On Russia's Global Importance

 Over the last 30 years, Western officialdom's policies concerning Russia have grown increasingly irrational. Europeans tend to forget that long before the US or the Ukraine ever existed, Russia was always there in their hour of need. Unfortunately, after the latest events, Russia might not be there for us any longer.

For me as an historian, the only Slavic state that deserves all the respect and consideration of social scientists is the Russian state.

Unfortunately, the European Slavs proved an absolutely incredible inability to create solid states that would last over time and prosper. Neither the Serbs, nor the Czechs, nor the Slovaks or even the Poles have proved to Europe or the world that they have the attributes necessary to live in peace with each other, to build well-organized or consolidated state structures (see Ukraine).

To be sure, the Poles disappeared for 200 years from modern history, reappearing as a state only since 1918. Federal Yugoslavia disappeared after only 70 years, Czechoslovakia around the same time. Most of the time, these branches of the Slavic people became the victims of their stronger neighbours - Turks, Germans, Russians or Austrians - because of this inability to build solid state structures.

Please compare the European Slavs now with the Russians, who have a millenary history of existence as a state, although their central position in Eurasia is an extremely difficult one geopolitically. During the Middle Ages, they managed to defeat both the Mongol invaders and the Tartars, not to mention the Turks. In modern times, they colonized Siberia as far as the Pacific and came to expand their territories in the west to the borders of Romania or Poland. All this time, Russia has overall been a factor of stability in Europe, being a reliable ally of both the Germans and the Western powers - England and France, but also the United States - in the first half of the twentieth century.

Nowadays most of the European Slavs have joined the NATO umbrella and are barking like puppies at the big dog, Russia, which has done nothing to antagonize them in recent decades, on the contrary. The Russians have instead been busy rebuilding their economy and developing their agriculture. From an importer of wheat during communism - according to Gorbachev they used to purchase it with gold bullion at one point - they became one of the biggest exporters of grain.

Russia has always been run by the secret services, whether we are talking about Tsarist Ohrana, the Soviet KGB or now the FSB. This is one of the secrets of the Russian state's longevity and stability, since the Russians are not at all convinced that professional politicians or Western-type democracy could ensure their survival as a state. They were willing to give it a go during the nineties, but the experiment failed miserably and was never going to be repeated.

Of course, the West would prefer Russia to be run by an alcoholic like Yeltsin or someone like that. But the Russians - who have recovered economically from the disaster of the 1990s under Vladimir Putin, have paid off their outstanding debts, rebuilt their army and amassed important financial reserves for the first time in their recent history - have other options. In fact, this is the fundamental reason why Putin is not liked by leaders in the West, the rest is just propaganda.

In terms of international relations, Russia cannot agree to a unipolar world  ruled exclusively by Washington, just as China does not agree. The Russians' preference for a multi-polar world, in which they have a say, is hundreds of years old. They were the ones who put an end to the French hegemonic plans in 1814, they were also instrumental in the fight against German hegemony that caused two world wars last century. 

Russia had peacefully and voluntarily given up, without armed conflict, the bi-polar world that appeared after 1945, but it cannot agree not to participate at all in global decision-making. This approach is an extremely dangerous neoconservative utopia, which could trigger World War III, even a nuclear one. Unfortunately, since the inhabitants of the Anglosphere  are not Russians, I don't think they will peacefully give up their plans for a unipolar world that the American neoconservatives have been trying to impose globally for 25 years now ...

Epilogue to the End of the USSR

The events unfolding in Ukraine are the final act in the disintegration of the Soviet Union which began peacefully, Czech-style, in 1991 and is unfortunately about to end in bloodshed, Yugoslavian-style, now. This time, however, the part played by Milosevic in Belgrade is being emulated by Zelensky in Kiev with the West backing the wrong side in this conflict.

Astute and knowledgeable observers of European affairs may have noticed for a few decades now that European Slavs do not always know how to live peacefully together in the same country.

During the nineties we witnessed the implosion of two Slav states, Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia. The differences between Czechs and Slovaks or between Croatians and Serbs were in fact minor and were related to different dialects, in some cases to religion or belonging to different political blocks before unification. To give but one example, while Serbs were until the end of the 19th century part of the Ottoman empire, the Croatians lived in the Austro-Hungarian empire. (In 2006, even Serbia and Montenegro dissolved their union dating back to the 19th century)

The disintegration of Yugoslavia took a full 8 years to complete, between 1991-1999, and was marked by wars between the Serbs and the Croats, the Serbs and the Bosniaks, the Serbs and the Kossovars. The wars ended only after NATO took the decision to bomb Serbia and destroy critical infrastructure in 1999.

For most European nations of mixed ethnic backgrounds, like Belgium or Switzerland, such differences did not prevent them from building well-managed states, which outlasted cataclysmic events like the two world wars, and are still around today. Belgium, for example, separated in 1830 from the more powerful Dutch state and was subject to military aggression. The military aggression against Belgium was stopped in its tracks by the London Conference of the Great Powers, when its independence and neutrality were affirmed and recognised.

To the East of the continent, Romania provides another example of a country made up of territories of the former Ottoman and Austro-Hungarian empires, but which displays remarkable national unity and a high degree of tolerance towards the Hungarian minority on its territory. 

In the beginning, the 1991  dissolution of the USSR happened peacefully . The Soviet empire stands as a shining example of a multinational state that folded without igniting a war or provoking ethnic violence. This situation lasted until 2014, when American neoconservatives decided to play nation-builders in Ukraine. 

The 2014 change in government in Kiev and Russia's subsequent annexation of Crimea marked the beginning of an armed struggle between the Russophones living in the Donbas and the Ukrainian army. After another 8 years of skirmishes which made 14,000 victims, as documented by the OSCE, Russia has decided to intervene militarily a few days ago and to start the aerial bombing of the main Kiev military installations. Unlike the mighty NATO intervention in Serbia in 1999 - which shied away from putting boots on the ground - the Russian army entered Ukraine in force. Also, whilst NATO's actions in Serbia were questionable from an international law point of view, Russia is trying to put order in its own neighbourhood.

The events unfolding over the past few days in Ukraine and Russia's military intervention  are, unfortunately, badly distorted by Western media and diplomats. The most disgusting aspect of the current events is the Western leadership's hypocritical reaction to them. Thus, while the West deplored the fate of a few hundred Kosovar victims and was quick enough to bomb the Milosevic regime out of existence, the thousands of victims and millions of refugees from the Donbas have not registered at all on its radars. In fact, the condemnation of the Russian intervention has a lot to do with the West's irrational and unjustifiable dislike of Russia as a state and of Putin as its leader.

What we are in fact witnessing now is the epilogue of the USSR's 1991 disintegration, which left Russian-speaking populations in countries like Georgia or Ukraine at the mercy of unscrupulous political leaders, like Shakashvili or Zelensky, and their external backers, especially in the US. Both these leaders have done their utmost to drag the entire Western alliance into a much bigger military conflict with Russia, in an eerily similar manner in which the Serbs had done in 1914. If ultimately successful, such efforts would have surely degenerated into a nuclear war.

Treating the current events in Ukraine as similar to the final disintegration of Yugoslavia, however, can go a long way towards preventing Western officials from making fools of themselves out of sheer lack of understanding of the political culture of Slavic nations and of their propensity to use violence against other Slavs who happen not to share their religion or language, as Kiev's treatment of the Russophones in the Donbas has shown. 

WHO WiLL TAKE OVER NATO'S TOP JOB ?

 The mature Western liberal democracies are lately in the habit of promoting representatives of some Lilliputian states, devoid of any military importance within the alliance, to fill NATO's top job.

This explains the fact that President Obama, himself a representative of a minority, promoted a Danish citizen as Secretary General of NATO in 2009, namely Anders Fogh Rasmussen, representing a minority of small states within the alliance.

In 2014, the same Barack Obama promoted Jens Stoltenberg, the representative of a state of only 5 million people, as Secretary General. (This may also be related to the decline of NATO's importance as a politico-military organization after the demise of the USSR and the Warsaw Pact.)

Compare this situation with the one before 2003, when the job of NATO Secretary General was occupied by the representatives of the great European nations: Britain (Lord Ismay, Lord Carrington or George Robertson), Germany (Manfred Worner) , Spain (Javier Solana), or Italy (Manlio Brosio), with two or three Belgians or Dutch among them when tensions during the Cold War were lower in intensity.

If the appointments of new NATO Secretaries-General continue in the same tradition, we can expect Estonians, Lithuanians or Latvians to be appointed to this post. They have in common with their Danish and Norwegian predecessors the fact that their states, although tiny and insignificant militarily, are close to Russia or have a common border with it. This is because NATO's number one enemy is no longer the USSR, but Russia.

EUROPE v USA : TWO CENTURIES OF IR HISTORY COMPARED

 Compared to the US' attitude to border changes today, the leaders of the Great European Powers of the 19th century - although generally opposed to territorial modifications themselves - proved to be much more flexible when these occurred, as illustrated by the examples of Switzerland, Belgium, Germany, Italy and Romania. As leaders of land-based powers, they knew from historical experience that border changes can never be completely avoided.

 I believe that the current crisis in Ukraine gives us historians the opportunity to make a comparison between two centuries of modern world history, the one between 1815 and 1914 and the period of American hegemony between 1920 and 2020, as well as one between autocrats and democrats.

The 19th century was dominated by several great European powers, united in alliances designed to prevent the spread of secularism and border changes in Europe. Beginning with the Holy Alliance (Russia, Prussia and Austria), continuing with the so-called European Concert (Russia, Prussia, Austria, France and Great Britain) and ending after the unification of Germany with the Bismarckian League of Emperors (Russia, Germany and Austria-Hungary) the 19th century was, with a few small exceptions, one of peace.

The promoters of this formula for managing military conflicts on the European continent were, with the exception of the French or British leaders, autocratic emperors, namely the rulers of  Germany, Russia or Austria. The collective guarantee of the great powers, as it is known in the history of diplomacy, prevented major armed conflicts, promoted Christian spiritual values, and in 1848 opposed the violent changes via revolutions of the states they ruled.

However, the European concert did not oppose the independence and neutrality of Switzerland, for example, or the appearance of Belgium, Italy, Germany or Romania on the map, which are still among the solidly built states of Europe.

Between 1920 and 2020, the United States was the leader of global affairs, the champion of liberal democracies, and since 1945 the number one military power, becoming the only superpower since 1989.

Although official propaganda has always affirmed that the democracies in the American camp are essentially peaceful or peace-seeking, the conflicts of this period have unfortunately proved otherwise.

Since the end of World War II and continuing with the wars in Korea (1953) Vietnam (1960s and 1970s) or those in Bosnia, Serbia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya or Yemen, the list of military conflicts, most  of them initiated by the US and/or NATO , is getting longer. 

Both in the 19th century and between 1920 and 2020, new state constructions appeared on the map of Europe or the world. The most solid were and remained the states formed during the time of the autocrats,  namely Switzerland, Belgium, Germany, Italy or Romania.

States which appeard after 1920 based on the Wilsonian principle of self-determination, did not last long. Thus, Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia disappeared from the map after 1990, while Romania lost the territories it  acquired after 1920 in the east and in the north, which have not been recovered. Puppet states like South Vietnam have disappeared, and South Korea lives daily under the military threat of North Korea and with American troops who have been there for decades.

However, since neoconservatives have taken over the management of American foreign affairs, things have gotten worse. The post-1989 period, which led to the implosion of the USSR, Yugoslavia or Czechoslovakia, proved to be very turbulent. The construction of new states under the auspices of the Americans began with the creation of Bosnia-Herzegovina in 1995, which has never experienced political stability and is in the process of disintegration.

After 2000, the United States tried its luck in the Orient, sponsoring nation-building in Afghanistan or Iraq, or in North Africa, where Libya is still a deeply divided and dysfunctional state. Since 2014, the American neoconservatives have also become deeply involved in the internal affairs and administrative reforms of Ukraine, with dismal results .

The fashion of allied occupation of a defeated enemy began with the occupation of post-Napoleonic France. Its occupation by Russia, Prussia, Austria, Britain and Bavaria started in 1815 and lasted until 1818.

During the 20th century, a new coalition of victors at the end of WWII occupied defeated Germany. The Soviets remained in East Germany between 1945 - 1990 and were the first to retire their troops from Germany. The last French battalion, however, left Germany only in 2014; the British contingent left in 2020; while the US still has 20 military bases and around 35,000 soldiers on German soil. Worse still, the NATO military alliance has not been wound up after the end of the Cold War and it even expanded to the Russian border.

Undaunted, however, Antony Blinken has commented - during the recent Russian-CSTO military intervention in Kazakhstan - that it is the Russians who are in the habit of overstaying their welcome in the countries they offer military assistance to.

After a brief review of the two formulas for managing global international affairs, one from the 19th century and today's,  one will be able to judge for themselves whether and to what extent the Americans have succeeded in giving the world more peace and stability than their 19th century predecessors, the crowned autocrats of Europe.

The US are Acting on the Wrong Philosophical Assumptions about History

 When foreigners or Americans themselves are complaining about the US, they usually take aim at its political and economic elite, institutions, its foreign policy, the military or America's cultural or global ambitions.

Few, however, are aware of the fact that powerful nations are run according to an agenda that incorporates a specific interpretation of history:  a historical algorithm, so to speak. By and large, this philosophical interpretation of world history goes a long way towards explaining why nations like the United States behave the way they do.

From the Age of Enlightenment we have inherited a conception about the historical evolution of humanity which in most cases is depicted as both irreversible and unidirectional, or as some specialists call it, linear. In the 19th century Hegel, a German philosopher of history, refined this approach by adding a final destination to this linear historical evolution, which he called "the end of history" (in his view, German history ended with the formation of the Prussian state). Karl Marx was one of his students and he devised his own end-of-history , which was supposed to happen when the proletariat would get on top of the capitalist class for good. The type of society he imagined was called communism, in which exploitation of any kind would completely disappear and  perfect equality would reign among all members of society.

One of the legacies that Marxist philosophy of history left behind was a partition of history according to different types of societies, defined by their specific modes of production. Thus, humanity advanced from prehistorical hunter/gatherers to the classical, slave-owning ancient societies, on to feudal societies, which gave birth to what Marx called capitalist societies, in their turn the harbinger of future communist societies. And herein lies one of his biggest errors. According to a number of social scientists like Eugene Buret, or renowned economists such as J.A. Schumpeter,  capitalist society is not a new and entirely different type of society if compared to the feudal one, but just the decaying phase of medieval Western society. 

In other words, what we were conditioned by Marx to believe about the existence of capitalist and communist societies is basically wrong. If, on the other hand, we look at capitalism (in the west) and communism (in the east) as simply the decomposing phases of feudal societies, many aspects about the organisation and functioning of capitalist or communist societies become more comprehensible from a sociological point of view. What is important to note at this point is that whereas decaying medieval Western societies turned capitalist, decaying feudal Eurasian or Asian societies turned communist. 

It is useful to remember that both capitalism and communism have facilitated the transition of entire nations from agricultural countries to industrialised and urbanised ones in a relatively short period of time, albeit using vastly different methods in achieving these goals. Both types of transition, however, have been marred by extremely painful dislocation, misery and in some cases millions of casualties.

The most problematic part of the historical algorithm used to elaborate political, geostrategic and military agendas is that which refers to the evolution of humanity as a whole. Thus, if Hegel and Marx were right, then under certain conditions historical evolution will stop after reaching a peak, after which the history pages in the book of life will remain blank. A version of this misguided interpretation of historical evolution was given to the American public by Francis Fukuyama, who in 1992 published his essay "The End of History and the Last Man".

Like Hegel before him, Fukuyama believed that after the 1991 implosion of the USSR the end of history was in sight. In his view this consists of the universal adoption of market economics principles and of liberal democracy as a political system. His interpretation of world history and especially his end-of-history thesis has informed  the political action of the US and that of American neoconservatives since 2000. To this day, neocons wrongly believe that because the US is the only superpower left, it should retain the status of world hegemon for at least another century.

What actually happened after the implosion of the bipolar world was - after a brief unipolar moment - the advent of the multipolar world, which the US alone adamantly opposes.

In fact, a much more fruitful approach to understanding the historical evolution of humanity could be found in the writings of Italian philosopher of history Giambattista Vico. In his "Scienza Nuova", he postulated that human societies have a cyclical - instead of linear - evolution. Vico's definition of progress differs from that of Kant or Hegel, for example, who were firm believers in the infallibility of human reason. For Vico too, reason was the catalyst for human progress. However, Vico believed in the possible collapse of reason at some point, which in turn could cause civilisational collapse. In other words, he was convinced that a breakdown in reason can cause man to revert to an earlier, barbarous state.( His approach could for example better explain how the excesses of nazism and even communism were ever possible.)

In this cyclical paradigm of evolution, a fallen empire like Rome, for example, partially re-emerged in a different form in 800 under the name of The Holy Roman Empire (considered by Popes as the secular arm of the Church), and it was arguably the most powerful European feudal state during the Middle Ages. The Holy Roman Empire lasted for a thousand years until 1806, when it was replaced by the Confederation of the Rhine by Francis II, the Austrian emperor. After the reunification of German states around Prussia in the 19th century, the rise and the fall of the German empire in the 20th century, the partition of Germany after 1945 and its reunification in 1991, the German federal state is still the most powerful country in the EU.

Yet another example is the recent re-emergence of China as an economic powerhouse, after what the Chinese call "the century of humiliation", with the Chinese share of global GDP  approaching again 25 percent, as it did around the year 1800. 

Russia, too, has put the trials and tribulations of empire collapse and 70 years of communism behind her and is fast re-emerging as the leading Eurasian military power, a status that it used to hold undisputed from the middle of the 18th century. 

Such examples conclusively prove that today's American policymakers would be well-advised to discard theories of history, like Fukuyama's, that can only lead to huge errors, especially in foreign policy. Adopting a cyclical approach to assessing historical developments could indeed yield much more positive outcomes for American experts and politicians alike.

Accordingly, German reunification and de facto leadership of the EU, the re-emergence of Russia as a major military power in Eurasia, or China's rise as a global economic actor should be considered normal historical developments . Moreover, even these countries' quest to have their spheres of influence recognised has deep historical roots and should be considered by Washington as legitimate, instead of being treated as offensive, as it is now the case.

A WAR AND TWO OLYMPICS

 

 Following the 5-day war which started on August 7, 2008 in Georgia, Swiss diplomat Tagliavini prepared a report on the incident for the EU and the OSCE. The report holds Saakashvili, Georgia's then president, responsible for triggering the armed conflict.

There are many analysts who have made analogies between the situation in Georgia at the time and what is happening in Ukraine today. Few, however,  make the connection between these two conflicts and two events that took place or are about to take place thousands of kilometers away : the summer Olympics in  August 8, 2008 and the winter Olympics, which must begin on February 4, 2022 , both hosted in China.

It is very likely that now, as in 2008, the neoconservatives of the US administration have hoped to trigger a similar incident, which would kill 2 birds with one stone. On the one hand, such a conflict would create the conditions for drastic sanctions on Russia. On the other hand, the attention of the international public would have been diverted from the Winter Olympics, depriving the Chinese authorities of the global audience expected for such an event.

So far, however, it appears that no Ukrainian Saakashvili has been found to provoke the Russian army by attacking the Donbas insurgents, thus re-editing a scenario first used on August 7, 2008.

US: from Nation-Building to all-out War

"Billions spent on the Kennedy School, grand strategies seminars, and the Georgetown School of Foreign Service has bought us an elite that's about to blunder us into a Ukraine war."(J.D. Vance)

In a few days from now, President Biden will host German Chancellor Scholz in Washington. The expectation of Washington neocons is that he will succeed in pressuring Germany to join a pan-European alliance against Russia. 

To be sure, the German refusal to send weapons to Ukraine - and thus help ignite a fratricide war between Ukraine and Russia - makes sense. Germany was right in refusing to join the neocon-inspired war against Iraq in 2003 and is even more justified in refusing to join NATO in sponsoring a war against Russia now.

Unfortunately, France is no longer led by a president as experienced or astute as Jacques Chirac: Macron seems willing to send troops to Romania, regardless of how pointless this is from a military point of view.

Since 2001 the US have embarked in quite a few military interventions or coups around the world, which were followed by a disastrous drive to promote nation-building: in Afghanistan (2001), Iraq (2003), Libya (2011) and Ukraine (2014). All these ill-conceived nation-building efforts have backfired miserably. Undaunted, the Washington neocons who have monopolised American foreign policy for the last two decades are now promoting a war by proxy, encouraging the Ukrainians to fight the Russians.

Since 2007 onwards, Vladimir Putin has cautioned the West against pushing the boundaries of NATO eastwards. His pleas went ignored and - at the NATO summit in Bucharest one year later -  the George W Bush administration officially announced the intention of the US to include countries like Georgia and Ukraine in the alliance (these efforts were thwarted by the refusal of France and Germany to endorse the expansion). In 2014, the US engineered a coup d'etat in Kiev, replacing Yanukovich with an American puppet regime that ultimately bled Ukraine dry and is at the origin of today's crisis.

Unfortunately, after 14 years of unsuccessfully calling for a stop to NATO's eastward expansion, the Russians were deliberately left with no other option by US negotiators than to put a stop to this expansion through military action against Ukraine. 

The fact is that the treaty they are seeking to guarantee Russia's security can only be concluded after fighting a war, not before.

Since the Age of Enlightenment, Western intellectuals have elaborated projects aimed at achieving "perpetual peace". Some of the fruits of this labour have been the multilateral institutions such as the League of Nations and the United Nations. Sadly, however, humanity has been confronted with some of its biggest and most devastating military conflicts regardless of such well-intentioned efforts. To this day, no lasting peace treaty has been able to be concluded without fighting it out on the battlefield first.

The recent, ill-conceived US nation-building efforts abroad have coincided with a period in American history when consensus has evaporated, the nation is deeply divided and American society itself is in danger of internal collapse. Sure, the Pentagon and the US Defence Department are against a war breaking out in Ukraine, but the neocons in Washington and their supporters in the military-industrial complex want it and will most probably get it. 

As long as the American polity remains unable to expunge from their ranks the neocons putting America's future in jeopardy, however, the string of military and nation-building failures experienced by the US is set to continue.