THE
CONQUEST OF EURASIA MAY LEAD TO WWIII
THE
“GREAT GAME” AND THE CONQUEST OF EURASIA: TOWARDS A WORLD WAR III SCENARIO?
By Mahdi Darius
Nazemroaya Global Research, December 15, 2013
Original: Nov 2010 http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-great-game-and-the-conquest-of-eurasia-towards-a-world-war-iii-scenario/22140
EXTRACTS
Mackinder's
Geo-Strategic Nightmare
“The great wars of history — we have had a world-war about every hundred
years for the last four centuries — are the outcome, direct or indirect, of the
unequal growth of nations, and that unequal growth is not wholly due to the
greater genius and energy of some nations as compared with others; in large
measure it is the result of the uneven distribution of fertility and
strategical opportunity upon the face of our Globe. In other words, there is in
nature no such thing as equality of opportunity for the nations. Unless I
wholly misread the facts of geography, I would go further, and say that the
grouping of lands and seas, and of fertility and natural pathways, is such as
to lead itself to the growth of empires, and in the end of a single World
Empire. If we are to realise our ideal of a League of Nations which shall
prevent war in the future, we must recognize these geographical realities and
take steps to counter their influence.”-Halford J. Mackinder (Democratic Ideals and Reality, 1919)
“Just as none of us is outside or beyond geography, none of us is completely free from the struggle over geography. That struggle is complex and interesting because it is not only about soldiers and cannons but also about ideas, about forms, about images and imaginings.”
-Edward Wadie Saïd (Culture and Imperialism, 1993)
If the prospects of China becoming a global superpower are real, then the materialization of any solid Eurasian alliance comprised of Russia, Iran, India, and China would certainly give rise to a Eurasian “mega power.”
Such a Eurasian “mega power” would dwarf the U.S., hereto the soul global superpower. At best, America would become a secondary power like France, Britain, Germany, and Japan in present comparison to America. Within this context, the materialization of a strong Eurasian entity has historically been sabotaged, obstructed, and opposed by both British and American strategists in what is best described as an “Anglo-American” strategy in Eurasia.
Historically, London has always worked at pre-empting the rise of any strong rival power on the Continent (Eurasia). Halford Mackinder the so-called “father of geo-politics” was not the man who contrived or imagined these ideas, but he did articulate these characteristics of British policy. America has merely inherited this strategy.
An authentic Eurasian “mega power” would be a geo-strategic nightmare for the Anglo-American elites and their interests. In this context the deepening cooperation between Russia, China, and Iran can be called “Halford Mackinder’s geo-strategic nightmare.” The Primakov Doctrine in this sense is a Eurasian rebuttal to Mackinder’s admonition about the strategic threat to Britain and to similar players, like America, from a strong Continental actor.
In 1996, Russian decision makers realized that the Russian Federation was viewed more like a colonial territory to be divided into spheres than as an equal partner by the U.S. and Western Europe. Since then the Primakov Doctrine began gaining currency and establishing itself in Moscow. Under the Primakov Doctrine the leaders of the Kremlin were primed to establish a strategic alliance between Moscow, Beijing, and New Delhi. Tehran was also looked at favourably as an additional fourth member to the Eurasian entente that Russia sought.
Primakov put emphasis on strategic coordination with Iran. Tehran, by extension of its geo-strategic importance and strength as the regional power of the Middle East-North Africa (MENA) region, was eventually added into the framework of the Primakov Doctrine by the Kremlin’s Eurasianist foreign policy planners. From the seeds of the Primakov Doctrine, a reluctant coalition started to form between China and Russia that would later incorporate Tehran, while New Delhi cordially kept its distance. See Map
THE SHIFTING GLOBAL BALANCE: FROM “COALITION OF THE RELUCTANT” TO “GLOBAL COUNTER-ALLIANCE”
“We have a duty to remember that the causes of any war lie above all in the mistakes and miscalculations of peacetime, and that these causes have their roots in an ideology of confrontation and extremism. It is all the more important that we remember this today, because these threats are not becoming fewer but are only transforming and changing their appearance. These new threats, just as under the Third Reich, show the same contempt for human life and the same aspiration to establish an exclusive diktat over the world.”
-Vladimir Putin, 62nd Anniversary of Victory in Europe Day (May 9, 2007)
The divisions that were perceived to have existed during the Cold War have not disappeared, they have been modified and transformed. In Eurasia and beyond a “Coalition of the Reluctant” has evolved, from what was put together by mutual concerns, into a global counter-alliance. Russia, China, and Iran lead this coalition in Eurasia and the Middle East. In Latin America and the Caribbean it is Venezuela and Cuba that hold the banners of resistance to U.S. geo-political hegemony.
Within Eurasia the SCO (Shanghai Cooperation Organization) and the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) (re-grouping Russia and several former Soviet republics) have also been edging towards an eventual merger to counter-balance NATO. A group in the Western Hemisphere led by Venezuela, which can be called the Bolivarian Bloc, that was originally called the Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas or ALBA (Alternativa Bolivariana para las Américas) is also expanding in Latin America and the Caribbean.
Venezuela has joined the Eurasian coalition of Tehran, Moscow, and Beijing to form a “Global Quadrilateral” that includes Caracas and Latin America. The recent international tour of Hugo Chávez that saw him visit Belarus, Ukraine, Iran, Russia, Syria, Libya, and Portugal is part of this alliance. [3] While in Tehran, Chavez and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad declared that Venezuela and Iran were working for a new and alternative global order.[4] Venezuela and Libya have also repeatedly called for the creation of a South Atlantic Treaty Organization amongst African and South American countries to counter NATO.[5]
The alliance between Venezuela and the Bolivarians in the Americas and the Eurasians is one that is formed by mutual resistance against America. According to the rhetoric of Senior Chávez and his Bolivarian allies their alliance is one that is against the “North American Empire” and its vassals. For over a decade Venezuela and the Bolivarian Bloc have been busy cementing what they call a “strings of steel” policy to solidify their links with their allies and partners in Eurasia and Africa.
==========
Part II of this Text is coming
The second part of this text will provide an overview of the multiple fronts of the current “Great Game” which constitutes the basis of the march towards a global war. It will examine the fronts in various geographic/geopolitical regions.
Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya is a Research Associate at the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).
=========
Related
content:
The “Great Game”: Eurasia and the History of War Modern crises and the geo-politics of today in Europe,
Caucasia, the Middle East, and Central Asia are governed by the agendas of the
past in Eurasia. Has much really changed?
The “New Great Game” in Eurasia is being fought in its
“Buffer Zones” The most
likely scenario is that Moldova will ally itself with Russia.
The Conquest of Eurasia: NATO’s War For The World’s
Heartland Welcoming Azerbaijan’s Foreign
Minister Elmar Mammadyarov to Foggy Bottom in early May of this year, US
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton could think of nothing more original to say
than “Azerbaijan has a very strategic location that is one important…
The Next World War: The “Great Game” and the Threat of
Nuclear War From the “Cold War” and the “Global War on
Terror” to a World War III scenario
=============
READ ALSO:
Defense Expending is
Bankrupting US www.thewarstate.com/
=========
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario