Category Archives: Articles in English

Moscow, Capital of the European civilisation

On the 25th August 2008 the Financial Times bitterly wrote that Washington was left watching other superpowers modify the world reality. In a 1991 FT edition, such an assertion would only have found its place in a rubric such as ‘’ Catastrophe scenario for the future’’ or ‘’science fiction’’.
It is true though that the American media in 1991 was focused on other events: USSR had just collapsed, together with the Berlin wall. In Iraq’s sands, Bush Senior promised Humanity a ‘’New World Order’’, a fair, marvellous and above all unilateral order, under the protection of the starry flag, while Europe was starting its reunification process. We had gone into an era of so called ‘’Pax Americana’’ with all its corollaries, would they be military, financial, or economical.
Some had even predicted the end of History. History taught us they were wrong. The ‘’unipolar period’’ did not last long. 10 years only were necessary in order for an unlikely attack happens on the American territory. From then, the Empire launched two military conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq, in the name of the fight against terrorism, dragging along most European nations. This Europe, that pad twice a heavy tribute for its ‘’collaboration’’ with NATO, in 2004 an 2006.
Less than 20 years after the USSR collapse, one must notice that the FT title is very topical, as the country prepares itself to choose its new leaders. A 5 days defensive war in Southern Caucasus, cleverly won by Russia, was enough to jam the expansion process of NATO. For the first time, a superpower thwarted militarily the United States of America. In August 2008, the Russian tanks that defended Tsinvali had made the old unilateral and neo liberal world, totter.
Against NATO, the America’s weapon against Europe
As Novopress underlined it very well, it is usual to see America as the immutable ally of Europe- having saved it from the Brown and red totalitarianism. If this is partly true, we seem to permanently forget that the American hegemony has leaned on the takeover of Europe. The 1914 war, was the occasion for the USA to liquidate the European and continental empires of the Axis (German, Austrian, Ottoman), to impose the dollar reign against the Pound but also to confiscate the seas supremacy to England. Theodore Roosevelt even declared: ‘we have failed profiting of the war!’
His cousin Franklin Rooselvet learned his lesson and will bargain his incoming to war in 1943 at the Anfa conference, imposing his terms to De Gaulle and Giraud. Both had to dismantle the French colonial empire in the next 30 years. In 1945 in Yalta, Roosevelt knowingly and cynically delivered half of Europe to Staline, assuring the success of communism and its extension for 50 years, while maintaining Europe divided and therefore weakened. Today, this logic of Europe’s subdivision is found again, maintained again by the American strategists since the 2004 Iraq conflict (Old/New Europe opposition) and the short term politics of the EU newcomers, i.e. the new colonial states of America (would it be Poland, or the Baltic States). This short term policy adopted by the newcomers is irrational because it follows a post cold war logic, that is to say, before anything else, a nationalist, anti Europe and mainly anti Russia policy.
This military and economical black mail is reinforced by an energetic black mail, as this ‘’pressured’’ European sub division would justify the participation of the Europeans to brutal and violent actions world wide, in the name of Democracy. Those actions hide in fact control attempts of energetic fields rejecting Russia (Kosovo with AMBO, Afghanistan with UNLOCAL, battle for the Caspian Sea, Nabucco project, etc.)
Since the USSR and the Berlin wall falls, NATO has though no reason to be anymore. It is unable to get rid of terrorists and Afghan opium traffic, as reminded very recently Serguei Lavrov< NATO has become an archaic organisation, aimed at failing and not reflecting ‘’anymore’’ the European interests. It is true that the Soviet threat and the Varsow Pact has disappeared, and the new terrorist threat has diminished and is nearly inexistent (due to a Ben Laden trained by CIA), without a recurrent NATO participation across the world. Europeans must understand that their soldiers are just the completion of the American army and get killed for wars that are not theirs! Even worse, by collaborating with NATO, Europe is entering in a conflict position with actors that are essential to the peace and the stability, would it be in the Muslims world (where NATO is perceived as an ‘’alliance of modern crusaders’’) or the Eurasian world, where NATO is perceived like an American tool creating trouble, for instance by Russia, a tomorrow superpower, but also China, India, or Iran> All those powers are related the ones to the others through the Regional Organisation of the Shanghai Cooperation.
 
Towards the civilisation and continental gathering
This new multi axis order seems to take shape via the emergence of big civilisation and identity groups (EU, China, Russia, India…). This phenomena of ‘’gathering’’ above a regional level is opposed to the ‘’fragmentation’’ movement to which America works in Europe. This fragmentation process is aimed at creating small groups easily controllable economically, and militarily dependants (Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, project of dividing Russia into three parts…).
Those fragmentations are generated by NATO and are dogmatically attributed to the collapse of the USSR. Those new ‘’self centred’’ gatherings only occur in Eurasia but on all continents, in South America (Argentina, Brazil, Venezuela and Bolivia), in Africa or in the Muslim, Arab or pan Turkish world.
Those gatherings were born via historical, civilisation and economical hearts. Those imperial hearts are generally the big ethno capitals of the concerned zones, e.g. Pekin for China, Tokyo for Japan, Caracas or Rio for South America,, ‘’Muslims’’ living since a long time between Mecca, Teheran and Istanbul, with a empowering of the Muslims from Asia.
One must note that Russia has a unique place, at the intersection of all worlds: the Islamic one via OCI, the western one via COR, the Asian one due to its geography and OCS participation.
 
The Euro- Russian continental alliance, source of peace across the world
Among those gatherings or groups that represent an economical and even military competition, America fears the big Europe, the ‘’continental front’’, much more. This economical and military giant, this gigantic empire from Reykjavik to Vladivostok, laid on 11 time zones is the potential economical and military leader of the world. The division that was wished and wanted by American Strategists has one aim only: impede by all means a pan European unity! John O’Sullivan wrote in 1845 in ‘’ dans “Our Manifest Destiny’’: With the collapse of Europe, America will become the world Master.’’ In 1890 the book ‘’our country’’ underlines that ‘’ the ageing Europe does not have the means to safeguard the civilisation values of the West, retaken in hand by a dynamic emergent America’’ and the conclusion is ‘’Europe must perish!’’
All across the 20th century America having taken the control of the seas (over England) strategists will theorize the second essential step: the control of the lands, and mainly of the Eurasian ‘’Heartland’’. The work art of it has been explained more than 10 years ago by Bzezinski in his book ‘’the big chessboard’’.
America being isolated form the world in between two oceans knows that the world future will be played on the Eurasian continent as this is where most civilisations, human beings but also resources, are aggregated. For America to remain a world leader ist must impede another leader to emerge (German-Russian alliance) and must protect itself from an alliance between the future leaders of this zone (Europe and Russia for instance). America is therefore opposed more and more aggressively to any rapprochement between Europe and Russia (North Stream for instance as an economical one) or military (Helsinki2?). They also try to increase the fracture between the Europeans and the Russians (NATO expansion to the East and creation of military conflicts like in Georgia and probably tomorrow in Ukraine..)
 
Moscow : Capital of Europe
5000 years ago the European civilization was nested in the Slavic, Mediterranean and Greek cradle, and it was so for 3000 years, from the Mycenaeans to the Greeks, then to the Macedonians, from Knossos to Athens. The Europe became roman. This was the Pax Romana that lasted 6 centuries and led to the creation of two Christian empires, so called Western and Eastern. After the panic of the Germanic invasions, an embryo of Europe got created, mixing Christianity and Germanity, a Frank Barbarian being baptised in Roma.
After Knossos, Athens, Roma and Aix les Bains, it will be Byzance /Constantinople that will remain the united capital (of the East) during 8 more centuries, founding its unity on Christianity and the Greek language, relocating the heart of Europe on the Mediterranean shores. The 5 next centuries will see the east topple under the Ottoman darkness while the Western Europe was preparing its auto genocide of the 20th century. After the big civil war of 30 years (1914-1945), the fracture between the East and the West is done. Even worse, the hearts of the European civilizations that were in war, are not territorial anymore. For Western Europe, this is now Washington that federates the freed Western world of the allies, and East, this is Moscow that becomes the heart of the Western Soviet Europe. Those two hearts both have a plan of world domination but only one will make it through the 21st century. After the Berlin wall fall, for the first time the concept of Europe disappears and is replaced by the one of West. America becomes the center of the Western world and Brussels a simple subsidiary of the Pentagon that reorganizes the fragmented Europe, in pace with its NATO military integration.
Recent events though reveal how urgent it is for Europe to emancipate itself from the American guardianship and understand that this Atlantis project (Washington- Brussels) is built on the European ruins. This project is not acceptable for the European people who wish to live in peace. Europeans have the choice today, to defend the ruins of the old western world under the NATO flag, in a logic of total confrontation with the rest of humanity, Russia to start with; Or to collaborate continent wise, viA Russia, and overcome the Visionary pan European project of De Gaulle General (Paris Berlin Moscow Axis).
Russia has felt asleep under Eltsine but has woken up. It has become the hyper centre of resistance to the forced Americanisation and to the criminal and aggressive NATO extension. Russia has proved us recently that it is ready to defend its interests but also to collaborate with Europe and participate actively to a pacifist society project, a multilateral project, based on consultation. Just like the Russians in 1999, the 2009 Europeans must wake up and free themselves from the NATO chains that now expand until the Ukrainian and Belo Russian borders. This could lead them to a conflict with Russia.
Europe is located ‘’on’’ the Eurasian continent and takes up the Atlantic front. Russia occupies the majority of the lands and the Pacific front. Europe and Russia are per se linked and belong to the same continent, Eurasia! Eurasia is the common house of the Europeans and of the Russians, from Reykjavik to Vladivostok (see the Maksim Mishenko speech on the subject). Grace of Russia another Europe, a Eurasian Europe, stands in front of the small Atlantist Europe of Brussels. After Athens, Byzance, Aix la Chapelle and Constantinople, Moscow is the new capital of Europe.
Moscow, third Rome, Anno Domini 2009.

On the politics of Russia ..

“Commentary on the last presidential elections in Russia March 2nd has been unequivocal – “absence of democracy”; “opposition stifled”; “a drift toward a single party”; “a return to Stalinist practices”, and so on. These accusations have made the rounds of television and newspapers as well as the numerous blogs dealing with Russia. Still, Dmitry Medvedev’s results reflect the evolution (maturing) of a coherent, stable electorate rooted in 1991; the year which marked the inauguration of universal suffrage, the collapse of the USSR – but also the year in which Boris Yeltsin was elected Russia’s first president! Indeed, Russia is a young and vigorous sovereign democracy!
 Explanation: the Western political checkerboard does not have anything like the same form as the Russian. The West European or Anglo-Saxon checkerboard is marked by pronounced dualisms, generally an opposition of “right-left” or “centrists-extremists”, seen eventually as “liberal parties – non-liberal parties”.  The organizational form of this political gameboard totally excludes alliances between parties of the right and left, or of centrists and extremists; you might say the political partitioning is clear-cut and does not allow for “surprises”. This political organization is that of the United States (Democrats versus Republicans) or European countries (Right versus Left as well as existence of extremist parties)…this dualism does not exist in modern, post-communist Russia.
 The Russian political board is itself comprised of a number of parties, very varied but on the whole gathered in three concentric circles, as a function of their type (nature) more than of the ideas they advocate.
The first circle, called the “central circle”, is comprised of government parties, generally indistinguishable as “right or left”. This inner circle is comprised generally of alliances of parties of or close to the Kremlin. This movement has its beginnings in 1991, the first “free” elections of Russia; it comprises an alliance of parties one could qualify as “centro-pragmatists” rather than the “centre-right” (Reform) under the Yeltsin era (1991-1999) and the “centre-patriotic” under the era of Putin (1999-2008), with an inclination toward a patriotic left axis. The common denominator in this league of government is the realignment of parties we could, broadly speaking, refer to as “patriotic”; the names of parties that, since 1991, comprise this league speak for themselves – “Homeland” (Motherland), “Unity”, “Our Home Russia”, “Our Land”, “Just Russia”, “United Russia”…the weight of this central bloc (government bloc) that Russians understand unquestioningly to represent “stability”  (social more than political) grows with each election: from 25% in 1999 to 40% in 2003 and finally to 64% in the 2007 elections. The representative of the inner circle also saw his score increase regularly in the Russian presidential elections: from 35% of the vote in 1996 to 52% in 2000, and 70% in 2004 and 2008.
An “outer circle” is comprised of opposition parties who have a solid electoral base in Russia, high scores and which surrounds the “inner circle” on the spectrum. Two most visible are the Popular Democratic Union of Russia (or Communist Party of Russia, more to the left of the political spectrum), and the Liberal Democratic Party of Russia (neo-imperial, and more to the right of the spectrum). However, there are many others, notably a party of entrepreneurs, a leftist nationalist party…but in 2005 they joined the United Russia coalition of president Vladimir Putin. It must be noted that in 1991 and 1996, the Popular Patriotic Union of Russia candidate (Gennady Zyuganov) polled equally with President Yeltsin, who was seeking a second term, this before his election gained the votes of Alexander Lebed’s supporters. Finally, in 1993, The Liberal Democratic Party of Russia (led by Vladimir Zhirinovsky) gained nearly a quarter of the vote in the parliamentary elections, becoming the first (opposition) political party to sit in the Duma.
 Finally, there is a “marginal (extreme outer) circle” composed of a quite heterogeneous mixture of parties that includes ultra-radical and extremist parties as “liberals”.  Among those regularly present at elections of the past 15 years, one could mention the “Agrarian Party”, “Yabloko”, the “Union of Right Forces”, the “Party of Regions” and various independents.
 Informed commenters, usually westerners, should give up on this so-called “liberal opposition”.  These generally westward-looking parties have seen their electoral base slowly but steadily decrease since 1991, when some of them occupied important positions in the Yeltsin government, with obvious results…their electoral weight was about 12% in the 1993 elections, 7% in the elections of 1995 and 1999, 4% in 2003 and 2% in 2006 (compared with 1.5% for the liberal presidential election candidate last March 2nd).  Yet another often-heard explanation for this electoral erosion is that “Russians don’t want to be Democrats”, or “The Kremlin censors all opposition”…indeed, these “opposition parties” have coalesced in an interesting alliance that might be called the “Disagreement Alliance”, led by two men with totally different profiles (personalities), Garry Kasparov and E. Limonov. This alliance, based on anti-Putinism, repackages a lot of associations and parties that you’ll find here, plays the media internal-destabilization card (deliberate organization of protests in front of foreign cameras, demonstrations which deteriorate only once legally refused by municipalities, etc, etc…).  Add to this Mr. Kasparov’s deliberate speech in English, and one might ask who were its real targets. Externally, these movements play on the sensitive heartstrings of the EU (human rights violations) and America (support for Orange revolutions, taking of anti-Russian stances on the Caucasus and Central Asia).
It’s a strange supposedly liberal opposition, composed of the shaven skulls of the GNP, a longing for the gulag, former convicted dissidents (such as Limonov, who is of French nationality), political associations financed by NGO’s and American Democrat George Soros’s network and leaders of American think tanks who make speeches… in English in the heart of Moscow! You really have to ask why the West concentrates so much attention on parties that are struggling to gain the legal recognition of Russian political parties, and which represent only a tiny minority of the immense Russian civil society, which is itself very active. The fact that Edward Limonov is French and Garry Kasparov is a regular guest before the TV trays of America is perhaps the beginning of an explanation…Nonetheless, some day someone should explain to Kasparov that it is Russians who must be convinced, and not the Americans and the Europeans predisposed by the atmosphere of Kremlinophobia. It is noteworthy that the two primary opposition parties have refused to join “Other Russia”, so as not to mix with undemocratic and violent elements therein, it is the party of  “Yabloko”, and the Union of Right Forces”. For the great majority of Russians in search of stability and order (after the tumult of the 90’s), this is anything but serious and overall, anything but credible. It must be reemphasized that the title “liberal” in today’s Russia means “pro-western”, which is overtly criticized since 1991 and the chaos of Yeltsin and his ministers – who often presented themselves as “reformist/liberal” – has been assimilated by the Russian collective unconsciousness as “liberalization”, “economic pillaging” and “social chaos”. In summary, if Kasparov and his cohorts are the pillars of “opposition”, it is only for westerners, as they remain relatively little known in Russia. But that is to be expected if one campaigns in English in front of the TV trays of western countries; it is difficult to be heard by the Russian people but easy to masquerade as the poet of democracy for the complicit presenters and ignorant spectators. It is noteworthy that lying only works for westerners as a strong feeling (and only at home) that the scores of foreign candidates for the Kremlin (German, French, English, UK..) are generally highly regarded in Russia.
 It’s hard to believe that the ballot-boxes are stuffed in consulates, yet the voices of Russian voters living in these “civilized, free and democratic” countries tend naturally toward the Kremlin parties. Something to think about…