22.12.2021

The escalation of relations between Russia and the United States after Joe Biden came to the presidency and the escalation of the situation around Ukraine, as well as the growth of tension in the premises of Russia’s borders (provocative actions of NATO ships in the Black Sea basin, aggressive maneuvers of the US Air Force along the air borders of the Russian Federation, etc.) – all this has a completely rational geopolitical explanation. The root of everything should be sought in the situation that developed in the late 80s of the twentieth century when the collapse of the structures of the Soviet camp occurred.

Together with socialism as a political and economic system, a massive geopolitical structure collapsed, which was not created by the Communists, but represented a natural historical continuation of the geopolitics of the Russian Empire. It was not only about the USSR, which was the direct heir of the Empire and included the territories and peoples gathered around the Russian core long before the establishment of Soviet power. The Bolsheviks – under Lenin and Trotsky – at first lost much of this, and then with great difficulty – under Stalin – restored it (with more than enough). Nor was Russia’s influence in Eastern Europe solely the result of World War II, largely continuing the geopolitics of Tsarist Russia. Therefore, the collapse of the Eastern Treaty and the collapse of the USSR was not just an ideological event, but also a geopolitical catastrophe (as President Putin himself unequivocally stated).

In the 90s in Russia under Yeltsin and the omnipotence of pro-Western liberals, the process of geopolitical disintegration continued, and on the queue, this time, were the territories of the North Caucasus (the First Chechen Company), in the long term and other subjects of Russia federation. During this period, NATO freely and rapidly expanded to the East, including almost the entire space of Eastern Europe (the countries of the former Warsaw Pact), as well as three republics of the USSR – Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia. At the same time, all agreements with Moscow were violated. Washington promised Gorbachev that even a united Germany would gain neutrality after the withdrawal of Soviet troops from the GDR, much less any expansion of NATO. Zbigniew Brzezinski in 2005, when I asked my direct question about how it happened that NATO still began to expand in violation of the promises to Gorbachev, he cynically replied: “We have tricked him” (“we just deceived him”). The West also deceived Gorbachev about the three Baltic republics.

The new head of Russia, Boris Yeltsin – was once again promised that no countries from among the remaining former Soviet republics would be admitted to NATO. And immediately the West began to create various blocs in the post-Soviet space in the post-Soviet space – first the GUUAM, then the Eastern Partnership – with one single goal: to prepare these countries for integration into the North Atlantic Alliance. “We have deceived, we are deceiving, and we will deceive,” the Atlanticists proclaimed almost openly, unashamedly.

In Russia itself, the fifth and sixth columns within the state on every steep turn softened the blow and contributed to the success of the West. Putin recently recounted how he purged direct U.S. spies from the country’s governing structure, but it clearly only touched on the tip of the iceberg — there’s no doubt that the bulk of the Atlanticist network still holds influential positions in the Russian elite.

So, in the 90s, the West did everything possible to turn Russia from a subject of geopolitics, which it was in the era of the USSR and the Russian Empire (that is, almost always – with the exception of the Mongol conquests) into an object. This was the “great war of the continents”, the encirclement of Heartland, the compression of the “ring of the anaconda” around Russia.

Immediately after coming to power, Putin began to save everything that could still be saved. This is the policy of sovereignty. In the case of Russia – given its territory, history, identity, and tradition – to be sovereign is to be a pole independent of the West (because the other poles are either much inferior to the West in strength, or, unlike the Same West, do not claim aggressive expansion of their civilizational model). The very course on sovereignty and Russia’s return to history, taken by Putin, implied an increase in confrontation. And this naturally affected the growing demonization of Putin and Russia itself in the West. As Daria Platonova said in one of the programs of the First Channel, “the red line for the West is the very existence of sovereign Russia.” And Putin crossed this line almost immediately after coming to power.

The West and Russia are like two communicating vessels: if in one it arrives, it decreases from the other, and vice versa. Zero-sum game. The laws of geopolitics are strict, and we saw this under Gorbachev and Yeltsin – they wanted to be friends of the West and share power over the world together. The West took this only as a sign of weakness and surrender. We win, you lose, sign here. According to this formula of the neoconservative Richard Pearl (“we won, you lost, sign off”) and built relations with post-Soviet Russia. But that was before Putin.

Putin said “stop.” Soft and quiet at first. He wasn’t heard then. Then, in the Munich speech, louder. And again, his words caused only indignation, seemed to be an “inappropriate trick.”

In 2008, everything became more serious, and after the Atlanticist Maidan, the subsequent reunification with the Crimea and the deposition of the Donbas from Kyiv, and the successes of Russian troops in Syria, the situation became more serious. Russia again became a sovereign pole, behaved like a sovereign pole, and spoke in this capacity with the West. Trump, more concerned with national politics, did not pay much attention to this, since he adhered to the position of realism in international relations. And this means a serious attitude to sovereignty and a purely rational – as in business – miscalculation of national interests beyond any liberal messianism. In addition, Trump apparently did not know about the existence of geopolitics at all.

But Biden’s arrival has escalated the situation to the extreme. Behind Biden in the US are the most radical hawks, neoconservatives (who hate Trump for his realism), and globalist elites who fanatically spread ultra-liberal ideology. Atlanticist imperialism is superimposed on LGBT messianism. An explosive mixture of geo-ideological and gender pathology. Putin’s independent sovereign (polar) Russia is a direct threat to both. Not America, but Atlanticism, globalism, and gender liberalism. Equally, however, as well as modern China, there is also an increasingly sovereign China.

It is in this situation that Putin informs the West of his“red lines.” And it’s not something lightweight. Behind this is a reality check of Russia’s concrete achievements. So far, we are not talking about Eastern Europe, deceived from Eurasia. The status quo of the Baltic States is recognized. But the post-Soviet space is a zone of russia’s exclusive responsibility. This primarily applies to Ukraine, as well as Georgia and Moldova. Other countries openly do not openly express a desire to take an aggressive position towards Moscow and to close themselves with the West and NATO.

Scythe finds on a stone. Atlanticist Biden vs Eurasianist Putin. There is a clash of two absolutely mutually exclusive points of view – black and white. “The Grand Chessboard” as Brzezinski put it. In such a situation, friendship cannot win. And this means one of two things: either war is inevitable, or one of the parties will not withstand the tension and will give up its positions without a fight. The stakes are extremely high: we are talking about the fate of the entire world order.

Ukraine is just a minor figure in the Great Game. Yes, today this territory is a stumbling block. For Russia, this is a vital area, from the point of view of geopolitics. For the West, it is only one of the links in the encirclement of Russia-Eurasia by the Atlanticist “anaconda strategy”. Letting Ukraine into NATO or allowing U.S. military bases to be stationed on its lands is a fatal blow to Russia’s sovereignty, nullifying almost all of Putin’s achievements. To insist on “red lines” is to be prepared for war.

In such a situation, compromise is impossible. Someone loses, someone wins. With or without war.

It is obvious that the sixth column (no one else listens to the fifth in power today) in the event of a direct confrontation with the West in Ukraine, and simply when the conflict moves to a hot stage, loses everything. Shifts in Russian politics are inevitable – and it is obvious that patriotic figures will come to the fore. Therefore, today in the Russian elites, Putin is persuaded to retreat not only by systemic liberals (almost officially registered foreign agents) but also by many other people who are formally difficult to suspect of Westernism. Any arguments are used – the fate of Nord Stream 2, disconnection from the SWIFT system, the inevitable technological lag, isolation, etc. The same arguments were voiced in 2008, and after the Maidan, and in relation to Syria. Putin is probably well aware of this, and will immediately recognize what power is behind such elite walkers from Brussels and Washington. So they better not even try.

Winning a war – preferably without a fight – is possible only by being fully prepared for it and without giving up any of the vital positions.

The post-Soviet space should be only under the strategic control of Russia. Today, we not only want it but we can. And what’s more: we can’t do it any other way. But the status of the Baltic states (already in NATO) and our plans for Eastern Europe can be discussed. This is beyond the “red lines” – a compromise is possible here.

Our brief geopolitical overview shows that Putin has changed Russia’s very geopolitical significance, turning it from an object (then Russia was in the 90s) into a subject. The subject behaves completely differently from the object. He insists on his own, notices and fixes the deception, leads to an answer, notes his zone of responsibility, resists, and puts forward ultimatum demands. And most importantly: the subject has enough strength, scale, and will to put all this into practice.

The crisis in relations with the West that we have now is an unequivocal sign of the colossal successes of Vladimir Putin’s geopolitics, an iron hand leading Russia to revival and return to history. And in history, we have always been able to stand up for our “red lines”. And often went far beyond them. Our troops visited many European capitals as victors – in particular, Paris and Berlin. If necessary, you can visit Brussels, London and… who knows, maybe Washington at one time. Exclusively for peaceful purposes.