Russia, Europe and the East: The dual strategy of the empire to submit Moscow
by Youssef Hindi on 14 Sep 2015 1 Comment
[An interesting reading of the current stalemate between the East and West, notwithstanding some issues of grammar and syntax- Ed]

Russia is not only a great military power, an old nation, which, from the arrival of Vladimir Putin at its head, has endeavored to balance the relation of geopolitical and economic forces. It is also a natural bridge, to varying degrees, between Europe and Asia, West and East.


This bridge, some want to destroy it for over a century, notably by means of this weapons that are the modern ideologies: Bolshevism, a deadly disease that has attacked the heart of Russia, in her soul, the Christianity; and ultra-liberalism of the 1990s, to finish up Russia. To this were added the independentism of regions of the Russian Federation, stimulated or encouraged by the United States to shoot down definitively the Russian bear. If Russia has recovered, we must understand the root causes and perceive the role and fate of Russia.


Anthropology, religion and geopolitics


The “miraculous” return of Christianity in Russia is not the result of an accident of History, but the manifestation of fundamental anthropological laws that should attract the attention of Europeans. Every society is organized around collective belief of a majority; most durable of these are of course the great religions that, especially from the industrial era have been replaced gradually by profane beliefs, materialistic and ephemeral, like the Communists and liberal utopia (from the Jewish messianism) promising worldly paradise, or the idols of money, sex and violence, which occupy an important place in the neoliberal societies. The anti-religious ideologies, like communism and secularism, exist by definition only in opposition to transcendental religions, and against the belief in a transcendent God.


But history and anthropology teach us that atheism (negative belief) when it became the majority, led to an inexorable collapse of society – no longer having to rely on religion nor on a moral stability – is reflected by the atomization of society and the emergence of individuals, lacking any horizontality (community, family, ecclesia) because deprived of verticality; to our viewpoint, both being complementary.


The historical sequence that has crossed Russia showed us how the sudden collapse of communism – the dominant ideology could not last through the maintenance of the structure that underlies it – gave way to the return of traditional religion in Russia (Nature having, according to Lavoisier, a holy horror of vacuum), namely Christianity. This allows us to anticipate the manifestation of the same phenomenon in the West and Europe in particular.


In fact, the liberal system and ideology are visibly heading for a collapse (or more precisely in progress, but we will not develop this idea here) – since the financial crisis of 2007-2008 – as the communism yesterday; in this context, we can anticipate an imminent return to religion in Europe. However, it must be feared that uncontrolled return (for those in charge: the ecclesial hierarchy) to belief in God, leads to dangerous abuses, such as the rise of gurus and impostors of all kinds. Russia managed its return to Orthodoxy through strong church integrating with the people and the state.


This leads us to conclude that Russia – beyond its economic complementarity with Western Europe – could be a stabilizing element in a Europe brought to face serious social unrest, political and identity. .. We must add to this the highly important role that Russia plays in the Middle East. She is a real bridge between Europe and the East, Christianity and Islam – as analyzed by Imran N. Hosein - as large multiethnic and multi-confessional nation; she, as a model, is a potential cure to the strategy of the clash of civilizations, a strategy which herself is one of the first targets.


The anti-Russian strategy 


This Christian Russia, this Russia as a continental power, tellurocratic, extends a natural influence on a wide geographical area inhabited by diverse populations but having paradoxically, the majority of them, a family structure of Russian type-egalitarian community; it is this relative anthropological homogeneity, which in the long term, has allowed Russia to become the “natural empire,” in contrast to his enemy, the thalassocratic American power, heir to the British Empire and carrier of differentialist ideology, imbued with social Darwinism disguised as the founder of democratism.


Russia faces a dual strategy: a US imperial strategy, for which the main brain is Zbigniew Brzezinski and on the other, what can only be specifically called the “Zionist” strategy. If the containment strategy and dismantling of the Russian Federation elaborated by Brzezinski in his book The Grand Chessboard (1997/2002), has become obvious to all observers, as for the Zionist strategy, it is much less clear .


Brzezinski’s geopolitical strategy is half a success in terms of the dominance of the heart of Europe by total submission of France and Germany, it’s done, but as for the breakdown of Russia’s provinces, allowing Americans to control all of Eurasia and control the natural resources, mainly fossil fuels, this is still the order of fantasy. The dreams of domination by Brzezinski are broken by the Russian wall, by the sovereigntist Putin.


But the crisis in Ukraine – countries which Brzezinski gave special attention and wanted to absolutely separate from Russia; when he wrote: “The independence of Ukraine changes the very nature of the Russian state. For that reason alone, this important new square on the Eurasian chessboard is a geopolitical pivot. Without Ukraine, Russia ceases to be an empire in Eurasia” – shows that Americans have absolutely not abandoned their project.


So far, Putin’s Russia held in check both the Americans in Syria (in September 2013 the White House renounced in extremis its bombing operations) and the spectacular return of the Crimea in the Russian House (March 2014) in full Ukrainian crisis.


The Zionist strategy for Russia combines with the American strategy, but in no case openly opposes Israel or directly to Russia, on the contrary. Israel maintains good diplomatic relations with Russia while opposing its allies in the Levant (Syria). Israel through the Israel lobby, uses, especially since September 11, 2001, the United States and NATO as a tool of destruction of historical allies of Russia in the Middle East, opposing even more Russians and Americans.


In parallel, the Zionist leaders are trying, through intermediaries, to negotiate with Russia to abandon its Syrian and Iranian allies. In July 2013, Prince Bandar, as the representative of Saudi Arabia (ally of Israel), met Vladimir Putin, during the Syrian crisis. Bandar had during maintenance proposed an economic agreement, oil and gas to Vladimir Putin, in exchange he should drop Iran, abandon Syrian President and deliver Syria to the terrorists.


This indirect Zionist strategy or “bypass” manifested itself when Henry Kissinger, said, May 11, 2014, that we must not isolate Russia, but that “it is in the interest of all that she is kept within the international system”. In 2008, he was more specific about his intentions when he reached out to Russia at the expense of Iran, which he designated as “a danger to the surrounding world”. And by surrounding world one must of course understand Israel. Kissinger met with Putin in 2009 and in January 2012, two months before his re-election as President of Russia.


The hand that the Zionists offer to Russia is a “treacherous” hand because, from the time when Russia refused to compromise and was placed as a shield for Syria, the fire lit up in Ukraine. So the message delivered to Russia was clear: Either she abandons her eastern allies so they can be delivered to be dismantled geographically, politically, ethnically and religiously which  will then hand them to the great strategy of the North American empire (to the immediate benefit of Israel); or it will be attacked at its borders. But this proposed choice is also a trap because if Russia abandoned Syria, it would lose its only port and point of strategic support in the Mediterranean (Tartus), which does not prevent the Americans to maintain their containment policy of Russia, on the contrary. In fact this concession would be costly to Russia who is facing an enemy that takes its commitments very lightly.


In short, Russia has every reason to make no concessions and advance a pawn whenever she feels attacked or threatened. Still, the current game of chess probably coming soon to “term”, Israel begins to reveal its intentions towards Russia; while Putin authorizes the delivery of defensive missiles S-300 to Iran (April 2015), Israel is sending weapons in Ukraine to feed the fire, smoldering after the cease-fire agreements Minsk II (12 February 2015).


Only after having understood the strategic coupling of the Zionist and American vis-à-vis Russia that we can hope to better interpret the position of some géopolitologues which, following Kissinger, advocated the hand extended to Russia while being hostile to its allies … and covertly fanning the fires of war in the Donbass.


So far Russia has not fallen into this trap and did not weaken against the obvious and insidious US aggression, she remained focused. As one can be assured that she will play an increasingly decisive role in the Middle East and Europe, to the detriment of the destabilizing politic and expansionist of the Zionist elites and their counterparts Atlanticists. The fate of Russia is well mapped out; as to that of Western Europe, if it appears closed, however, could well be opened in case of a major crisis on real political and societal upheaval. Russia must and should be careful.


Courtesy The Saker

Translation: Brahim


User Comments Post a Comment

Back to Top