Who will make friends with Russia the hardest
Opponents of Russia have been and always will be.
We managed to build a dialogue with some countries, but there are a number of states with which Russia will never have friendship.
Russia's biggest fault in front of the outside world is its geographical position, which is the object of envy of many powers. This was well recognized by the English geographer, a member of the Privy Council, John Mackinder, who in 1904 put forward the term "Heartland" (heart - heart, land - land). That is how the Briton designated the center of the Eurasian continent, almost completely coinciding with the borders of the Russian Empire.
“Whoever controls Eastern Europe, he commands Hartland. Who controls the Heartland, he commands the World Island (Eurasia and Africa); Who controls the World Island, he commands the world, ”Mackinder put geopolitical accents. Later, in “Round Table and the achievement of Peace” (1943), Mackinder clearly marked the future in which the interests of Heartland and the North Atlantic world would inevitably clash.
Today, the world is dominated by two geopolitical centers - the sea (US, UK) and continental (Russia). But due to its geographical position, Russia is a link between Western and Eastern civilizations, which makes it the main geopolitical axis of the planet. It is this most important strategic position that creates unresolved antagonism between Russia and the West.
Doctor of Military Sciences Konstantin Sivkov notes that the core of this conflict is “the global industrial and raw material imbalance, consisting in the fact that the largest industrial potential is concentrated in the United States, Europe and Japan, while the main energy and raw materials are in Russia.” To eliminate the existing imbalance, a military-political organization such as NATO was created.
In the new NATO doctrine, the main geopolitical opponent of the alliance is Russia. Our views on the world order are too different. Russia is interested in a multipolar world, while the North Atlantic bloc is trying to build a unipolar world, getting closer and closer to the borders of the Heartland. What's next?
Russian émigré geopolitical Peter Savitsky answered this question at one time: “Russia-Eurasia is the center of the Old World. Eliminate this center - and all the other parts of it, the whole system of continental margins (Europe, Asia Minor, Iran, India, China, Japan) turns into disintegrated chlamine. This is what the alliance is seeking. Removing such a strong player as Russia, he sets the stage for submission to the West of a weakened Eurasia. The question of hypothetical cooperation between Russia and NATO disappears by itself.
The current relations of Russia with the European Union are frankly bad. But at the end of the 19th century, the Russian sociologist Nikolai Danilevsky justified the fundamental alienation of Europe from Russia. “Europe does not recognize us as its own; Europeans see in Russia and the Slavs not only an alien, but also a hostile principle,” the scientist wrote.
Fears of the inhabitants of the Old World are woven into genetic memory. For centuries they have been waiting for the next invasion of nomadic hordes from the East, which could shake traditional European foundations. Lately, Europe is getting farther from “barbarous” Russia and getting closer to “civilized” America.
Modern Europe is an important component of the notorious “golden billion”. Impregnated with a culture of mass consumption, it turned into a community of weak-willed states, flooded with crowds of refugees and labor migrants.
The European Union is an integral part of all North Atlantic projects, one of the tasks of which is the creation of a “sanitary cordon” between Russia and the West. The European Union, dependent on the United States, is increasingly demonstrating outright anti-Russian rhetoric. This is evidenced by the position of France on the Mistrals, and the refusal to consolidate the fight against international terrorism, and the tacit connivance of the crimes of Kiev against the population of Donbass.
In his works, Peter Savitsky warned Russia about the danger of ties with American and European capital. Because the “abstract universalism” of Europe can infect not only socio-economic institutions, but also the entire Russian culture.
Does Russia need the European Union in its current form? On this occasion, Vladimir Putin noted that there will no longer be “past relations” with Europe and the United States.
Without a doubt, Germany claims the leading role in the European Union.More recently, Moscow and Berlin, despite the bleak past, managed to build trust. It was Germany that could act as a kind of buffer protecting Russia from the Anglo-Saxon world.
The position of Germany, aimed at strengthening its political power and independence, was clearly marked between the world wars. The central position of Germany in Europe made her an opponent of the Western maritime powers — Britain, France and the United States. The German sociologist Karl Haushofer noted that the future of “Greater Germany” lay in geopolitical opposition to the West, especially the Anglo-Saxon world, with which the “Sea Force” was identified.
In 1919, the aforementioned Mackinder pointed out that a possible union of Germany and Russia, by connecting the countries of Eastern Europe to it, would create a powerful continental configuration that would be able to oust any geopolitical force from the territory of Eurasia.
Since then much water has flowed. Germany has become more comfortable to play the role of not a European leader, but a vassal of the United States in Europe. The reviewer of the French weekly Nouvelle Observatory Jean Daniel noted that the former tandem Paris-Bonn was replaced by the Berlin-Washington axis.
In June 2016, the German Government updated the “White Book” edition - a guide for the conduct of the country's national security policy. In the updated edition, Russia for Germany is “no longer a partner, but a rival,” who is ready “to forcibly promote its interests.”
The American historian Alfred Mahan in the structure of world space singled out a special zone between the 30th and 40th parallels. In this “conflict zone”, the interests of the “sea empire” controlling the ocean spaces and the “land power” relying on the continental core of Eurasia will inevitably clash. Mahan had in mind England and Russia.
Similar views were held by domestic experts. So, the author of works in the field of strategic geography Alexey Vandam believed that the confrontation between Russia and Britain determines the face of the world. “The main opponent of the Anglo-Saxons on the path to world domination is the Russian people. And their main goals are to push the Russians away from the Pacific Ocean into the depths of Siberia, push Russia out of Asia to the North from the zone between the 30th and 40th degrees of northern latitude, ”wrote Vandam.
In the 20th century, in spite of the allied treaties, relations between Russia and England always remained strained.Finally, they deteriorated during the Cold War, when the Soviet Union and Britain were in a spying epidemic.
In the new edition of the UK security strategy from 2015, Russia is included in the list of top-priority threats. London reacts differently to the “Russian threats”. For example, it gives shelter to persons in the Russian Federation in search, or makes a proposal to disconnect our country from the international payment system.
The father of the concept of "deterrence", Nicholas Spikman, argued that it was not Russia, but the United States, that was central to the world. The term "Heartland" political scientist contrasted the concept of "Rimland". According to Spikman, this is an arc bordering Russia from the west, south and southeast and allowing both to successfully control the sea and block the continental power of Eurasia. This gives an exceptional opportunity to influence the course of world events.
After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the United States openly embarked on the path of geopolitical expansionism, implementing the “open door” doctrine towards Russia. According to some researchers, the collapsed economy of our country speaks about the success of the policy pursued by the Americans.
Today, in view of the inefficiency of economic levers of influence on Russia, the United States intends to use all the resources of NATO. “Washington is 75% financed by NATO,” said military expert Viktor Litovkin. “It is quite logical that the authors of the new doctrine have united the policy of the United States and the North Atlantic Alliance into a single whole.”
Almost all prominent Russian analysts are confident that the States will never stop. In spite of everything, they will go to the intended goal - “reorganization of interstate relations in the whole of Eurasia” with the maximum weakening of Russia.
A prominent American political analyst of Polish origin, Zbigniew Brzezinski, in a speech on the occasion of assigning him the title of “honorary citizen of Lviv” in 1999, said: “A new world order is created against Russia by the US hegemony against Russia, and on the ruins of Russia”. Who would doubt it.
There were too many uncomfortable moments in the history of relations between Russia and Poland. Both states have something to blame each other for. Moreover, Russophobic attacks from Warsaw do not give a reason to normalize relations. The prominent Polish politician Jozef Pilsudski once voiced his cherished wish: “My dream is to reach Moscow and write on the Kremlin wall -“ To speak Russian is forbidden ”.Since then, little has changed.
In April 2016, the Latvian “commission for calculating damage from the Soviet occupation” announced the results of work - the damage caused to the economy of Latvia during the occupation of the USSR amounts to 185 billion euros. But this is half the trouble. With countries where the Russian-speaking minority is systematically oppressed, where Nazism is being rehabilitated, Russia can have no joint future.
With Turkey, Russia is linked by a long and bloody history of wars. Yes, now our countries have learned to smooth the sharp corners of contradictions, but they cannot boast about the stability of relations between the two states. We do not come to an understanding on the "Crimean" and "Syrian" issue. Head of the Department of International Relations of the Diplomatic Academy of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation Boris Shmelev notes that Turkey, as the United States and the collective West, will always be our geopolitical opponent.
With a country in which the highest percentage of anti-Russian sentiment, dialogue has always been difficult. Now added and the territorial problem. On April 15, 2014, the Ukrainian parliament passed a law recognizing the territory of Crimea as temporarily occupied by the territory of Ukraine.On January 27, 2015, the Verkhovna Rada adopted a resolution in which Russia's actions in the Crimea and Donbas were qualified as aggression against Ukraine, and in the new military doctrine of Ukraine, approved in September 2015, the Russian Federation was declared its military opponent.
Russia and Japan have not yet concluded a peace treaty. The main reason is the territorial claims of the Japanese side on a part of the Kuril Ridge, which, according to the results of the Second World War, was withdrawn by the USSR. It was not by chance that, until 1991, none of the Soviet leaders honored Japan with a visit. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Japan hoped to get hold of the islands, but today it is obvious that apart from the joint economic development of Russia with the Smokers, the country of the Rising Sun has no claim to anything. You should not expect in the foreseeable future between our states and friendly relations.