inevitably get dirty." And then, on the basis of lies that have no connection with reality, they begin to build first theories, and then a model of behavior. Well, it all ends with the fact that a structure carefully built on nothing collapses on their high-brow heads ...
    Friendliness with cooperation is characteristic of the West in the same way as snake cowards. The West has always acted as a united front against the USSR. Very often (though not always) did this in relation to Russia. Why? This is a separate issue. Much more interesting in this case is their own relationship.
    Being by nature merciless predators, having only money from the saint and the power they give, Westerners simply adore trending for friendliness, cooperation, and other honor and dignity. In reality, they consider absolutely everyone around them as competitors and seek to crush, lower them to the level of powerless servants and slaves. What did Europe follow this theory? Moreover, the United States completely seized power over it. The processes taking place in Europe now go to her completely to the detriment, but entirely to the benefit of the owner.
    I am convinced that before European politicians and scientists fully understood that the statements of the dearest Ira and his American friends are worth it. But now it seems like the understander fell off of them. Itself fell off after a long reception of friendly and collaborative American pills. And now we really come to the fore. Russian understanding of the world, that is the reason for the constant failures in the program of American dominance, that is, the possession by the American rich masters of the planet of impoverished powerless slaves. Oh, of course, the colonial administrations will also be rich! In addition, proximity to slaves will give them room for those perversions for which these people live. Who wants to know what will happen to us as the American dream is satisfied, I advise you to study the situation in the UN colony - Liberia. Where to increase the likelihood of a good outcome of some kind of undertaking (for example, the success of the publication of the next political science work) in a mortar they will push small children to a homogeneous mass ...
    The global nature of the problems of Western political science lies in the fact that they consider Russia and its understanding of the world to be a foreign obstacle that they can remove by gathering more strength and trying another, even more vile and cunning approach. Whereas we are simply the expression of the best part of human nature. Honor, conscience, duty, loyalty, friendship. All this for Westerners is the subject of cynical exploitation in others and intolerable stupidity in oneself. And they will never, under any circumstances, admit the simple fact that Russia is in their hearts into their consciousness. In all the souls of the planet. Just because we have the courage and strength to live (although not always, albeit with pain, with mistakes, with sad breakdowns), in fact, everyone wants to live. All people. That there was friendship to blood, to death and beyond. So that the words "this is not conscience" forced to unclench the armed hand. To shout: "The Russians are not surrendering!" it was your cry. Russia cannot be defeated. First of all, because this is the suicide of the entire planet at once ...
  9. Bigriver
    Bigriver 22 July 2013 11: 43
    "Apparently this confrontation is geopolitical, .. whose roots go back to the distant past, the origins of which the author will try to consider further."

    Of course smile
    But, IMHO, there is no complicated conspiracy theories here.
    The "Western Project" is a project of global expansion, eating (suppressing) other civilizations and welfare at their expense.
    Russia, as a completely self-sufficient country (huge resources, territory), which also has a middle, key position at the crossroads of different civilizations, plays a stopping role for the West. "They" have always, in recent centuries, been forced to take into account the key factor - Russia.
    Global domination is impossible with her.
  10. Yuri Y.
    Yuri Y. 22 July 2013 19: 24
    Quote: BigRiver
    [i] "

    Quote: Mikhail3

    I completely agree with these authors of comments. Even if we recall how new territories were mastered by our civilization and Western (USA and Russia),
    difference in mentality on the face.
  11. baytygan
    baytygan 22 July 2013 22: 16
    all these theories were not worth a damn, if not for the Trotskyist Khrushchev ...