Geopolitics of war

Starting conditions decide everything
In what position the war begins, such will be the PROLOGUE of its results. Not having measured the strength and declaring war on both the East and the West, Hitler obviously lost World War II. The USSR failed to reformat the geopolitical space in its favor and was defeated in the Cold War. One must be naive to doubt that there will be a new war. She is already coming. Today, the Achilles heel of the United States is their vastness and thirst for planetary domination. Against this total American control, an anti-American guerrilla is needed, just as global as the one it is directed against.

It is difficult to talk about a big war without emotion. But if we talk about her being hot, we will not get far. When an enemy attacks your country or when your country attacks an enemy (this is essentially the same), there is no choice but to fight to the last drop of blood. Is it necessary to hate the enemy and see in him only hell to be destroyed? For most need. Otherwise, the majority will not have enough motivation to kill and die.

There are, however, a special type of people; in India they were called Kshatriyas, warriors for whom to kill and die - their life, their breath, their honor, their being. Hegel in the Phenomenology of the Spirit called it the principle of the Lord. The lord looks death in the face, eyes in the eyes. And joins her in a duel. Whoever the lord fights with, he fights with death. And he can do nothing but fight with death - to kill others and take risks. This makes him the Master.

But there is another type, according to Hegel, the type of Slave. A slave to the fear of death is ready to do anything. This humility, he bargain for his life. But this is the life of a slave. The slave turns away from death, does not see her, hides from her.
And the Lord is the Lord, and the Slave The slave makes death. Heraclitus called it hostility, polemos, battle. The lord in the battle with death does not gain immortality, he gains a slave. And the Slave gains security by refusing to fight death, but only at the cost of being ruled over by the Master.

People who by definition cannot have all the Lords of the polls should have a very serious motivation to fight. They should be shocked to the depths of the soul. The enemy must do something that will hit them, turn them over, blow them up from the inside. And then they rise to holy war. And often win it.

But for the elite, war is a common thing. In order to get involved in it, do not even need a special occasion. Therefore, the Master is able to see his own reflection in the enemy. And even sympathize with the one whom he is going to kill and at the hands of whom he may die at any moment. This masterly, elite, Kshatrian attitude to the war understood Nietzsche perfectly well, which shocked the peace-loving masses, the masses of Slaves.

I would like to make a few remarks on the geopolitics of the Second World War, without addressing the masses, not in the language of the masses, without setting a goal to support their pathos. I understand this pathos, accept it and in no way would like to cool it. This is a sacred pathos. People who remember the war and just think about the war are seized by a sense of the sacred, which rarely visits them at other times. This feeling is valuable in itself. Because death is valuable in itself, and thoughts about it are valuable. And yet I'm going to talk about something else. And completely cold.

Three probable alliances
In war, the starting conditions decide a great deal. This was perfectly understood by Song Tzu and Clausewitz. How, in what position the war begins, so will its results. This position (along with allies) geopolitics fit into space. Consequently, the starting conditions of the war have a clear spatial expression. This is the basis of the geopolitical analysis of the war itself - completely separate from the ideological,
economic or military-technical analysis.

Let's try to give a brief overview of the starting conditions of the Second World War from a geopolitical point of view.

At the end of the 30s, there were three geopolitical blocs with pronounced ideological features in the world. The symmetry between their spatial location and their ideological structure was so expressive that sometimes it seems that we are dealing with a myth and the geography of a fairy tale.

The most western regions of the world (Western Europe and the USA) were a liberal-capitalist pole. In the east was located the socialist USSR. Between them are the Axis countries, where strictly intermediate ideology reigned with elements of both capitalism and socialism (national socialism, fascism). Three zones (extreme West - Central Europe - USSR / Eurasia) - three ideologies: capitalism - national socialism - socialism.

And although it was objectively going towards war, all three blocs had certain freedom in alliances. That is, in theory, it was possible to assume three versions:

-West together with the Axis countries against the East / USSR (capitalism + national socialism against socialism);

Axis countries together with the East / USSR against the West (socialism + national socialism against capitalism) and, finally,

- Axis countries against the West and the East (as it happened), which pushed the East and the West, socialism and capitalism towards an absolutely unnatural from an ideological point of view alliance.

Why unnatural? Because socialism had both ideological and geopolitical similarities with National Socialism. The same relative similarity was with National Socialism and capitalism. But socialism and capitalism, ideologically or geopolitically, had no contact points. Of course, all three geopolitical actors condemned the rest, but the logic in these ideologies was still quite powerful and autonomous.

We see how the two most logical (from a purely theoretical point of view) systems of alliances are drawn on the eve of World War II: the Munich Agreement demonstrates the emerging alliance of the capitalist West with the national-socialist Germany against the USSR, and the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact is quite symmetrical (it’s not clear why his rage about it so much!) - the emerging alliance of the socialist USSR with National Socialist Germany against the capitalist West. Both of these possibilities somehow remained open until the beginning of the war.

Geopolitik Haushofer: ideas, students, descendants
The largest geopolitician of the twentieth century, Karl Haushofer, understood these patterns very clearly. And he immediately put forward two geopolitical projects for Hitler's Germany, both to some extent consistent with the geopolitical and even ideological logic. Either the Continental bloc (Berlin - Moscow - Tokyo), to which Haushofer himself was emotionally inclined, or an alliance with England (and also with the USA and France) against the USSR (to work out this possibility, Rudolf Hess, a pupil of Haushofer, flew to England). Either the Munich Agreement or the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact, Haushofer was convinced.

But not Hitler. And the Fuhrer makes a different decision: the war on two fronts - neither the West, nor the East. Cool? From the ideological point of view is extremely cool! But absolutely suicidal. The war in such a geopolitical context was obviously lost by Germany. And the fact that Germany and the Axis countries have managed to do so much almost doesn’t fit their heads. But any military successes of the Germans could not influence the end result.

Therefore, the son of Haushofer Albrecht in 1944, when not only Haushofer, but also many others, it became quite obvious that Hitler had become “evil fate” for Germany (E. Nikisch), was personally involved in the conspiracy against him. An attempt is made, Albrecht Haushofer is shot in a Moabit prison. But against the background of the perishing millions, the language does not turn to call it a tragedy. Just a hollow click of the shutter and the body hollow against the wall. Technical detail.

The war against Germany and the East meant for Germany inevitable death. So it happened. After 1945, both independent Central Europe and National Socialism disappeared from the political map. The world was divided into two parts - between the West (capitalism) and the East (socialism). Victory. How long?

Cold War: retake cards
A year after taking Berlin, in 1946, another war begins - the cold one. War is like war. And again, the geography of the "fairy tale" - the West against the East, capitalism against socialism. Amazing symmetry between geography and ideology.

We look at the starting conditions of this war. They will determine who will win in it.

After 1945, the United States finally intercepts the initiative from England and becomes a stronghold of the Western world and the center of world liberal capitalism. And here it turns out that the United States is ideally protected strategically by sea borders and was in favorable conditions during the Second World War, because, not counting the Pearl Harbor episode, it was unpleasant, but not fatal, they fought on foreign territory. This is also difficult, but it is easier than anything else on its own.

The civilian population is like cucumbers, the industry works with might and main, the economy is flourishing. Europe and the USSR are in ruins. That is, the United States has America (as an excellent and secure island bridgehead), there is a strategically key military base in the face of Western Europe, completely dependent on the new center of the West and capitalism in the military-strategic and economic sense (Marshall Plan) and global geopolitical and ideological enemy in the person of the USSR / East.

And what about us, the winners over the Germans? From Germany we got Prussia (the smaller part of Germany). In the countries that we liberated from fascism, we didn’t have time to fall in love with us in our hearts (it’s not easy to love us at all - but who, on the other hand, is simple?) The border of our influence is land and somehow adjoins our territory directly.

Americans, on the other hand, are reliably protected and ready, in the event that Russians go all in, to sacrifice Europeans.

What happens? And the fact that we are in such a situation, sooner or later lose the cold war. And again, everything is decided starting conditions.

Stalin's plans that were not realized
This is clearly understood by Stalin and Beria. By the end of 40-x, they begin to take shape two alternative project to change the geopolitical positioning. The first option is offensive: push the boundaries of the socialist camp to the Atlantic. In France and Italy, the left is strong. Throw - and the Russian go to the English Channel. Utopia? Do not tell me. We have repeatedly marched around European capitals, we could have walked once more.

The second option is “Finlandization”, that is, “neutralization” of Europe. The withdrawal of Soviet troops from there - but ... with the condition of the withdrawal of the American and the dissolution of NATO. Europe must be strictly neutral. (This plan, supposedly “spy”, was blamed on Beria when Khrushchev eliminated it). Which one is better? Both are good, because only they are geopolitically realistic. We did not change the starting conditions of the Cold War, sooner or later we would have come to an end. From a geopolitical point of view, this is a first class task.

The end has come. Late, but came. We just scared everyone so much that they did not dare to undermine us for a long time. But nevertheless it happened. USSR collapsed. The cold war was lost. Socialism fell, the USSR fell, the East fell.

The victory of 1945 of the year remained in the distant past, its geopolitical results were taken away from us. Together with the country that won this war, along with the ideology that inspired this Victory.

On the eve of the war
Now what? The wars are over? Well, yes ... We must not know mankind at all in order to allow such absurd hypotheses. Humanity and war are synonymous. People have fought and will always fight. Some voluntarily, because they love this thing, others forcibly, because nothing else remains. Admit it - realism. Trying to avoid it is stupid fear. What war awaits us?

First, one is already underway. This is the establishment of a global order by the West. The West won the Cold War, with a formalized, geopolitically and ideologically structured rival finished. With us, the winners in the Second World War, finished. Put over us to rule their wardens. But he still has some problems. Now, the truth is more of a policeman, of internal political nature, since the entire planet for the West has become an internal territory. The place of wars was taken by punitive police expeditions on "their" (as they say in Washington) land. And they punish anyone they see fit — Saddam Hussein, Mullah Omar, Bin Laden, or Muammar Gaddafi. Bashir al-Assad, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and then, apparently, Chavez, Morales, Humala, Lukashenko and ... (sooner or later) Putin are next in line.

But on the way of this atlantist globalist rink, no-no and yes, there are obstacles. The most serious is China. The ideologically active is the Islamic world. Technically problematic is the Russian nuclear arsenal and the Russian society unfriendly to the colonizers. Economically competitive - Europe. Snooty and defiant - Latin America, where the enemies of the USA come to power one by one (Chavez, Morales, now Humala in Peru). The American empire is fighting with “global rebels” and hastily, by the hands of collaborators, eliminates mechanisms, infrastructure and arsenals dangerous for them. A new world order is built by the carrot and carrot, nets, propaganda and chaos.

But ... The one who took the sword ... The violence causes the violence, the captive himself himself sooner or later finds himself in captivity.

The US is at war with the world, with humanity, asserting that their power is “good” and their hegemony is “comfortable.” It may be so, but it is slavery. In the end, everything will suit the slaves, even if the power is not so comfortable (no one asks them at all). But now the Lord is not satisfied with anything but a look in Her eyes ...

So, there is a moment ahead when the world or those who remain in it as Lords, kshatriyas, will truly join this war.

What are the starting conditions for this impending war?

The American Empire is overstretched. The United States is trying to control such amounts of space that no one could control. This is their vulnerability.
Victory and defeat replace each other. Victory is joy and delight. Defeat is bitterness and dark flour. But it is the fate of a person - to rejoice and be tormented, to love and to kill. And all this in the face of inevitable radiant death. A warrior wants only one thing: that she be glorious.
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Vadivak 28 October 2011 11: 18 New
    • 3
    • 0
    Hedgehog is understandable one of the reasons for the defeats in all wars is the excessive length of communications that Kutuzov lured Napoleon to Moscow, that Stalin was Adolph near Stalingrad. So the States, in order to keep the milestones of their vassals in fear, need to be in constant tension, otherwise as soon as the lads feel the weakness - all goodbye hegemony - to freedom with a clear conscience
  2. nickname bj
    nickname bj 28 October 2011 14: 16 New
    • 0
    • 0
    In hindsight, everyone is strong ...
  3. datur 28 October 2011 14: 32 New
    • -1
    • 0
    the Americans decided to grab a piece of the pie - which they could not choke on. more precisely, they have already begun to choke. but greed doesn’t stop - it’s choking for the better wink
  4. zczczc
    zczczc 28 October 2011 14: 49 New
    • 1
    • 0
    I don’t understand, why not create a certain analogue of the UN, but not a prostitution? Choose there respected people from different countries.
    1. kostiknet 28 October 2011 14: 55 New
      • 4
      • 0
      respected by whom? in Lithuania, for example, the Nazis and other gallows are respected, in most European countries they respect our current enemies! We in our native CIS cannot decide who we respect and who we don’t winked (you respect me, I respect you, so you and I DEAR PEOPLE !!!! wink ) Other selection criteria are necessary.
  5. LESHA pancake
    LESHA pancake 28 October 2011 15: 12 New
    • 0
    • 0
    1. Pole 28 October 2011 20: 01 New
      • 1
      • 0
      The Yankee strategy resembles the usual tactics in starcraft (sorry for the comparison, I just had a nagging gameplay yesterday, and spent a couple of hours) - to seize resources, at the expense of them live and build up military potential that will allow us to seize more resources, technically develop (all for the same purpose ) And, according to the same strategy - you can’t stop! Unless they run into a strong opponent !!!!
      And the more they “spin the flywheel” - the less time we have.
      1. Motherland
        Motherland 28 October 2011 20: 17 New
        • 0
        • 0
        But sooner or later, resources will run out for the weak, which is what we are observing, that is, now the United States needs to conduct actions each time with a stronger country to pump for free.
        1. It’s clear why they still beat Russia and set up against the whole world and build a missile defense system, but if the United States didn’t attack it means the army isn’t completely destroyed and can send a great many of their soldiers to hell.
        2. We have a strategic nuclear forces, and if they attack, and the army can’t cope, we have every right to put all the country's nuclear potential on them, for the time being it is holding them back. Something else I wanted to finish but the thought flew out.
        3. We all know since comparisons have switched to games, and in life it is clear that even against the guerrilla war, even dominating in quantity, quality, having a bunch of super equipment is hard to fight, so the amers from our military have already taken lessons in the fight against partisans.
        My conclusion is that as long as the United States has an alternative to attacking Russia, they won’t get there, they’re too cowardly and we all know how the aggressors end up in Russia.
  6. Don
    Don 28 October 2011 16: 09 New
    • 0
    • 0
    An interesting and original article, I put a plus.
  7. Magadan 29 October 2011 00: 07 New
    • 3
    • 0
    The article is good, I read it somewhere before. There may be one snag - why exactly should the US attack Russia? Why not just arm the very same Saakashvili / Baltic States / anyone else on our borders? Then give them a couple more billion bucks for mercenaries from "private armies" (these armies, by the way, are now being tested in all hot spots) Get an army armed with the latest technology with 1 million mercenaries and fuck us from three directions. What kind of nuclear weapons are there? Are we going to peck on our own borders and on our own territories captured in the first days of the war?
    States will not substitute their population under a vigorous bomb. But they need to capture us, they have nowhere to go — our resources are needed and the destruction of the only potential geopolitical adversary (then China itself will shut up without us, too bound up with exports to the USA)
    You need to think. Something is planned for them, but the brain of those guys is so perverted that it would not occur to a normal person what they had in mind
    1. kesa1111
      kesa1111 29 October 2011 03: 12 New
      • 1
      • 0
      One of the US soothsayers said that there would be a terrorist attack using Pakistani nuclear weapons, such as the Islamists who would steal it. The Pakistani authorities believed and disassembled everything suitable for this into 4 or more parts. Components are transported to different parts of the country. The resulting terrorist attack is not possible in principle, in any case with Pakistani nuclear weapons. And they believed because they recorded preparations for a strike of retaliation, before the prediction.
    2. rusosturistas
      rusosturistas 30 October 2011 04: 49 New
      • 0
      • 0
      Their brains may be perverted, but the Russian nation has smarter analytics, only the country's capabilities or individuals do not allow them to implement their conclusions.