In 1905, the last representative of the Romanovs makes the decision to end the big game. At the beginning of the twentieth century, there were two geopolitical lobbies around the king: one was Germanophile, the other was Anglophilic.
The Germanophilia lobby was very fragmented. It consisted of the empress-empress, who was a German duchess, princess; from representatives of various currents. In particular, one of such active lobbyists for bringing Russia closer to Germany was Rasputin, who was close to the Tsar and treated his heir. Representatives of very influential in the economic sphere Jewish industrial circles actively acted in terms of the rapprochement between Russia and Germany, since there were very strong connections in the economic segment of the Russian Empire with the German circles. Some representatives of military circles and in particular Admiral Krasnov.
All of them formed such a scattered Germanophile lobby - from the Black Hundreds to representatives of the Jewish liberal industrial circles, including representatives of the highest nobility of the imperial family and representatives of the popular mystical masses in the person of Rasputin. The Germanophile lobby pushed the tsar to conduct continental geopolitics in alliance with Germany and Austria, directed against the Entente.
And there was another direction, which was embodied in the following figures. In the empress mother, in the so-called royal court. Again in some radical circles of the Black-Hundred movement. In particular, Count Yusupov and Purishkevich, leaders of the Union of the Russian people at that time. As well as the vast majority of the Duma Freemasonry. At that time, in the State Duma, almost all of its members belonged to the French lodges of the French and English rites.
Therefore, another geopolitical lobby has been formed here, again diverse - from masons to Black Hundreds. They oriented the king, who was making major international decisions at that time, towards rapprochement with England and France in order to enter into an alliance with the Entente. It was the principal choice of Nicholas II. It is geopolitical.
After an unsuccessful war with Japan, which was a continental force, but with which, in fact, again, the British and Americans deftly defamed Russia in order to weaken us in the eastern direction, stop our expansion and not allow a Russian-Japanese alliance. And there were such a union supporters, both in Russia and in Japan. It was a continental alliance. Maritime diplomacy won here.
Here is a very interesting moment. In 1905, supporters of Russia's entry into the Entente, that is, the rapprochement of land-based Russia with the sea power - the English thalassocracy and the Entente, are winning. This predetermines Russia's place in the next inevitable conflict. In my opinion, I said that there is such a thing as the influence of the starting conditions on the outcome of the battle. We find ourselves in the same row, in the same trench with the Entente, with France and England. In this case, France is not pro-Napoleonic France, but a pro-English talassocratic, maritime. There is also the United States, in that period as a minor power taking part in the Entente.
This stops our movement to Central Asia. The Russian Tsar says: we will no longer go to Afghanistan, we will no longer threaten the colonial interests of England throughout the entire Eurasian space. Great game is over. We conclude an agreement on non-aggression and even on military alliance with England. Thus, there is some unnatural decision from the geopolitical point: talassocracy and tellurocracy make an alliance. Russia is pure tellurocracy; England, France, America of that period - pure thalassocracy or sea power. They conclude an agreement on the confrontation of continental tellurocratic powers from Central Europe - Germany and Austria.
What did that mean? This meant that in such an arrangement, in such starting conditions, the conflict situation was still 7-8 years before the start of the First World War, the continental powers were doomed. Because they were divided among themselves, because they were opposed to each other, and because Anglo-Saxon diplomacy deliberately managed to put against each other those two forces that threatened the global domination of thalassocracy.
Thus, the war, the revolution and the end of the Romanov St. Petersburg period, the end of the Russian Empire should be dated not actually 1917-1918 year, when it happened, but this 1905 year. Because no matter how the situation turns out - whether we would win or lose the war with Germany (and we almost won it in a military sense) - we were obviously in the opposite situation. This short-sighted deed cost the Russian Empire.
Absolutely just as in the last (next) lesson, we will see that the beginning of perestroika — a rapprochement with the United States cost the Soviet empire, Gorbachev, for the second time. Everything is decided not in real fights. We pay millions of people for this or that war, give lives, territories, tremendous efforts, but everything is not decided here, everything is decided in these starting conditions. Chose the right alliance - obviously won. Chose the wrong alliance - you can make every effort, but you obviously lost.
As we saw in the Crimean War: Russia could not resist the Ottoman Empire, even if it was not very strong, and at the same time England, France with neutrality or even almost with the support of our continental allies in the person of Austria. This is a doomed situation. In such starting conditions, whatever we do, we will lose.
If we start a war with other continental powers - Germany, Austria - on the side of talassocracy, no matter what we do, no matter what efforts we make, we will end, based on the very geopolitical picture of the basic and initial. This is very important.
The end of the big game was the end of Russia. It was necessary to wait just a little longer to see this. The First World War, which the Russian Empire won against the Germans and the Austrians to a large extent, since we won the main battles one way or another. Nevertheless, it ended in the internal defeat of Russia and the death of the Empire. There was an overstrain. Anglo-Saxon diplomacy simply celebrated victory over its fundamental adversary.
Thus, the end of the Russian empire, the end of the St. Petersburg period was not connected with the loss of an external war against our direct enemy - Germany and Austria, against whom we fought in the First World War. He was connected with the fact that overstraining of forces, the work of open pro-Atlantic, Duma, Anglo-Saxon Freemasonry, internal overstraining of economic, social, political, food processes led to the collapse of the monarchy.
Accordingly, it was very important to kill Rasputin, a man who influenced the king to a great extent, drawing a line in the pro-German manner. There you can consider this figure in different ways. From the point of view of his influence on the political processes, he spoke on behalf of the masses, bringing one thing to the king, since he understood the people very well: the people would not pull the war against Germany and would not tolerate it. The influence of Rasputin on the king was enormous, so it had to be removed.
Very interesting: who takes part in the liquidation of Rasputin? A very similar situation: the English ambassador, the pro-English representative of the Black-Hundred movement, Count Yusupov, Purishkevich. It was the forces that simply directly worked in the interests of England. Just like in the murder of Paul, we see the English ambassador, who directly organizes this event to change the geopolitical situations; similar picture in the murder of Rasputin. It is eliminated by the British, because of its pro-German influence. You see how geopolitics helps us understand some of the shadow sides, conspiracies and vague weird intrigues of our history.
Rasputin killed. One of the pillars, along with the empress-empress, was knocked out of this deck of the pro-German continental lobby, influencing Nicholas II. This also weakens the position of the continentalists. As a result, the collapse and the provisional government, the renunciation of power by the emperor. This abdication of the throne transfers power into the hands of the provisional government, that is, the Duma Freemasonry. Since almost all were deputies of the State Duma. By the way, including our sociologists Kovalevsky and Pitirim Sorokin, who were socialist revolutionaries, founders of Russian sociology and also freemasons. This is just as a part.
Duma Freemasonry after the abdication immediately declare one idea: war to the bitter end. That is, this Duma Freemasonry, temporarily the government retains the loyalty of the talassocratic France and England. Despite the fact that the war, which overstretched the forces of our state and was largely the cause of the fall of the monarchy, the new provisional government declares that it is true to the allies, true to this talassocratic orientation of the Entente. And it requires new and new echelons, new and new troops that rush to the Western Front to fight the Germans and Austrians.
If we talk about the geopolitical assessment of the provisional government of that period, practically all of its leaders, so kaleidoscopically replacing each other, ending with the last one - Kerensky, were all oriented towards the Entente. From a geopolitical point of view, they stood for the fight with the Germans to the last end.
Next comes the story that Solzhenitsyn described in the Red Wheel as the participation of the German General Staff and Walter Nikolai in the operation of the Bolsheviks. The Bolsheviks, representatives of a rather small trend - a radical, extremist one, which was aimed at overthrowing all types of political power in order to carry out the proletarian revolution. At that time, most of their leaders were abroad on the run, since each of them was involved in a particular anti-government activity.
The German military leadership, believing that the leaders of the Bolsheviks in such a situation (in conditions of war with Russia) could weaken Russia, create for them some optimal conditions. In order for these leaders to return to the epoch of the provisional government on the territory of the Russian empire, which has already been proclaimed a republic of Russia, to weaken the power oriented towards their opponents England and France. So the Bolsheviks put in a sealed wagon, give them money for travel, probably some more money for weapon, on leaflets, on "Iskra" and, having packed them, send them to Russia.
It was hardly possible that the German leadership and Walter Nikolai, the head of the German military intelligence of that time, could suggest that such extremist forces sent by them could do more than simply exacerbate the existing chaos and help the German offensive to the East. Because the Germans - Germany, Austria - were then in a war with Russia. But it turned out that these were very talented people who, taking advantage of the confusion, after the February revolution, proclaim parallel power.
Because in a revolutionary situation, the power is held by the one who proclaims that he possesses it and is able to defend. Having received no authority in the provisional government, having no parallel structures capable of governing the country, the Bolsheviks (even being a minority in the workers' councils of St. Petersburg, because the majority were left Social Revolutionaries) begin to speak on behalf of this parallel authority. No matter what. When they fail to do anything legitimately - they don’t hold elections or the Constituent Assembly from their majority, they simply close everything in fact, shoot everyone, shout out revolutionary slogans.
It is completely unthinkable for representatives of the seriously prepared provisional government of that period. There were liberal parties or left-wing parties, there were socialist revolutionaries, right-wing Socialist Revolutionaries, left-wing Socialist Revolutionaries, populists. Representatives of the national-Trudovik so-called, who generally professed the idea of national socialism. It seems to us that the left was such liberal. There were Cadet liberals, but they were liberal conservatives. There were national socialists, but not of the fascist sense, there was no such thing at that time, just nationalists, socialists. There were SRs.
All this had a real penetration into society. If I'm not mistaken, there were 5 or 6 millions of members of the Social Revolutionary party in that period. But the Bolsheviks did not exist. They had been in emigration before, engaged in revolutionary activities. They were very determined, very courageous, fundamental people, but they didn’t have representation in Russia, even minimal, it was also interesting.
On the one hand, there were no longer functioning canceled royal structures. The state continued to exist the police, some institutions for collecting taxes, the Ministry of Roads - there were offices. There were political democratic budding institutions, like parties. They were too. It was then that they led the interim government, their various coalitions. And there was a small group of Bolsheviks who did not have anything: neither the government, nor the state, nor their supporters, since the Bolsheviks were guided by the urban proletariat.
In that period, speaking in proportion from a sociological point of view, there was no urban proletariat in Russia. He, of course, was, but in fact he was not a cohesive force, and he did not even compose a large percentage. It was somewhere 1-2% of the proletarians - in general there is no one in the 99-percent peasant country in which they were rooted, including the Social Revolutionary structures - socialist revolutionaries. Under these conditions, in a completely miraculous, inexplicable way, the Bolsheviks sent by the Germans assert that "we are the power". They are told: what do you mean ?! You do not have any representation in the state or in politics; reflect a class that does not exist.
Chernov - right SR, theorist, one of the participants in the provisional government. He just described the real structure, a very interesting alignment of forces - social, political - Russia 1917-th year already in the era of the interim government. There was simply no mention of the Bolsheviks there, that is, there was no such force in such a period. They simply did not exist, did not exist at all - they had no conspiracy, nothing. It was a group of completely rabid fanatics who said that there was such a party. "What party? Where is your party there?" They replied: "Wait. There are. Immediately everyone gives up their mandates." They are again: "What are the mandates? Who are you?". The Bolsheviks replied: "We are the armed forces of the proletariat."
Ultimately, as we know from history, this small group of absolutely boundless fanatics with a specific psyche succeeds in seizing power, despite the fact that they have no legitimacy, including democratic and political legitimacy. Generally no. Neither legality nor legitimacy. They just really take over power. Declare a Constituent Assembly, miraculously hoping that someone will vote for them or they will rig.
However, they can neither vote nor rig it - no one votes for them anyway. Then they disperse this Constituent Assembly, saying "go out." And other political forces — Maria Spiridonova, who was chosen, who created the faction, said: “How do you go out, if we are political representatives of the people? We coped with the monarchy not to give us just some weird people from the street saying that “The guard is tired” and now we need to go to prison from the parliament. "
But the Bolsheviks insisted on their own. They did not listen to Spiridonov and generally did not listen to anyone else, and seized power. Captured power after the fact. This, in fact, probably has no analogues in world history. Because even when palace coups occur, there are dynastic landmarks, or some groups, lobbies.
However, the Bolsheviks acted alone, not relying on anyone - on any Germanophiles in power. They simply came and seized power in a decisive way. Two people mostly - Lenin and Trotsky, who stepped through all logic. They argued that a revolution was needed, and they carried it out. Lenin and Trotsky are literally two men of mad energy who seized power in a gigantic empire.
But you can talk a lot about these historical events. We are also interested in the geopolitical result of the Bolshevik revolution. We have seen that in the First World War Russia acted on the side of the Entente - thalassocracy. We saw that this could only lead to a crash. Collapse is over. And now the Bolsheviks seize power.
Strangely enough, the Bolsheviks, who did not fulfill any agreements with anyone at any time, suddenly act very rationally in this situation: the Germans sent us, so we will work for the Germans. They stop the war with Germany, and Trotsky concludes the Brest-Litovsk peace. Rapallo, Brest-Litovsk peace. Russia refuses all of its conquests, which we have received, from all its positions in the West, giving the Germans and Austrians everything they want.
At the same time, Trotsky arrives and concludes this treaty, managing to still agitate the German soldiers, so that they start the revolution after their return. Everyone believes that this (the Bolsheviks) is temporary, that the same thing will happen in Germany. Therefore, they easily give up Russian lands in the face of the fact that they are not Russian authorities at all. The Bolsheviks do not think of themselves as Russian authorities. They think of themselves as carriers of the world proletariat, which is preparing a global revolution, and temporarily seizing power in Russia, they export this revolution to Europe, after which the era of world communism will come. So sincerely believe Trotsky, Lenin and the Bolsheviks.
Therefore, they calmly give the Germans, who brought them to power, any conquests, since they are not going to linger in particular in Russia. They have global perspectives: having seized power in Russia, the same characters want to seize power everywhere. Indeed, the Bavarian Soviet Republic is being created in Germany, where the same crisis occurs after the war. Germany is defeated on the Western Front by the troops of the Entente. Austria, Germany does not save the alliance with the new leaders of Russia - with the Bolsheviks.
As a result, the conflict internalization begins. Those forces that focused on the provisional government and to a very small extent to the monarchy (mostly the White case consisted of liberals, Socialist-Revolutionaries, Democrats, anyone; the monarchists had a very, very small percentage), they find themselves on the periphery of Russia. And they start a civil war with the Bolsheviks who control the center - St. Petersburg, Moscow, precisely the central zones.
Thus, the First World War ends. Germany is defeated. And Russia, in fact, the Bolsheviks, who conclude a treaty, withdraw from the alliance with the Entente, they lose to Germany, not just enter into an alliance with it, and still receive an internal civil war. It seems that the situation in Russia is the “last breath”, because during this period from 1905 to 1922, we lost everything we had.
The territories are narrowed, different national parts of the provinces of the Russian empire declared their independence - the Baltic states, Poland, Finland, which were part of our country, are the same as Karelia, for example, or the Leningrad region. Finland is the same as the Leningrad region. All this falls out. Ukraine announces independence. In Tatarstan, the idea arises that we must also get rid of the Russians. The Caucasus, is leaving the Dashnak government in Armenia. In fact, even within the civil war, inside there are representatives of some layers, other layers, everyone slaughters each other - there is no country.
Nevertheless, let's still look from the geopolitical point of view of the most principled, prominent orientations of different forces, participants in this period of the Russian history of the civil war, that is, the geopolitics of the civil war. Briefly.
The Bolsheviks consistently act as Germanophiles and continentalists. This is a very interesting point. Under the Bolsheviks, the capital is transferred from St. Petersburg to Moscow. Remember, as we said in previous classes, how important is the location of the capital? The capital is a symbol. The return of the capital from St. Petersburg to Moscow, although it had tactical, historical reasons not connected in any way with the Third Rome and with a return to the era of the Russian kingdom, nevertheless, it meant just that - a return to continental orientation.
So, the Bolsheviks, marginals, extremists, who are simply the devil knows that - neither the people, nor the class, nothing, but a group of utterly stunned fanatics, they are from a geopolitical point of view, step by step, demonstrating that they are carriers of a tellurocratic beginning. It is very important. Whoever they were, they were tellurocrats. In ideology, they have nothing like this. They don’t talk about any Landpower. Empire they hate. There are no considerations in the spirit of Mackinder's geopolitics, they do not know about any geographical axis of history, and they do not want to know.
They think in terms of a class that does not exist. It turns out that they are intellectually and politically delirious. Nevertheless, all their actions - one, the other, the third, the fourth - are lined up in the construction of land power. The Bolsheviks, contrary to their ideas - this does not follow from one Bolshevik text, from one declaration, everything they say has no relation to reality at all - nevertheless, they are extremely effective in terms of seizing and retaining power. Just absolutely effective.
This is strikingly contrasted with the complete inefficiency of the tsarist regime and the democratic regime of the republican period of the provisional government. In all respects, from a geopolitical point of view, they are carriers of a tellurocratic beginning, that is, Landpower, land power, up to the transfer of the capital to Moscow.
And what about white? What is the geopolitics of the White case? It would seem white - patriots, they are Russian nationalists, the majority, be they left, right or liberals, monarchists or social revolutionaries, socialists, revolutionaries, they are for Russia, for the Russian original culture, against the Bolsheviks, as simply irrelevant types with ideologies. But they rely in their political real, concrete war against the Bolsheviks against the Entente.
Until a certain period, they control the sea territories, that is, their base is adjacent on one side in the Far East to Vladivostok, in the south to the Crimea. And they rely on the occupying forces of the Entente — Britain and France. The military commissar of the Entente for Ukraine becomes none other than Halford Mackinder, the founder of the English school of geopolitics. He demands from the English government the support of whites, more active, in order to dismember Russia. And in order to create on the territory of Russia, according to Mackinder, the following states, which did not exist then: the Baltic states, Belarus, Moldova, Ukraine, Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Novorossia and the great Dagestan, which is included in the North Caucasus.
What it is? It did not exist. This is the English Commissioner for the Entente to support the White case in Russia requires money from its own government. Thus, the White movement from the point of view of geopolitics, despite the patriotic, sometimes very fair and faithful slogans, is the spokesman of thalassocracy, an atlantist of atlantism and a destroyer of the territorial integrity of Russia. Its creators potentially go to collusion with the leaders of the Entente.
Thus, contrary to our current view that the Bolsheviks were representatives of anti-people, anti-national movements. In my opinion, there was not a single Russian among the Bolsheviks at all. All these were representatives of various ethnic minorities. It would seem that they have no relation to Russian history. Their ideology completely breaks them with our identity. Now it seems to us that the White movement is monarchists, lieutenants, representatives of noble families. Nothing like this. In general, the provisional government was bourgeois, often popular - either left or right, but not antimonarchical. The White Guard is the guard of the provisional government. These representatives spoke on the side of talassocracy.
With one single exception, it is also very curious. How? In Pskov there was the White movement, directed against the Bolsheviks, but for the Germans, and not against the Entente. At the head of it was none other than Vandam - one of the first Russian geopolitics, who said that the geopolitical fate of the Russian empire was a confrontation between Anglo-Saxon expansion. Vandam - a supporter of the continuation of the great war. His real name is Edrikhin. He received the pseudonym Vandam when he participated in the Boer War against the British. He was a member of the military intelligence of the Russian Empire.
Vandam wrote brilliant texts, declining in every way the Russian leadership, the monarchy, the king (still in the era of the monarchy) so that Russia would in no way enter into an agreement with the Entente, but instead enter into an alliance with Germany. When everything has already happened, he in fact becomes one of the leaders of the ephemeral Pskov-Russian-white pro-German region, in which even the money has time to print. People called them "vandamkami." Such a temporary currency of a geopolitical nature, because it was printed by geopolitics, Germanophile, anti-Bolshevik, but continentalist. It was the only exception in the White case - the whites, focused on Germany. All other whites were focused on the Entente.
Another interesting thing. As part of the southern Crimean segment of the White Guard movement, where Struve was Minister of Foreign Affairs. The assistant minister is a very interesting person - Peter Nikolayevich Savitsky, the founder of the Eurasian movement. And being a member of the white affairs, fighting with the Bolsheviks in the White Guard newspaper published by Struve, Savitsky writes that "we, the whites, relying on the Entente, fighting the Bolsheviks, oppose the national interests of our state, against Russia, and the Bolsheviks, our sworn enemies with absolutely idiotic ideology, are the true patriots of Russia. "
Imagine it during the war. This is approximately the same as in the Stalinist newspaper Pravda to write that Hitler is well done. Of course, then there was a difficult situation. Newspapers were published in an instant, no one had time to repress anyone and even just read what they published. But this text is amazing! Who is Peter Nikolaevich Savitsky? This is the founder of the Eurasian movement. After some time, he will become the chief theoretician of Eurasianism.
So, we see in the civil war three amazing characters who are the basic intellectuals of the geopolitical process. On the one hand, in Ukraine we meet Mackinder himself, such a spiritual, intellectual grandfather Brzezinski, who offers to dismember Russia, support the White cause, realizing that the Bolsheviks are a continental, that is, Eurasian force.
That is why Mackinder (by the way, the founder of the London School of Economics) does not just think about geopolitics, he participates in this geopolitics. He sees from personal experience what is happening in Russia. And based on his geopolitical analysis, he is convinced of the continental tellurocratic fate of the Bolshevik regime. He says: the Bolsheviks are tellurocrats, so we must fight them. Nothing follows from the fact that the Bolsheviks are tellurocrats. They have no hint in the Bolshevik doctrine, which would be tellurocratic and continental. Nothing like this. They think in parallel categories.
Mackinder, applying to their political activities, to the 2-5 positions, which he fixes and checks on the spot, he comes to the conviction that only the White Case, which must be supported. Only White will lead to the collapse of Russia. "The Bolsheviks have a chance," writes Mackinder, "to unite Russia." It is at that moment when the Bolsheviks are the most chaotic force, they do not unite anything.
See how curious geopolitics think. They understand the processes before they are realized. He says that after some time, a few decades later, if we do not crush the Bolsheviks now, they will create a powerful continental empire, from which we will have to suffer. And then we will not get out of it, because the first thing they will do is conclude an alliance with Germany, which sent them, and the alliance between Russia and Germany is the death of England. Therefore, we must in every way fight the Bolsheviks, supporting the White movement. Here is the logic.
Now we know that he was absolutely right. But then he was sitting in Ukraine in 1919, and he sees some refugees, walkers, and carts with Makhnovists-anarchists passing by - “fried chicken”, home brew. He does not see anything that will later actually become a historical reality, but he does not look at the surface side of events, but at the essence of things. And he gives a completely fair analysis of what will happen and regrets that he was not listened to when he spoke before the British cabinet, demanding immediate serious help to the White cause. He is not listened to, they say that your ideas are wrong and this is largely the reason that the White cause is not adequately supported by the atlantists, because many other leaders of the British Empire underestimate the danger posed by the Bolsheviks. And geopolitics already understand that this is a serious matter.
The second geopolitics is Vandam, about whom we spoke, or Edrikhin, who is also thrown by the logic of geopolitical analysis towards the white, but German ones. At the same time, he really refuses to fight the Bolsheviks, believing that the Bolsheviks could also transform themselves into patriotic power. Thus, in fact, lay the conciliatory patriotic movement in the white emigration, which, despite the fact that they do not share the ideology of the Bolsheviks, one way or another, they agree with the patriotic tendencies of the intra-Soviet regime.
The third representative, the founder of Eurasianism, Peter Savitsky, who also participates in this war on the side of the whites, on the side of the atlantist forces. There is no experience of emigration, there is no experience of rejection of Western culture, existence in Belgrade and in Prague, where he will be taken out later by the discarded warriors of the White cause, and then Paris, Berlin, where they realize the nightmare of the West.
In fact, the West and Europe for a Russian person is a nightmare. But it is still incomprehensible to Savitsky. Savitsky is still immersed, like all other leaders, participants in the White Case, in a concrete war. It is then that they realize that without Russia, life is not life. But while he fights with the Bolsheviks, he sincerely fights, but already understanding the geopolitical regularity. It is not known whether he came into contact with Mackinder, or if he knew his texts.
A little later, in the early years of emigration, Savitsky would write texts about Eurasian politics that would indicate that he knew Mackinder's texts. But no one can rule out that, while in the same camp, they have not personally met. I do not know, I have no information. But in fact, it cannot be excluded that he was not aware of, did not personally know Mackinder. This intersection, the germ of Russian geopolitics, which is directly connected with Savitsky, perhaps initiating into geopolitics, was from the side of Mackinder, since at one time they were on one side of the barricades.
Of course, doing international affairs in this ephemeral white Wrangel government and being an assistant to the Foreign Minister Struve, I do not exclude, most likely, of course, Savitsky was aware of these divisions in Russia and the conditions dictated by the Entente, its representative - High Commissioner Mackinder
So, this is what is decided in this period. Who will win the war of whites and reds? From an ideological point of view, this is one thing, and from a geopolitical point of view, another. The red ones are tellurocracy, this is the union of the continent from the inside. Whites are thalassocracies, they are involuntary hostages of the Entente, the Anglo-Saxon forces. Therefore, the fate of Russia depends on whether we will have continental integration, will we return after this troubled time of revolution to the continental orbit of a land power. Or we will be dismembered and placed under the control of sea power.
We already know today that the victory of the Bolsheviks in the civil war, and the fact that the Bolsheviks, managed to unite under the aegis of almost the entire territory of the former Russian empire. In fact, this is a historical fact. And already this victory of theirs meant again the starting conditions for the history of the entire twentieth century as the geopolitical vector of the Soviet Union.
The Soviet Union, built by the Bolsheviks on the basis of a proletarian ideology that has little to do with geopolitics, without recognizing any laws of geopolitics, created a land Eurasian empire with all the signs of tellurocracy, with all the signs of Rome, with all the signs of Sparta. Let us recall how the geopolitical map began. We talked about dualism. Rome - Carthage, Sparta - Athens, tellurocracy - thalassocracy. So, the continental, Spartan, Roman Empire was created under the Soviet aegis. The capital was again transferred to Moscow - the Third Rome.
All symbols, all signs and all geopolitical content - what Ratzel called spatial meaning (Raumsinn) - everything comes into focus.
The history of the Soviet period. The Soviet Union is a tellurocratic power. This is a continental, anti-sea, land, traditional society, which was built under the ideology and standards of Bolshevism, but reflected the geopolitical constants of Russian history. In this regard, a direct link. At the level of ideology, the final break with the age-old Orthodox monarchical tradition. Nothing was left of the institutions of pre-revolutionary society, of education, of types, of cities, even a stone was left. Everything else: technology, ideology, education, management, politics, economics. Everything is completely different. Everything has changed.
And geopolitics? Here it is interesting that with a complete breakup, exactly the same thing has been preserved. From the geopolitical point of view, we are dealing with the continuation of the logic of the continental, spatial development of the Russian empire. Since its first moments of choosing the East-Turan orientation through the Mongol conquests, through the Byzantine mission, especially after the XV century, through the Moscow kingdom, through the Peter model, through the XIX century, we are in fact dealing with a continuous line of development of land control over the surrounding territories .
The culmination of this is the Stalin administration. Stalin is the culmination of the geopolitical Soviet Union. The maximum expansion that we can achieve, we achieve under Stalin. In a sense, this is a certain ceiling, a certain border from above, from the point of view of geopolitics. The influence and volume of control in the planetary level, starting from the tiny Rostov-Suzdal Vladimir principality, from which Eurasian Russia began, as we said, of eastern orientation in the Kiev period, in the period of the specific princes.
From this small little patch reproducing at first Svyatoslav’s empire, then going in the opposite direction along the trajectory traced by the Mongols, Russia, finally, in Stalin’s, the Soviet period reaches its optimum planetary scope. The implementation of the basic vector, which went through the story. To draw a straight line, it is not necessary to know the coordinates of each point — two is enough, along which we will already draw. In the same way, we can trace this Stalinist vector through which Russia walked through history.
From a geopolitical point of view, the very map of the Soviet control of the mid-twentieth century shows the triumph of Russian geopolitics, despite the fact that not a single word was said among the Bolsheviks themselves. But this line is traced and fixed by Russian Eurasians in exile, openly supporting the Bolsheviks in this direction. Being monarchists, conservatives, and anti-Marxists in general, anti-Communists, the Eurasians say: there is one dimension in which we fully support the Bolsheviks - this is the territorial expansion of Russia.
Petr Nikolaevich Savitsky, the Russian founder of Eurasianism, introduces an important concept - a place of development, which is very similar to Ratselevsky spatial meaning (Raumsinn). Please note that this is not a "development of a place" or a "place of development", but the words are put in the nominative case and are written together in one. This is a neologism, there is no case management between them. The meaning of the term development is that what the place is, so is the content of the processes that take place in this place. If you apply specifically. The Bolsheviks control Eurasia and increase it. No matter who the Bolsheviks are, no matter how they think of themselves and the whole world, the place they control, if they do it well, will think for them. It will evolve according to its own logic, and will push them to commit those acts and make decisions that do not follow from their doctrine.
In relation to the analysis of the Soviet period, the Eurasian term “place of development” is ideally suited to everything. For example, even in the doctrinal vein. Marx believed that the Bolshevik revolution in Russia was impossible. Why? Because there is no proletariat sufficiently. Lenin says: perhaps we will begin, and then we will continue. That is, a revolution in one country is possible in a volitional way, but when it comes to building socialism in one, and even non-industrial country, even Trotsky, the closest supporter of Lenin, says that this is definitely impossible, because it is not Marxism at all. Nevertheless, Stalin says: you, Comrade Trotsky, do not understand anything; I understand that socialism is possible in one country, and anything is possible.
In fact, Stalin becomes the spokesman of this place of development. Marxism is resting — Lenin and Trotsky introduce the first amendment, who simply in fact overthrow Marx's logic in practice. But it proves that it works great. The second point is that Stalin, who creates the state, in conditions where it is simply impossible to create it socialistically, he actually becomes the spokesman for the place - the spokesman for the country, the empire that places him at the center of the historical process.
So the place acts contrary to the one who is in this place. In this place, on the territory of Eurasia, stand the Bolsheviks with a certain consciousness. And the place develops itself, as it developed through various ideological forms of extensions - the place wants to expand. The Russian empire, the land empire, before this the Turan empire, Eurasia wants to expand, wants to strengthen. Here a certain spatial will arises, which imposes itself and its logic on the people who live in this territory.
The landscape comes into its own. The land tellurocratic model begins to turn into an independent fundamental historical energy. And of course, in the course of this development of the Eurasian tellurocratic place, certain aspects of the socio-political process itself are opening up. Stalin gradually, being the bearer of absolute equality from the point of view of the idea, turns into a figure of the absolute monarch in the spirit of Ivan III, Ivan IV or Peter, who is very familiar to Russian history, and who embarks on a classic task for the Russian monarchy - elimination of the elite. Stalin fights oligarchy. Only with a new - party, Leninist-Trotskyist oligarchy. And in fact, in 30-s, they begin to destroy those who came under the auspices of the new elite.
Stalin says: I am, there is a people, and between these people and me, these old Bolsheviks, who hesitated and claim that they too must influence politics, this is too much. There is me, Stalin says, and this is already a lot, there are people and this is also not bad, there is a territory that pushes me to express my will. The people are what grows up. It is like bread, for example. A nation rises in the fields of Russia, moves like cattle, for example, such sacred cattle. I stand over it and I feed these people, like a good shepherd, cultivate this bread, and here the old Bolsheviks. What are they needed for? The systematic extermination of the old Bolsheviks begins.
Much more ambitious, technological and voluminous than the extermination by Ivan IV of the boyar elite. But other conditions, different ideology, other methods. But the meaning is precisely this: a monarch, a representative of autocratic power, relying on the people who like it very much, everything that happens. Especially when the elite are cut, whatever it may be - new or old. This is the most favorite pastime of the people - to observe the execution of elites. And sovereign ruler.
There is a messianic idea, a communist one. There is a territorial expansion. There are strengthening borders. Thus, the whole historical agenda, which constitutes the essence of Russian geopolitical history, is present in Stalin under the Bolshevik wrapper. We are dealing with a tellurocracy - geopolitical, spatial, and, moreover, socially political. At one time or another, the same Eurasianists generally say that Soviet Russia has moved to the moment when now Bolshevism will be redrawn. Bolshevism will simply be abandoned and it will be the geopolitical world view, the imperial-patriotic, social justice with the new elite that will be established as the new ideology. Because it generally has nothing to do with Bolshevism, it has something to do with the Russian geopolitical spatial idea.
Anticipating this, within the framework of the Silver Age movement, such a movement emerges as a "Scythian", for example, Blok, who writes the poem "12" in fact in a poetic way, and in his theoretical works he describes in detail that the Bolsheviks are molesters of the divine Christian sophiological idea . They just don't know. And here behind their tumult, behind their filth, behind their nightmare and terror, is the divine Sophia, led by Christ. And Russia rises through this divine Sophia to the white Christ.
"In a white corolla of roses -
Ahead is Jesus Christ. "
Thus ends Blok’s poem "12" about twelve Bolsheviks walking and shooting everyone. This is not a parody, this is not irony. So representatives of the Russian, patriotic, exalted imperial mystical intelligentsia see, at least in the beginning, a revolution. Another Russian poet, Nikola Klyuev, an Old Believer, the fundamental bearer of "Moscow - the Third Rome," writes even more serious lines. Do you know what chalice is? This is the cup from which communion takes place. For every Orthodox person, this is the highest shrine. And Klyuev writes:
"There is a Kerzhen spirit in Lenin,
Hegumen shout in decrees ... ".
He sees Lenin as a return to the Old Believers Avvakum tradition. And concluding one of his poems writes:
"Killer red - holy chalice".
See what paradoxes. The Red Killer is a Bolshevik who walks and shoots just everyone in a row. "Holy Chalice" - holier cup, from which communion.
Or, for example, the literary works "Kotlovan" and "Chevengur" Andrei Platonov, also a representative of this movement. They see in the Bolsheviks the realization of the Messianic aspirations of the Russian people, the discovery of higher, deep-seated sleeping tendencies, crushed by the official reactionary regime of tsarism.
In 20-x and the beginning of 30-ies there is a tendency to perceive the Bolshevik revolution as an old-believer Russian revolution, deeply national, directed against the Westernist elites. Against the fact that the representatives of the Romanovs called the Romano-German yoke, that is, it is Moscow against St. Petersburg. A returning Moscow, a popular, autocratic, archaic Moscow, tearing up the western "caftan" and moving towards the creation of a global empire of justice, to Tyutchev's ideal of the Orthodox world empire, but only under the Soviet banner.
This kind of dreams of the Russian intelligentsia, which last another ten years after the revolution. Despite the fact that the Bolsheviks said: no, this is complete clericalism, this is nonsense, we mean just industrialization and everything, nothing more. Then the phenomenon of Stalin appears, and the Eurasians say: but this is just a king. There is a phenomenon of national Bolshevism Ustryalov. This is also born in emigration, when the Russian, cadet, Orthodox conservative Ustryalov in China discovers that the Bolsheviks better cope with the war with the West, the main enemy of Russia, than the tsarist government; that they are uncompromising Easterners, uncompromising anti-Westerners; that they realize the national ideal more efficiently, more quickly; strengthen the country; restore, especially after Stalin, the unity of the state. Because, of course, at the beginning during this period everything is bursting at the seams, but Stalin collects everything. It closes all national separatist tendencies. All very soon find themselves in the gulag. And a huge, powerful Russian land, tellurocratic empire is being created.
This is how the analysis of geopolitical mapping of the Soviet period is carried out. If we discard all sympathies, dislikes, put out of brackets how much it was paid for, how many people lost, with what kind of violence these principles were introduced, and take only the geopolitical cold, abstract perspective. We see that the Bolsheviks, in addition to their subjective ideological ideas, were carriers of a strictly land impulse — these were Landpower. Accordingly, the entire history of the Soviet Union is the history of Landpower. At the same time, the value of Landpower increased in volume, power and strength throughout the Soviet period, as territorial possessions of the Russian Empire grew before. Geopolitically, this was the way up. Strictly and unequivocally between periods of war, unrest, revolutions that led to the loss of geopolitical power, and the next time Russia entered a new round.
If we imagine the map as something alive, lay several layers, then we will see that Russia is like a heart that is compressed and unclenched. Time of troubles - our possessions shrunk, we come to our senses - we begin to finish. With each heartbeat of this heart, it becomes more and more, because we are narrowing, and then spreading wider, then narrowing again, then even wider. Under Stalin in the middle of the twentieth century, the Russian territorial heart is already expanding by half the world — we are already beginning to capture everyone. Already half of Eastern Europe, to which we have never reached out, is ours. In Africa, some of our pro-Soviet lands. Cuba, Vietnam, fraternal China. We, as a truly truly Russian heart, are starting to move half the world. Of course, put in the geopolitical series of our historical events, if you do not pay attention to ideology, but look at deeper things, then we see the continuity of Russian history: compression - expansion. The Russian heart beats in a geopolitical context.
Now we must pay attention to the geopolitics of the Second World War - the next subtopic in the Soviet period. Here we see that on the eve of World War II there are two scenarios for the distribution of forces, as well as on the eve of the First. One theme is the Soviet Union in alliance with Hitler and in alliance with fascist Italy, the "Continental Bloc". This is openly encouraged by Karl Haushofer, an extremely influential geopolitician in Germany. For our part, the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, which involves an alliance of fascist Germany with Soviet Russia to oppose the capitalist West.
What it is from a geopolitical point of view, the ideology we postpone, in terms of development. "Continental Block" is an alliance of two tellurocracies. If we imagine - history, of course, does not know the subjunctive mood, but we imagine how in mathematics - that this is happening, the alliance is taking shape. Tomorrow England, America, France, capitalism, McDonald's, human rights no longer exist. There are only Russians and Germans who quietly move across the entire space of the planet in their national or less national socialism. Everything. England is the end, there is only global tellurocracy. America is over. Eurasia triumphs.
This project, as starting conditions, automatically leads to the triumph of Russia. Even if we were with the Germans afterwards, after a common victory, and faced in some kind of conflict, this would have been completely different. This would be a conflict between close relatives, and not between enemies with the participation of a third talassocratic force. In this great war of the continents, this is a guarantee of victory. Only the implementation of this Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, whether it was or was not serious on both sides: both Stalin, who refused to believe to the last, that war with Germany was possible, and the conclusion of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact; and the idea of Haushofer, as a conscious geopolitics from the German side.
Haushofer immediately said that if Hitler would start a war with the Soviet Union, this would be the end of Germany. You don’t even have to fight, you can immediately bury Germany if Germany fights on two fronts: with England, with America on the one hand, and with Russia on the other. Therefore it is necessary to make a choice. Haushofer said that if Germany wants to win, then it can do it either in an alliance with thalassocres - with the West against the Soviet Union (as in the Crimean War - the West, Europe can defeat Russia), or in an alliance with Russia against the West, but not on two fronts. Two fronts - everything, Germany does not exist as an independent country.
Haushofer said this in 1930's! Was it worth so much blood to spill - German, Russian, Slavic, European, Jewish? Was it worth it to make sure that geopolitics are absolutely right in their irrelevant analysis? Haushofer hated Bolshevism. He had a complicated attitude towards Jews, although he was married to a Jewish woman, also a German patriot. You can not blame him for the fact that he was a Soviet agent or loved the Soviet leaders. Nevertheless, Haushofer managed in the Nazi racist regime of Hitler, in which for such statements it was just possible to suffer too ... not like in ours, of course, but it was possible. He writes in his memoirs: "The last time I saw him (Hitler) in 1939, we shouted at each other." Imagine, someone would have tried to shout at Stalin with us? And Haushofer was nothing. His son, Albert Haushofer, still in the 1944 year, participates in a conspiracy against Hitler - in the Stauffenberg conspiracy.
Accordingly, the story is such that geopolitics in Germany, such as Karl Haushofer, understand that it is necessary to form an alliance with the Soviet Union, and Haushofer writes the program "Continental Bloc". The axis of victory - Berlin, Moscow, Tokyo. If Germany is against Moscow and against London and Washington, then you can already now sing a requiem for Germany. By the way, no matter who wins, it will end very badly anyway - British geopolitics believe, therefore their main task is to pit Germany against Russia. Here is the main task, again as in the First World War - to pit two continental powers.
Mackinder writes about this already on the eve of the Second World War, as he often wrote about it the day before and the First. Everything repeats and again victory is on the side of the atlantists already in the initial conditions. Whoever wins in World War II, if Germany fights with Russia - this is the end, it may be postponed, drawn out, but the end of land power. So it was. In this case, Germany fought on two fronts, launching an attack on us. As with Napoleon, remember, we met back in the XIX century with the same picture. Again, two tellurocratic, powerful land powers, anti-Atlantic, anti-palassocratic, anti-sea, converge in a hard confrontation. As a result, one of them, at least, definitely does not exist, and the second one with the delayed option will be destroyed.
We are winning this monstrous war of those who were our natural geopolitical allies. They, having attacked their natural geopolitical allies in their racist, misanthropic, idiotic ideology, completely Westernized, colonial, they also sign the verdict on themselves. Germany after 1945 is practically non-existent, it is divided between us - Prussia, the eastern part departs to us. We are setting up our dictatorship there. On the other hand, West Germany is under the same occupation only by the Americans and the British.
After all, in fact, the Federal Republic of Germany was not an independent German state - this is the territory occupied by the West. As the GDR was occupied by us, so West Germany was occupied by the atlantists. Therefore, the unification of Germany after the end of the Soviet Union is a very ambiguous thing. From one occupier the GDR went under the boots of the other. There is still no political freedom in Germany - it is not an independent player. The economy is there, but there is no political subjectivity that was withdrawn from the Germans as a result of the Second World War, where the Germans overestimated their capabilities and were denied the right to participate in real politics. Share, because in fact they have committed many crimes along the way.
But the question is as follows. We won this war, and the alliance with our allies England and America lasted, as usual, not for long. After this period, as soon as we jointly crushed the Germans, divided Europe, geopolitics instantly assumed their own rights, and Cold War geopolitics emerged. The geopolitics of the Cold War is actually - it is interesting! - the maximum expression of geopolitical regularity on a planetary scale. From this period after World War II, the picture of the planetary distribution of forces is already taking shape, strictly reflecting what geopolitics like Mackinder, Haushofer, Savitsky, Vandam, and others have noticed 60-70 years before. They then only saw the global scale of the opposition of the Anglo-Saxon talassocratic world with the tellurocratic one. At that time, when the royal empire was in the place of the tellurocracy, it was a very powerful state. Of course, it was not the second power - it was one of the major Eurasian powers.
According to the results of World War II, there are strictly two poles in the world, two camps - socialist and capitalist. And from a geopolitical point of view, roles are uniquely distributed clearly and distinctly;
Capitalism = Carthage = Athens;
USSR, Soviet camp, socialism = Rome = Sparta = tellurocracy.
Thus, the two beginnings of geopolitical history, which were scattered, are scattered throughout the ancient history, namely, in the second half of the twentieth century, they acquire a global character. In fact, the bipolar world, its map, the distribution of its forces, friends and enemies - the socialist and capitalist states, is a visual, direct, most convincing (evidential, empirical) manifestation of the laws of geopolitics. The geopolitical nature of the Bolsheviks, which was not obvious, demonstrates its tellurocratic nature.
Here the question already arises of whether or not the relationship between socialism and tellurocracy is accidental or not. It turns out that at the peak of the expansion of expansion of this land Soviet complex, in fact, the distribution of two ideologies - socialist and capitalist, in fact almost strictly coincided with the geographical and geopolitical map. From the very beginning we talked about this process of mapping, that is, mapping, mapping various concepts. Of course, the concept of socialism and capitalism belongs to the sphere of economics, politics and ideology, and does not belong to the sphere of geography.
But the Cold War map of the bipolar world shows the complete identity of geopolitics with its terms (tellurocracy, thalassocracy) and these two socio-political teachings (capitalism, socialism). Socialism thus reveals its tellurocratic nature. At a time when capitalism discovers its talassocratic nature. Accordingly, between Rome, as a principle of traditional society, a rigid hierarchy, ethics, military ethics, sacrificial ethics, as between the type of Spartans, who are fully focused on military disciplinary models of social organization. Tellurocracy is asserted at the new stage of identity. Socialism is Rome. Socialism is the land model. Socialism is justice, a military-sacrificial society, focused on the attainment of the highest mission. Just as sacred Rome was, so the idea of sacred justice (equality of all people, social mutual aid) becomes a kind of mission of this socialist camp.
At the time when Carthage with Moloch, with its fully hired army, with its idea of technical development and change of values, its commercial and commercial nature - Ancient Carthage again through Venice, through Holland, through the trading British empire anew finds its expression - it is the culture of Moloch in global capitalism.
Thus, the confrontation of the two systems. Please note that at the beginning, before 1945, until the end of Germany, there were three global ideologies: liberal, fascist and communist. They were in a difficult relationship with each other. Nazi or fascist ideology was less socialist than socialist, more liberal. But on the other hand more socialist than liberal. Here are these ideological differences: capitalism, national socialism and socialism are also surprisingly superimposed on three geopolitical geographical segments. Thus, here we get the possibility of geopolitical analysis of ideology.
Capitalism has the center of talassocracy - England and America, as the springboard of a liquid society, a liquid society, a society of technical development, flexibility, human rights, individualism, freedoms. This is the liberal segment, which is connected with the West and the sea. Intermediate European, especially at the peak of the influence of Hitler's Germany, almost all of Europe, as in the era of Napoleon, was under an intermediate type tellurocracy. That is, it is more socialist, more land than sea. But in relation to land socialism, it is, of course, more marine than land. This intermediate character of national socialism is visible geographically, geopolitically and ideologically.
Because you can say so in German national socialism or in fascism there are elements of capitalism - private property is preserved. But there are elements of socialism - the restriction on large private property, the strengthening of the state and the influence of the state on industry. Setting national interests above private ones is an element of socialism, but not complete socialism. Hence, national socialism, where there is socialism, but not to the end. And such pure socialism — radical, extremist socialism — is already associated with Eurasianism and tellurocracy.
The first half of the twentieth century takes place in the possible alliances of these three ideological forces, and the three geopolitical spaces corresponding. After 1945, the picture: the intermediate European education in the face of national socialism disappears, European fascism is decomposed into two components. Socialism is moving towards the East right up to the Berlin Wall, that is, it becomes part of Eurasia - Eastern Europe. The rest, which was under the control of the British and Americans, goes under the influence of talassocracy. Western Europe integrates into talassocracy, therefore becoming the base for the deployment of American missiles. It becomes an ultra-liberal stronghold.
Although Europe is trying in the era of de Gaulle to resist this and find again some third way, to win back its identity between Soviet Russia and America, this is not strategically possible. In Europe, you are either a communist, then you are for the East, or you are a capitalist, then you are strictly for America, for England and so on. The intermediate is not possible. When fascism was different. Fascism said: neither this, nor that - neither liberals nor communists. Accordingly, Europe is independent. Here, such positions are no longer possible for any country or political movement other than marginal ones.
Therefore, the European model is ideologically divided into two components and geographically Europe is divided into Eastern and Western, separated by a wall. Accordingly, geopolitics is included in its maximum rights. After the Second World War, we see that this intermediate, fascist nationalist European space disappears and two basic principles are realized - socialist tellurocracy and capitalist talassocracy. It was not. When we began our consideration of geopolitics from ancient times and from Russian history, we did not see in any way anything like this. This is the result of the twentieth century - a generalization of connections, associations, which became evident in the course of history, which immediately adjoins our time. Most recently, we discovered this pattern.
What else can be said about this period? Stalin is also very curious from a geopolitical point of view, and after the start of the Cold War, Beria very keenly understood the catastrophic results of the territorial results of the Second World War for the future of the USSR. A very interesting moment arises here - a certain geopolitical regularity is taking shape. Let's look at the borders of the Soviet bloc, although they are the largest in the history of our historical Eurasian influence, including fraternal China and the socialist countries in Africa and Latin America.
Nevertheless, it is Stalin who clearly and clearly realizes that such a configuration is extremely fragile, because we are directly with the West and, most importantly, the European border passes over land in the absence of powerful natural barriers. Because in fact, Eastern and Western Europe do not share mountains, impassable forests, some precipices or seas. On one side and on the other, the same people live - East Germans and West Germans are essentially representatives of the same culture. Although, of course, the East Germans are Prussians, and the West are representatives of a somewhat different historical path, but still they are Germans. Similarly, the rest of Eastern Europe is part of a single European space.
To keep such a land border artificially, Stalin and Beria consider, will not work for a long time. They even thought that everything would collapse faster than how we really collapsed. There are two ways out of this geopolitical situation, Beria and Stalin suggest (also an amazing thing, we consider them imperialistic people) at the end of the 50s. In order to truly consolidate the results of the Great Patriotic War, the Soviet Union needs to realize one of two plans. Either conquer Western Europe and then defend the territory of the sea will be much cheaper. Just go to London. At least, London can be left, but France, Italy should be Soviet.
For this, the Communist parties are actively funded. Caviar is sent. In France, there was even such an expression “caviar left” (la gauche au caviar), that is, it is the left that the Internationale sent caviar to prevent them from being bored and pursuing pro-Soviet policies. The idea is the annexation of Western Europe, and then the Soviet Union receives several Soviet-European republics, which will perfectly protect the maritime border with the Atlantic. It is cheap and reliable.
It is curious that many Europeans, who lived in 70-80-s and were already adult, conscious people, considered that this prospect is quite likely and completely realistic. My good friend, the French philosopher Alain de Benoit, at some point says that if there is a very tough question which, as a Frenchman, I wear an emblem: a NATO American helmet or cap with a Soviet star, then I choose a cap with a Soviet star. He is a French conservative, a supporter of French independence.
In 70-80-ies, the possibility of creating a Euro-Soviet state, a Euro-Soviet empire from Dublin to Vladivostok stood seriously. Even in 92, I brought here one Belgian geopolitician Jean Tiriar, who wrote the book "The Euro-Soviet Empire from Vladivostok to Dublin", believing that it was in the interests of Europe to surrender to the Soviet Union in order not to become prey to the Americans. Thus, the European intellectual elite in 70-80-ies seriously discussed this perspective.
But there was a second project for Stalin and Beria. On the contrary, the withdrawal of Soviet troops from Europe and the creation of a neutral, independent, bloc-free Europe, European Europe, which, most importantly, was not part of the Warsaw Pact, not part of NATO. Thus, Stalin demonstrated not that he is bloodthirsty and wants to capture everything, not only that. Rather, one version is exactly the bloodthirsty version. But the second version - on the contrary, the withdrawal of Soviet troops from Europe, together with the withdrawal of NATO troops. The so-called project of Finlandization of Europe. Europe, which returns to a neutral semi-social, semi-socialist, semi-capitalist space, but ceases to be a zone of threat to Soviet interests.
The second draft was also discussed. By the way, during the Khrushchev trial over Beria, Beria was precisely this second project - the withdrawal of Soviet troops from Europe - was imputed as a betrayal. But it is already clear that all the dogs were hung on him. The point was that from a geopolitical point of view, and this was already clear in the 50-s, that for a long time we would not be kept in the spatial border passing through Europe. Either we will be drawn to the West, or we want to have more cheese, or an ideological struggle, or we simply cannot withstand this confrontation on our own. Therefore, we must either capture Europe - one version, then everything will be fine, then all the cheese will be ours. Or, on the contrary, to withdraw troops from there, but so that NATO also withdraws its troops. Such Finlandization of Europe.
Two projects, or one or the other, otherwise - the end of the Soviet Union. So Stalin considered at the end of 40-x - the beginning of 50-s. Imagine how far-sighted the leader was.