“There is no longer any doubt that with the end of the Cold War a lengthier world development period came to an end, spanning 400-500 years during which European civilization had dominated in the world. The historical West had consistently advanced on the edge of this dominance.”” The new stage is occasionally defined as “post-American.” But, of course, this is not a “world after the US” and even less so without the

US. It is a world where as a result of the rise of other global centers of power and influence the relative significance ofAmerica’s role dwindles, as was already the case over recent decades in the global economy and trade. Leadership is an entirely different question though; it’s above all the question of achieving harmony within a circle of partners, of the ability to be the first, but among equals.”“To define the content of an emerging world order, such terms as multipolar, polycentric and nonpolar are also put forward”

“We do not share the concerns that the current reconfiguration in the world will unavoidably lead to “chaos and anarchy.” There goes the natural process of the formation of a new international architecture – political as well as financial-economic – which would correspond to the new realities.”

“Russia conceives itself as being a part of European civilization having common Christian roots”

“The rigid Anglo-Saxon model of economic and social development is again, as it did in the 1920s, beginning to wobble.the global financial-economic architecture was largely created by the West to suit its own needs. And now that we watch the generally recognized shift of financial-economic power and influence towards the new fast-growing economies, such as China, India, Russia and

Brazil, the inadequacy of this system to the new realities becomes obvious. In reality, a financial-economic basis is needed which would conform to the polycentricity of the contemporary world. The manageability of world development can’t be restored otherwise.” 

More than a year after Sergei Lavrov’s assertions (June 2008), the only report that comes to mind is that the financial crisis has totally confirmed those assertions. At the dawn of the autumn 2009, the Western world is about to leave History by the smallest door, after having transmitted its metastasis to the whole humanity. In this world in transition, it would be good to wonder what game the European populations intend to play. 

At that time where the line breakages are less and less legible, it would be good to remember that the only chance of survival of the Europeans is to get out of the suicidal atlantist rut and to develop a true and integrated collaboration with the Federation of Russia. This European-Russian partner could contribute to peace within Heartland, in the hart of this new multi polar and decentralized world.  

In a multi polar and decentralized world the European unity is unavoidable 

Far from the ideal of psychology armchair, the reality of tomorrow is based on demography and economy. The decrease ofAmerica’s influence is also proved by the increase of many other actors:Brazil,Russia,India,China and the Arab Muslim world, both rich in energy and human capital. The world population reaches 6, 5 billions of inhabitants and will be over the 9 billions in 2050.  Europe counts today 758 millions inhabitants 91/3 of the EU0 and should see its population fall down, between 564 millions and 632 millions inhabitants i.e. 7 % to 8% of the world population and less than 20% of the GDP (about the same than China on its own). 

France as an example should count 70 millions inhabitants in 2050, i.e. 0,8% of the world population, 1 inhabitant out of 3 being more than 60 years old and half of its youngest population being mainly African and from Northern Africa. 

In this context, and despite the punchy speeches of credible and interesting personalities (Nicolas DuPont Aignant, Paul Marie Couteaux or Jean Pierre Chevènement to only quote those), the way out of the EU and the return to a national sovereignty is surely the very last solution to think of. 

The EU is imperfect to 99%, because being led byBrussels, and under the influence of ‘’the American party’’, who treatsEurope as an American colony. 

Worse the Americans (who wish first to maintain their dominating position and defend their own interests) do not want a united and powerfulEurope. ThisEurope may not follow them in their military offensives or even oppose to them diplomatically and maybe militarily. 

This is the reason why the Americans try everything in order to have their Troy horse entering the EU (Turkey) in order to create dissension and destabilize a homogeneous whole on its way. 

Let us not forget, at last, thatTurkey is the second army of NATO and withIsrael the pawn ofAmerica in the Near East, while occupyingCyprus. 

This is the reason whyAmerica has done everything in order to persuade De Gaulle not to obtain the nuclear independency and to stopFrance to exit the NATO commandment. 

An independentFrance would be a prelude to an independentEurope. The latter could lead to the worse situations for theUS strategists: the loss of the advantages gained at the end of the World War II with the occupation ofWestern Europe and therefore the loss of the Heartland western side. 

This is also the reason why some strategists of the ‘American party’ in Europe have understood the necessity to support the EU refusals through the anti EU and the Europhobic parties such asIreland with the Libertas candidate. 

More recently, the Europhobic Philippe de Villiers has also joined the atlantist party of Nicolas Sarkozy, UMP, a party though openly pro EU, after that UMP has had France joining the NATO commandment. 

The loss of sovereignty for the European countries is a process that went through 2 stages. 

* The first one is the end of the empires, originating from theWestphalia treaty, supporting the national identity concept (nation state) as the primary identity. This “nationalisation” of the European identities has generated the 30 years war that destroyed our continent in the first half of the 20th century. Strange coincidence, theWestphalia treaty ended a European civil war that lasted 30 years. 

* The second is the stage of the fragmentation into regions. This process, are we told, is very progressive politically (i.e. regions would be the ultimate stage of the European integration). But it is in fact the result of a deliberate external political process aiming at weakeningEurope, by fragmenting in small pieces that are left with neither economical independence nor military sovereignty. 

This was the case in particular for Eastern Europe, e.g.Czechoslovakia,Yugoslavia or theUSSR, for obvious reasons: Those nations are not under the western influence since long so they are suspected of being hostile to the Euro –Atlantic Axis. 

Of course, it is no surprise that most of the regionalist European political parties are also the most Europhiles and the ones fighting most actively for a NATO expansion and a Euro – Atlantic integration. 

Those same political alignments are shared by theBrussels commissioners, devoted agents of the American interests inEurope. 

The Europe of Brussels is of course the opposite of the powerful and independentEurope that we want. The EU made of flesh, the reel EU (the non legal one) is the only aim to defend in order for the Europeans to control their destiny and to become more than spectators, to become actors. 

The world of tomorrow though will probably not be a more opened world than the one we know. It surely will be a world made of blocks in conflict, conflict for territories zones and civilisations. 

In this world of increasing tensions the key forEurope is to gain a structure of defence that belongs to it and allows her to protect its interests and citizens. 

In that sense, the proposals of President Medvedev on the necessity of creating a Pan European structure of security (replacing NATO) are a real challenge and the most interesting one, forEurope. 

In a multi polar world, let us exit NATO and create a continental and NON Atlantic defence’s system. 

NATO is a military alliance created is 1949 in order to faceUSSR, but also in order to avoid a new risk to Europe (as it had been the case withGermany). Fast, this alliance, under the Anglos Saxons’ influence, led to the creation of a competing alliance in the other bloc, the soviet one, in 1955: ‘’ The Warsaw Pact’’. This double alliance split up the world in two rival blocs, until 1958 while the De GaulleFrance decided to leave the Anglo Saxon block and to develop its own nuclear programme. 

In 1966, France leaves the NATO commandment and the NATO HQ moves from Paris to Brussels, which is still the case nowadays. Brussels hosts the European institutions as well as the NATO ones. 30 years later in 1995, the French President Jacques Chirac started the negotiations to get back into the integrated commandment of NATO. This return was confirmed and focalized by President Sarkozy on the 17^th March 2009. 

Why this return ? What were the motivations of France to become an essential NATO actor ? 

NATO has got today only two essential functions, both in the interest ofAmerica and both against the European interests. 

First it has become a conquest weapon of the Eurasian heartland byAmerica and its extension towards the East and the Russian borders. New nations are asked to join under wrong justifications, i.e. the historical fear of a Russian imperialism.  But this imperialism does not exist any longer. Only the American strategists keep it alive at perfection. 

Under the pretext of entering the Euro-Atlantic partnership, NATO installs itself in the hart of Europe, pushesRussia back towards its own eastern borders and dividesEurope once more, with the installation of American bases in front of the Russian borders. 

This is the real aim of theSerbia campaign.Serbia is an ally ofRussia in the logic of the Pentagon. With the bondsteel base but also the orchestrated revolution inUkraine, the aim ofAmerica was to implement an American base inCrimea, in order to respond to the Russian base. 

Since the 11/09/NATO has become a crusaders army at the eyes of the Muslim world, the same American strategists trying to convince us that NATO is a protection against the aggressive and terrorist Islamism. 

No need though to be a scientist in order to understand that the Iraq and Afghanistan campaigns, if they could be won (which will probably not be the case) will not defeat ‘’terrorist’’ Islamism. Islamism is used today like an excuse in order to justify much older geopolitical objectives. Do we not suspect that the Afghanistan attack has been justified by the 11^th September, but planned much before and that its reel aim had been the implementation of US troops in the heart ofEurasia? 

Can we, without laughing, believe that the baathist Iraq of Saddam Hussein was one of the vectors of the world Islamist terrorism, or targeted for its petrol dwells? 

Domination wars of theUSA are wars aiming at controlling the natural resources that are concentrated (apart from Arctic) in the Arab peninsula,Iraq,Iran, Persian Gulf, Southern Russia (Caucasus) andAfghanistan. 

Those resources conflicts are provoked by wrong motives, which are notEurope’s one. Worse, they may leadEurope to ethnical and religious tensions on ‘’its’’ territory. 

Yugoslavia disintegration showed us how much a security structure was essential in order to maintain its harmony and face the external destabilizations. The recent Kosovo issue has perfectly shown that Europe is the bridge head that serves theUSA who attack and invadeEurasia.America therefore creates tensions between European populations and in particular withRussia, to whom the ‘’Serbia’’ warning was addressed. 

The vote of the Silk road strategy Act by the US Congress in 1999 was aimed at ‘’favouring’ the independence of the Caucasus and the Central Asian countries and at creating a land bridge in order to divert the road of the Silk Road to the Turkish harbours, therefore a NATO country. 

The BATCH oil pipeline that passes byGeorgia is following the same strategy and also partly explains the development of the military assistance toGeorgia, since the arrival at power of Mikhaïl Saakachvili. 

In a multi polar world with many centres, we could avoid a continental disintegration 

In 1999 despite the attack onSerbia and after 10 years of total collapse, the assumption by Vladimir Poutine straightensRussia up and replaces the country at the front of the word political scene. Europe has toppled over NATO (by its participation to the bombing ofSerbia).Russia,China, and the Muslim nations of Central Asia create in 2001 theShanghai organisation as well as the OSTC in 2002. Those military Eurasian and inter-religious alliances aim at replying to the double Chinese and Russian surrounding by the American army and at defending the Eurasian regional well defined area. 

Zbigniew Brezinski said: «The Eurasian strategy of the USA brought Russia and China closer. The two continental powers are building a real military alliance in order to face the Anglo Saxon coalition and its allies. »  

The American offensive towards the East (fromBerlin toKiev) has materialized in two majors steps, from 1996 until 2009. 

In 1996, GUUAM was born. It regroupsGeorgia,Uzbekistan,Ukraine,Azerbaijan andMoldavia. 

Those nations wish to get out of the post soviet bosom, right after theBerlin wall fall and whileRussia was collapsing. It is not surprising that those nations who have strategic geographical positions, consequently have been the victims of revolutions financed by the CIA (orange revolution, tulips, roses and recently inMoldavia too after the elections). They also have been the victims of changes of western regimes. The most representative members of this association are the observers,Turkey and Latvia (!). 

Nevertheless those regimes have not made it through, despite the expectations of their supporters (integration to NATO and EU, improvement of life). 

On the contrary, those overthrown regimes have degraded economically and no integration into the euro-atlantist model occurred. 

This is the reason why the departure ofUzbekistan in 2005 and the absence of concrete realization of the organization have led the latter to become inexistent politically. In May 2006 the political scientist Zardust Alizadé fromAzerbaijan expressed his doubts regarding the development of the alliance and of the alliance’s ‘’practical results’’. 

Today, the second step sees a quite aggressive materialization through the creation of a new front that we may call GUA (Georgia,Ukraine, andArctic). InGeorgia: the political incapacity of the president has pushed the American strategists to launch a military operation in August 2008. This operation failed because the Russian army has replied with a lot of strength and has liberated the territories ofOssetia and Abkhazia.  This conflict is the first conflict opposingRussia toAmerica out of the Russian borders. The previous conflict had been the Whabitt destabilization inChechnya, instigated mainly by the CIA. 

In Ukraine the recent conflicts about gas show the growing tensions and a bright observer recently said that ‘’ a limited conflict, under the pretext of a territorial dispute, will surely burst and lead to a rupture of the gas’ supplies for a more or less long period of time. Those gas crises are provoked in order to train the Europeans to get used to such cuts.’’ 

Artic would need another article just for itself. I invite my readers to read my previous articles on the topic here and there and to consult the blog « zebrastationpolaire ». 

Those manoeuvres of surroundings, of containment and of destabilization have various objectives: 

–  To control theBlack sea the Caspian and Baltic seas perimeters as they are essential zones of transit between the East and the West. 

– To control the future corridors of energy in particular via a building project of oil and gas pipelines going round Russia but linking the regions of the Caspian sea with the ones of the Black and the Baltic sea.
– To spread the NATO influence further East in the heart of Eurasia in order to reduce the sphere of influence of Russia (on its close stranger) but mainly in Europe, and avoid a potential development of the Chinese influence towards Central Asia.   

Of course, a non experienced reader will tell me that the Russians and the Americans have never stopped to fight since 1945 and that globally this is not the business of Europe and of the Europeans. Well, this is exactly the contrary. 

In a multipolar world with many centres, the Euro-RussianAlliance is the key stone for peace on the continent. 

The consequences we told you about in this article are dramatic forEurope. They will cut Europe fromRussia at a civilization, geopolitical, political and energetic level. 

They will create a new wall in Europe, not inBerlin but in the heart ofUkraine, separating the West (under the American influence) from the East (under the Russian influence). 

In a more pragmatic way this fracture nearly cuts the Orthodox Europe from the catholic and protestant Europe, underlining the theory of S.Hungtinton in his book « The shock of civilisations ». Last, let us note that China, a crucial geopolitical and economical actor, probably sees Europe (through NATO) as co-responsible of the surrounding situation that it (China) faces, West (military American bases in central Asia) and East (the Pacific along its shores, with also many American bases). 

This rupture with two essential actors that areRussia (the biggest country in the world) andChina (the most populated country of the world) are very serious. 

In case of growing tensions with NATO and OCS, France and the other European countries would be in a conflict with an organisation that nearly groups together, one man out of three in the world, covers 32, 3 millions of km² et resources wise groups together 20 % of the petroleum world resources, 38% of natural gas, 40% coal and 50% uranium. 

This strategy of separation ofRussia and Europe and of Western and the centre will limit Europe in a micro territory slot in the west of the continent and will cut t from the huge possibilities that a partnership withRussia would offer.   

·         Europe needs the fabulous Russian potential, the human one (140 millions inhabitants), and the geographical one (17 millions km2 and its opening on the Pacific).Europe would therefore become a crucial actor, especially with the Asian world, the latter being in a full development process. 

·         Russia also needsEurope and the Europeans not only for allocating its primary resources but also for its technologies and human capital that it could use to fight against it depopulation at the East of Oral. Last but not least it needsEurope like a natural and complementary ally, originating from the same civilisation. 

This Euro- Russian unity is the only warrant of peace and independence for the continent populations. It is vital, it is strongly advised, because the Western European and the Russians belong to the same civilisation first of all. 

As Natalia Narotchnitskaïa recently said inParis during a colloquy: 

 « The real cooperation between Russia and Europe could give a new energy to our continent, at the dawn of the third millenary. The big roman – German and Russo- Orthodox cultures share one and only one apostolic foundation, the Christian and spiritual one. Europeans, whether they are western or Russians, have given to the world the biggest examples of the orthodox and Latin spirituality.’’ 

These are the reasons whyRussia is the future ofEurope.