Foundations Of Geopolitics

[dfspcc20]

Have any of the resident russophones here read Aleksandr Dugin's "Foundations of Geopolitics"?

Foundations of Geopolitics - Wikipedia

There are some points listed there that are suspicious in regards to events in the past decade, especially when considering the alleged recent use of social media by Russia.

- Georgia should be dismembered. Abkhazia and "United Ossetia" (which includes Georgia's South Ossetia) will be incorporated into Russia. Georgia's independent policies are unacceptable.
- Ukraine should be annexed by Russia ...
- Russia needs to create "geopolitical shocks" within Turkey.
- The United Kingdom should be cut off from Europe.
- Russia should use its special services within the borders of the United States to fuel instability and separatism, for instance, provoke "Afro-American racists". Russia should "introduce geopolitical disorder into internal American activity, encouraging all kinds of separatism and ethnic, social and racial conflicts, actively supporting all dissident movements – extremist, racist, and sectarian groups, thus destabilizing internal political processes in the U.S. It would also make sense simultaneously to support isolationist tendencies in American politics."


That would be an awful lot of coincidences.

I'm generally suspicious of Wikipedia, and realize things could have gotten lost and/or purposely twisted in the John Dunlap essay (on which the Wikipedia page seems to be mostly based). Which is why I'm asking this question.

Similarly: is Dugin taken seriously in Russia?

 

[Such_Saturation]

russia doing god’s work lol

 

[dfspcc20]

russia doing god’s work lol

My sarcasm detector is kaput. Care to clarify?

 

[x-ray peat]

My sarcasm detector is kaput. Care to clarify?

not sure either but there are a lot of self-hating Americans who got that way from our Socialist/neo-Marxist school system.
Though I think Such's default is sarcasm most of the time.

I think you are right though on Foundations of Geopolitics. It seems to be Putin's playbook.

 

[DaveFoster]

Well, if you were a realpolitik Eurasian superpower, what would you do? Those points seem pretty effective.

 

[x-ray peat]

If our Military and our leaders are well aware of this strategy, then why have we been allowing Putin to get away with all he is doing.
as a few examples;
1) why did we not give the Ukrainians the arms, especially anti-tank weapons, they were asking for when Putin was taking over Crimea
2) why did we sign such a horrible deal with the Iranians in which we gave them all of their demands and didn't demand concessions from them outside of the nuclear area. In negotiations you don't unilaterally take your own demands off the table without getting something back in return. The Russian plan calls for a strong alliance with Iran against the US.
3) Why do we allow RT to operate in the US while all of our propaganda efforts have been shut down in Russia
4) Why do we still try to make nice with Putin when he is obviously trying to screw us

 

[DrJ]

@dfspcc20 You might be interested in George Friedman's writings on geopolitics if you haven't seen them. He founded Stratfor which I used to subscribe to before it became a clear money grab. I read his "The Next 100 Years" and "Borderlands" which were pretty interesting. His thesis is that geopolitics is entirely determined by geography (which he takes to a pretty extreme position), and then goes into lots of examples to flesh it out.

He says that the wealthiest regions and nations in the world are those with well-protected and navigable river systems that makes transport of goods easy and cheap. For example, Germany has excellent river systems through the country, but Spain doesn't. Belgium is extremely wealthy for such a small nation over the centuries, and has excellent river systems but must always make peace with its neighbors, whatever that takes, since they are on an indefensible plain. The more prosperous parts of Italy (mostly to the North) have one or a series of navigable rivers. The US has perhaps the most fantastic river system with the Mississippi and all it's tributaries which provides a huge trade network to a vast part of its core territory, plus it is all inland and well-protected if one can guard the Gulf of Mexico (which is pretty easy given its shape and US possessions in the area - a key driver he says for subverting Cuba or at least keeping a naval base there). In addition, the US has the east coast Intercoastal Waterway which is a largely protected (by sand bars and coastal islands) navigable channel up and down the entirety of the east coast - almost like a protected river - that the US could easily defend against submarines during WW2 and allowed mostly unhindered shipping up and down the coast. The one exposure in that system is around Cape Cod, so they built a canal through the neck of Massachusetts. China has built much industrial power along its main rivers (which are few if one compares navigable river availability to landmass against, say, the fortunate situation in the USA or Germany), but the parts away from those are economic backwaters. Maritime nations, such as Japan and Britain can be quite prosperous if they can field a sufficient navy (or be a protectorate of a significant navy, like the US currently). But coastal shipping lanes are always vulnerable if one does not have a strong navy.

Of Russia, he says that they are on a largely indefensible plain/steppe (at least to their west) with a relatively weak river system, so their strategy must always be to push out their border as far as possible to protect the core (like Moscow), so they tend to push to annex/influence places like Ukraine and the eastern bloc countries. Also, since they can't really defend themselves geographically from the west (so must sacrifice many men in defensive operations), it is to their benefit to sow discord among their enemies/competitors in Europe, whereas nations with strong geographic defenses (like the US with it's oceans east and west, desert to the south, and more-or-less vassal state of Canada to the north, then ocean) do not have as much of an interest to engage in such practices. He says Turkey is in a good geographic position being largely surrounded by mountains or desert, and sitting on the straight of Bosphorus - a key waterway - may rise to a superpower (think back to the Ottoman empire or even earlier), so Russia would have every interest to derail that.

Of the UK, he says that their relative protection from the rest of Europe as an island gives them a special advantage, and that their strategy has always been to induce war between continental European nations to keep them relatively weaker than the UK. Given that some of these European nations lie in what Russia would like to have as part of their buffer, it makes sense that Russia would want to limit the UK's ability to influence and induce conflict in Europe. It is probably somewhat similar with the US since US influence reaches so far into Europe, particularly through NATO.

Mostly, he says South America and Africa are screwed economically relative to the world stage since they don't have a lot of navigable river systems except with a few exceptions that create some economically prosperous corridors. But compare to the number of navigable rivers in Europe and North America. Pretty interesting stuff.

 

[Such_Saturation]

My sarcasm detector is kaput. Care to clarify?

They would be balancing the playing field, obviously. We need multipolarism for quite a bit longer. Not that xray would see the bigger picture, of course.

 

[x-ray peat]

They would be balancing the playing field, obviously. We need multipolarism for quite a bit longer. Not that xray would see the bigger picture, of course.

Well don't stop there. Please enlighten us with the bigger picture? Why is it that we need multipolarism for quite a bit longer? Who is the "they" and who gave them the right to decide that is what we need? And then what after that? Sounds like you are on board with this bigger picture.

 

[dfspcc20]

@DrJ Thanks for the recommendation. I'll put it on the "to read" list. Can't say I've ever been really interested in geopolitics, but with the alleged social engineering via social media, I thought I'd ask. That alleged activity does seem totally plausible; no need for any "collusion" or anything of the like. One of the downfalls of a free, open, anonymous internet.

I have been reading Dmitry Orlov for a while. Similar topics occasionally. I mostly like his writing, but I have noticed a definite change from more "doomster" topics to more pro-Russia, pro-Putin themes starting a few years ago. Makes me a little suspicious as well.

@x-ray peat not sure why the US would allow the activity. Maybe a pride or stubbornness thing? We did "defeat" the USSR and Russia at the end of the Cold War, right? I remember how Romney got mocked (by both sides) for suggesting during the 2012 election that Russia was the biggest geopolitical threat.

@Such_Saturation My more hidden reason for the sarcasm comment was to help keep this thread towards the top. Maybe I got a little paranoid that some Putin-bots have invaded this forum and were trying to drown out this thread by commenting on others. Maybe I've taken a page from their book.

 

[Such_Saturation]

Well don't stop there. Please enlighten us with the bigger picture? Why is it that we need multipolarism for quite a bit longer? Who is the "they" and who gave them the right to decide that is what we need? And then what after that? Sounds like you are on board with this bigger picture.

They is Russia. The bigger picture is called geopolitics, surprisingly.

@DrJ Thanks for the recommendation. I'll put it on the "to read" list. Can't say I've ever been really interested in geopolitics, but with the alleged social engineering via social media, I thought I'd ask. That alleged activity does seem totally plausible; no need for any "collusion" or anything of the like. One of the downfalls of a free, open, anonymous internet.

I have been reading Dmitry Orlov for a while. Similar topics occasionally. I mostly like his writing, but I have noticed a definite change from more "doomster" topics to more pro-Russia, pro-Putin themes starting a few years ago. Makes me a little suspicious as well.

@x-ray peat not sure why the US would allow the activity. Maybe a pride or stubbornness thing? We did "defeat" the USSR and Russia at the end of the Cold War, right? I remember how Romney got mocked (by both sides) for suggesting during the 2012 election that Russia was the biggest geopolitical threat.

@Such_Saturation My more hidden reason for the sarcasm comment was to help keep this thread towards the top. Maybe I got a little paranoid that some Putin-bots have invaded this forum and were trying to drown out this thread by commenting on others. Maybe I've taken a page from their book.

If you don’t feel safe on the internet, there’s always the library (make sure it has tolerance truck barriers outside though)

 

[Kartoffel]

@DrJ Thanks for the recommendation. I'll put it on the "to read" list. Can't say I've ever been really interested in geopolitics, but with the alleged social engineering via social media, I thought I'd ask. That alleged activity does seem totally plausible; no need for any "collusion" or anything of the like. One of the downfalls of a free, open, anonymous internet.

I have been reading Dmitry Orlov for a while. Similar topics occasionally. I mostly like his writing, but I have noticed a definite change from more "doomster" topics to more pro-Russia, pro-Putin themes starting a few years ago. Makes me a little suspicious as well.

@x-ray peat not sure why the US would allow the activity. Maybe a pride or stubbornness thing? We did "defeat" the USSR and Russia at the end of the Cold War, right? I remember how Romney got mocked (by both sides) for suggesting during the 2012 election that Russia was the biggest geopolitical threat.


@Such_Saturation My more hidden reason for the sarcasm comment was to help keep this thread towards the top. Maybe I got a little paranoid that some Putin-bots have invaded this forum and were trying to drown out this thread by commenting on others. Maybe I've taken a page from their book.

And rightly so. The biggest geopolitical threat is, and has been for the last 100 years, the United States. No other country has started more illegal wars, overthrown more democratically elected governments, destabilized more countries and entire regions, and built a surveillance aparatus that aims for nothing less the global controll of all information. Fortunately for everyone, especially Americans themselves, the U.S. empire is decaying just as Soviet power did earlier. Sooner or later this happens to all corrupt, oligarchical systems. How did Ray put it - Americans are becoming too fat and too stupid to keep destroying the world...

 

[x-ray peat]

They is Russia. The bigger picture is called geopolitics, surprisingly.

That is what you call the bigger picture? thanks captain obvious. Though it still doesn’t explain how you think a totalitarian dictator is “doing God’s work” or your statement that “we need multipolarism for quite a bit longer.” Have you been reading Revelation again?

 

[charlie]

That is what you call the bigger picture? thanks captain obvious. Though it still doesn’t explain how you think a totalitarian dictator is “doing God’s work” or your statement that “we need multipolarism for quite a bit longer.” Have you been reading Revelation again?

Sometimes we forget you have all the answers, forgive us.

 

[x-ray peat]

Sometimes we forget you have all the answers, forgive us.

If someone is going to call you out by saying you don't know the big picture, I would expect him to actually have something more to add than what was already in the original post.

 

[charlie]

If someone is going to call you out by saying you don't know the big picture, I would expect him to actually have something more to add than what was already in the original post.

Ooooh, that is in Revelation.

 

[Such_Saturation]

That is what you call the bigger picture? thanks captain obvious. Though it still doesn’t explain how you think a totalitarian dictator is “doing God’s work” or your statement that “we need multipolarism for quite a bit longer.” Have you been reading Revelation again?

Not all of god’s instruments are as holy as jesus, lol. But I do hope you are the one being sarcastic when you imply USA doesn’t need counterbalances.

 

[x-ray peat]

Not all of god’s instruments are as holy as jesus, lol. But I do hope you are the one being sarcastic when you imply USA doesn’t need counterbalances.

What everyone is forgetting is that no matter how much bad America has done over its history, it has still produced the freest and most prosperous country in the world. Moreover the rest of the world would be a much much darker place without the United States and would most likely be living under the boot of either Nazism or Communism.

Thinking that a sociopathic totalitarian dictator like Vladimir Putin is the answer to US over-reach completely ignores the history of the last century. We already know what happened when the US last faced a similar Russian government. The Cold War destroyed many many countries as the US and the Soviets competed for dominance and came very close to nuclear war several times.

A better answer is for US citizens to take back their country from the ruling elite and make war much more difficult. But even if that is not possible, a world where the only super-power is a democratically elected government is vastly superior to one with two or three super-powers with competing ideologies, engaged in an existential battle for dominance. A war against Iraq is one thing but a war against the Russians or Chinese would be a completely different nightmare.

And rightly so. The biggest geopolitical threat is, and has been for the last 100 years, the United States. No other country has started more illegal wars, overthrown more democratically elected governments, destabilized more countries and entire regions, and built a surveillance aparatus that aims for nothing less the global controll of all information. Fortunately for everyone, especially Americans themselves, the U.S. empire is decaying just as Soviet power did earlier. Sooner or later this happens to all corrupt, oligarchical systems. How did Ray put it - Americans are becoming too fat and too stupid to keep destroying the world...

The Russians, Chinese, Japanese, Germans, British, and Spanish, have all done far far worse. A democratic empire is a much different and far more benign super-power than some of the previous genocidal dictatorships we replaced.

 

[Kartoffel]

Whataboutism...These countries have all committed horrible crimes, that's true, and if you want to compare direct war casualties or crimes committed against their own populations, countries like Germany, Russia, and China can certainly show larger numbers than the U.S.. I should have said post WWII era instead of talking about the last 100 years. Since 1945, no other country has been a bigger threat to global peace than the U.S.. The United States started illegal wars in Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Grenada, Panama, Iraq - overthrew moderate and left governments in Chile, Guatemala and Iran and displaced them with fascist mass murderes and religious fanatics - orchestrated death and chaos in Lybia and Syria that will continue for decades. Whatever the other countries you mentioned have down, they stopped a long time ago and haven't remained a constant threat to global peace and stability.
I don't get how you can maintain that the U.S. is so much better than Russia or China. Both of them have remained very calm in comparison to the U.S. in last decades. Both of them had minor conflicts with their direct neighbours, but how can you compare that to the global conflicts with milions of deaths that were initiated by the U.S.? It wasn't Putin that invaded Iraq two times, destabilzed the whole middle east. Nobody claims that he is a fantastic guy, but the argument that we need U.S. world dominance to keep him and China in check is just bull****.

I am not sure what democratic empire your are talking about, nevermind that the term itself doesn't make any sense - the U.S. is an oligarchy, not a democracy. You acknowledge that yourself when you talk about how the people have to take back the country from the elites.

 

[x-ray peat]

Whataboutism...These countries have all committed horrible crimes, that's true, and if you want to compare direct war casualties or crimes committed against their own populations, countries like Germany, Russia, and China can certainly show larger numbers than the U.S.. I should have said post WWII era instead of talking about the last 100 years. Since 1945, no other country has been a bigger threat to global peace than the U.S.. The United States started illegal wars in Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Grenada, Panama, Iraq - overthrew moderate and left governments in Chile, Guatemala and Iran and displaced them with fascist mass murderes and religious fanatics - orchestrated death and chaos in Lybia and Syria that will continue for decades. Whatever the other countries you mentioned have down, they stopped a long time ago and haven't remained a constant threat to global peace and stability.
I don't get how you can maintain that the U.S. is so much better than Russia or China. Both of them have remained very calm in comparison to the U.S. in last decades. Both of them had minor conflicts with their direct neighbours, but how can you compare that to the global conflicts with milions of deaths that were initiated by the U.S.? It wasn't Putin that invaded Iraq two times, destabilzed the whole middle east. Nobody claims that he is a fantastic guy, but the argument that we need U.S. world dominance to keep him and China in check is just bull****.

I am not sure what democratic empire your are talking about, nevermind that the term itself doesn't make any sense - the U.S. is an oligarchy, not a democracy. You acknowledge that yourself when you talk about how the people have to take back the country from the elites.

I don't think it is Whataboutism to compare the actions of one government to another as long as it's done in an honest manner. As Churchill said democracy is the worst form of government except for all of the others. So yes the US has committed several illegal wars and overthrown democratically elected governments but there is no comparison to the crimes that were committed and are still committed to this day by these other totalitarian regimes. It also has to be viewed in the context of the cold war where the Soviets were actively subverting governments and using elections as a means to install a Communist government. To put it in context, Argentina and Chile killed in the tens of thousands of people during their dirty wars while Cambodia, North Korea, China etc have killed in the tens of millions of people. And this is not ancient history. China's cultural revolution only ended in 1976 and killed almost 50 million people.

And yes we have killed a lot of people in the Middle East but nothing compared to what the Soviets did when over two million Afghans were killed in the 80s. Moreover the human rights violations and continued political persecutions in those countries is still going on. Try living your life as a gay person in Russian or a Christian in China and you would try to be on the first flight to the US.

And yes the US is controlled by a ruling elite but that is true for all countries. I would also argue that they are all controlled by the same ruling elite that controlled Europe for the last two thousand years but that is another story. With that said a ruling elite working in a democratic government is constrained in what they can do. They still need to maintain the illusion of democracy and cant do what ever they want. They cant set up Gulags and cant have mass round ups of political dissidents. They cant invade a country, steal all their food and let the people starve like the Soviets did in the Ukraine. They also cant invade a country and annex their territory like the Russians just did in Crimea or the Chinese did in Tibet. We stopped doing that over a 100 years ago.

Russian and China left to their own devices have zero respect for International law and would even more aggressively expand their empires if the US were not around. Russia is working to claw back their former puppet states of the Soviet Union and rebuild there empire while China is currently building an island in the South China sea to claim international water that isn't theirs. If the US doesn't stop their expansion who will? Without the US the Japanese and Europeans would be forced to rearm and you would have WW II all over again. Just look at what happened to and is still happening in Tibet if you want an example of what the Chinese are capable of.