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 - Maritime and Eurasian, which were of paramount importance for the former geopolitics;
• geopolitical regions - relatively homogeneous parts of geopolitical spheres with their own specifics - such as Eastern Europe, South Asia, etc.;
• great powers - the USA, Russia, Japan, China and integrated Europe, having their own key territories;
• new powers - countries of the third world, such as Iran, that have come into power relatively recently, and do not yet have a decisive influence 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 the dominance of low-entropy countries leads to the formation of the concept of a "unipolar world", the centers of which are 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. Air Straus put forward the concept of a global unipole based on friendliness, cooperation and shared 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 geopoliticians of this direction are characterized by the idea of the longevity of the geopolitical order that has developed after the end of the Cold War, the idea of the “end of history” proposed by Francis Fukuyama.
• Another direction is connected with the growth of “defense consciousness” in the US and the statement of the fact that regionalization leads to the loss of US geopolitical dominance. This has found a vivid expression in Samuel Huntington's concept of the clash of civilizations. In his opinion, the present time is characterized by a tendency towards desecularization - a return to the religious identity of large regions, which means that from now on the leading role is played by local civilizations that oppose 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 opposition to several competing civilizational centers at once.
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 statements attributed to Dulles, the English source of which is not indicated anywhere.
• Fragments of US National Security Council Directive 20/1 of August 18, 1948. They are usually quoted from N. N. Yakovlev's book "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 http://www.sakva.ru/Nick/NSC_20_1R.html. 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).
[
b] i. CHALLENGES WITH RESPECT TO RUSSIA [/ b]
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.
II. MAIN TASKS.
Our main objectives in relation to Russia are actually only two of the following:
• Reduce Moscow's power and influence to such an extent that it no longer poses a threat to the peace and stability of the international community;
• Introduce fundamental changes in the theory and practice of international relations, which adheres to the government in power in Russia.
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”
[
b] iv. THE SOLUTION OF OUR MAJOR TASKS DURING THE WORLD. [/ B]
1. Reducing Russian power and influence
Here two passages speak for themselves:
• “Our first goal with Russia in peacetime is to facilitate and encourage, through non-military means, the gradual reduction of Russia's disproportionate power and influence in the current satellite zone and the emergence of 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 with regard to Russia in peacetime is to use information activity and any other means at our disposal to undermine the myth by which people away from Russian military influence are kept in subjection to Moscow, to ensure that the whole world saw and understood what the Soviet Union was like, 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.
V. SOLUTION OF OUR MAJOR TASKS DURING WAR
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
• Xing 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 Kishore Mahbubani put it (Dean of the School of Public Policy at the National University of Singapore). 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, as a rule, takes one of three forms, or a combination of them.
• First, and at its most extreme, non-Western countries could follow the example of North Korea or Burma and take a course of isolation - insulating their countries from Western penetration and decay and, in effect, withdrawing from participation in the Western-dominated world community. . But such a policy comes at a high price, and few countries have adopted it in its entirety.
• The second possibility is to try to join the West and accept its values and institutions. In the language of international relations theory, this is called "jumping on the bandwagon of the train."
• A third possibility is to try to create a counterbalance to the West by 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 to westernize (transform your appearance according to Western standards - author's note).
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.
Information