Civil Defense Perspectives Vol. 36 #6
Russia invaded Crimea on Feb 20, 2014, officially marking the beginning of the Russo-Ukrainian War. On Mar 16, a referendum was held, in which 95.5% of voters in Crimea voted in favor of joining Russia. The vote was condemned by the EU as “illegal and illegitimate.” UN considered it illegal because the whole of Ukraine did not vote and both options on the ballot would have resulted in a separation from Ukraine.
The pretext for the invasion was to rescue elected pro-Russian president Viktor Yanukovych, who was ousted in the Maidan coup (tinyurl.com/3d5y72an; tinyurl.com/yvba829t).
Troubles between the EU, NATO, and Russia were brewing long before. Observers commenting on the current situation recommend a review of the speech Vladimir Putin presented to the Munich Conference on Security Policy in 2007 (https://tinyurl.com/5kmuxj54). Key points included:
“Only two decades ago the world was ideologically and economically divided and it was the huge strategic potential of two superpowers that ensured global security….
“And, just like any war, the Cold War left us with live ammunition, figuratively speaking. I am referring to ideological stereotypes, double standards and other typical aspects of Cold War bloc thinking.
“The unipolar world that had been proposed after the Cold War did not take place either.
“The history of humanity certainly has gone through unipolar periods and seen aspirations to world supremacy….
“However, what is a unipolar world? However one might embellish this term, at the end of the day it refers to one type of situation, namely one centre of authority, one centre of force, one centre of decision-making. It is a world in which there is one master, one sovereign…. [T]his is pernicious not only for all those within this system, but also for the sovereign itself because it destroys itself from within….
“And this certainly has nothing in common with democracy. Because, as you know, democracy is the power of the majority in light of the interests and opinions of the minority.
“Incidentally, Russia—we—are constantly being taught about democracy. But for some reason those who teach us do not want to learn themselves.
“I consider that the unipolar model is not only unacceptable but also impossible in today’s world…. [T]he model itself is flawed because at its basis there is and can be no moral foundations for modern civilisation….
“[W]hat is happening in today’s world…is a tentative to introduce precisely this concept into international affairs, the concept of a unipolar world.
“And with which results?
“Unilateral and frequently illegitimate actions have not resolved any problems. Moreover, they have caused new human tragedies and created new centres of tension. Judge for yourselves: wars as well as local and regional conflicts have not diminished…. And…even more are dying than before. Significantly more, significantly more!
“Today we are witnessing an almost uncontained hyper use of force—military force—in international relations, force that is plunging the world into an abyss of permanent conflicts…. We are seeing a greater and greater disdain for the basic principles of international law. And independent legal norms are, as a matter of fact, coming increasingly closer to one state’s legal system. One state and, of course, first and foremost the United States, has overstepped its national borders in every way. This is visible in the economic, political, cultural and educational policies it imposes on other nations….
“Did not our country have a peaceful transition to democracy? Indeed, we witnessed a peaceful transformation of the Soviet regime…. And what a regime! With what a number of weapons, including nuclear weapons! Why should we start bombing and shooting now at every available opportunity? Is it the case when without the threat of mutual destruction we do not have enough political culture, respect for democratic values and for the law?”
After much discussion of nuclear disarmament, Putin considers conventional weapons: “And here in Germany I cannot help but mention the pitiable condition of the [1999] Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe…. NATO has put its frontline forces on our borders [the so-called flexible frontline American bases with up to five thousand men in each], and we continue to strictly fulfil the treaty obligations and do not react to these actions at all.
“I think it is obvious that NATO expansion does not have any relation with the modernisation of the Alliance itself or with ensuring security in Europe. On the contrary, it represents a serious provocation that reduces the level of mutual trust…. [W]hat happened to the assurances our western partners made after the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact?… No one even remembers them.
….“The stones and concrete blocks of the Berlin Wall have long been distributed as souvenirs. But we should not forget that the fall of the Berlin Wall was possible thanks to a historic choice —one that was also made by our people, the people of Russia—a choice in favour of democracy, freedom, openness and a sincere partnership with all the members of the big European family…. And now they are trying to impose new dividing lines and walls on us—these walls may be virtual but they are nevertheless dividing, ones that cut through our continent….”
In short, the end of the Cold War did not result in friendship but in increasing tensions, with Russia feeling threatened.
The economic power (hegemony?) of the U.S. and EU seemed overpowering, and John McCain called Russia “a gas station masquerading as a country.” But Putin pointed out: “The combined GDP measured in purchasing power parity of countries such as India and China is already greater than that of the United States. And a similar calculation with the GDP of the BRIC countries—Brazil, Russia, India and China—surpasses the cumulative GDP of the EU. And according to experts this gap will only increase in the future…. [T]he economic potential of the new centres of global economic growth will inevitably be converted into political influence and will strengthen multipolarity.”
Russia is not to be disregarded or to be subservient, Putin stated: “Russia is a country with a history that spans more than a thousand years and has practically always used the privilege to carry out an independent foreign policy.”
A New Cold War?
In the early 1990s, two theories of humanity’s future competed. Francis Fukuyama’s The End of History predicted that every country in the world was destined to adopt Western-style liberalism. In contrast, Samuel Huntington’s Clash of Civilizations stated that rather than converging, the countries of the world were separating into distinct civilizational blocs.
This discussion echoed the argument that has been raging among Russian intellectuals since the 1840s infamous debate between the Westernizers and Slavophiles. The Westernizers held a “teleological” view of the world, that all societies eventually converged on a common end (telos)—and this end was synonymous with the West. Slavophiles contended that Western civilization had peaked, while Russia still had much to offer through its own unique, Orthodox culture.
Russian thinker Nikolai Danilevsky, a biologist, adopted an organic view: Human civilizations were organic beings that were born, matured, and died. In Russia and Europe, he theorized that Russia and Western Europe were entirely distinct “cultural historical types” and should develop in their own separate ways.
In the early 2000s, Vladimir Putin was a traditional Westernizer, speaking of Russia’s eventual integration into Europe, writes Paul Robinson. More recently, however, he has commented that “real democracy in a multipolar world is primarily about the ability of any nation—I emphasize—any society or civilization to follow its own path.”
The new Cold War might be about contrasting visions of a world converging around Western values and institutions versus one consisting of distinct civilizations (tinyurl.com/yckv6yr3).
The Age of Aquarius
Nationalism and multipolarity are a threat to the New World Order, which would require central global governance to bring about “integrated assessment models” (IAMs) needed to transform agricultural and industrial processes to “tackle global warming” (Nature 6/10/21). Some call for “ecological Leninism” to “halt climate change,” since “capital” is said to be the driving force (https://tinyurl.com/2a6xd7vp).
A 1970 article on “Government Control of the Environment” foreshadows many ideas that are current today (American Opinion, May 1970). Gary Allen, author of Communist Revolution in the Streets, writes that the Establishment concerns had shifted from poverty, to the “peace movement,” to “ecology.”
From the 2,000-year Age of Pisces, we had entered the Age of Aquarius, “an end to the tiresome ‘work ethic’ of the age of Christianity and the beginning of the age of collectivism.”
“Orwell’s 1984, an Aquarian prophecy, is likely to be fulfilled. Privacy and individuality will vanish,” writes Allen, quoting Rod Chase of Liberation News Service, which he calls the underground equivalent of Associated Press. He notes that Chase doesn’t explain how that squares with “doing your own thing.”
Ecologists were against economic growth, for depopulation, for one world government, and for phasing out nation states as quickly as possible. “Ecology is the issue by which we unite all Americans, and probably Russians too,” according to an underground San Francisco newspaper Good Times.
The automobile was a particular target. Students at San Jose State College collected $2,500 to buy a new Ford Maverick for burial. “Ashes to ashes, and rust to rust.”
Destructionism
The starting point for the World Economic Forum’s Great Reset is what Ludwig von Mises called “destructionism.” All socialists advocate the destruction of existing institutions, especially capitalism, the family, and religion, all of which form a barrier between the individual and the controlling dictates of the state. “Socialism is . . . the spoiler of what thousands of years of civilization have created. It doesn’t build; it destroys. For destructionism is the essence of it . . . each step leading towards socialism must exhaust itself in the destruction of what already exists.” Features include the abolition of meat from the average diet and destruction of the energy industries and their replacement with wind turbines and solar panels (tinyurl.com/39cnuwmf).
Strategy: West v. East
The Byzantium equivalent of Sun Tzu’s Art of War is the Strategikon. Sixth-century Byzantium was threatened successively from the east by Sassanid Persia, Arabs, and Turks, and from the north by waves of steppe invaders, Huns, Avars, Bulgars, semi-nomadic Turkic Pechenegs, and Magyars.
Byzantium could not prevail by following the classic pattern of Roman Empire raw power—it lacked the means. So, military force needed to be subordinate to diplomacy, a less costly means of avoiding or resolving conflict. When military means became necessary, it was preferable to use weaponry to contain or punish adversaries, instead of attacking with full force. Strategic primacy, for Byzantium, was more a psychological affair than a diplomatic or military one. The Greek strategos historically corresponds to a managerial politico-military function.
Confrontation developed simultaneously on multiple levels: grand strategy, military strategy, operative, tactical. Those who built up an empire such as the Romans, or maintained one for centuries like the Byzantines, never succeeded without following this logic. Brilliant tactics, excellent operative intel, and even massive victories in a larger war theater cannot compensate for a lethal mistake in terms of grand strategy, writes Pepe Escobar. “Just look at the Nazis in WWII.”
As this is being written at the end of 2022, Escobar sees parallels with today’s Russia and the war in Ukraine. “Centuries after the Byzantine Strategikon was penned, the Global South would be very much interested in getting acquainted with the 21st century Russian version of the Art of War.” He points out: “History shows that the CIA strategically blew it all the way from Vietnam to Afghanistan and Iraq. Ukraine is no different” (https://tinyurl.com/7c6n5nc4).
The Byzantine Empire lasted more than twice as long as the better known western (Roman) empire—more than 1,000 years (https://tinyurl.com/4rcuftm2).
Prelude to Collapse
Totalitarian world government is not a foregone conclusion. Rather, we have reached peak government, and the inflection point is near, writes Robert Gore. New World Order collectivists will reap the fruits of the only things they produce—destruction and death—but these will not be global consolidation and enslavement but rather a decentralized multiplicity of new arrangements. WEF “leaders” are headed for the Sarlacc Pit of Star Wars (https://tinyurl.com/2p8bks24).