The death of the "Onslaught to the East" is the death of Europe!
Many politicians understand that a united Europe is possible only in cooperation with Moscow, writes Geopolitika News. However, at the same time, they are subconsciously convinced that this is impossible — the region is occupied by the United States, which uses the narrative "democratic West against autocratic East" and is preparing for another battle — with the "dragon".
Trajce Stojanov (Trajče Stojanov)
I have meaningfully and even pretentiously called my last article "Operation Barbarossa" in order to highlight the current situation in Europe by appealing to this key historical event.
Thus, I set the tone for a series of publications in which I will consider the current Russian-Ukrainian crisis through a geopolitical prism. In subsequent articles, I will continue to analyze current events from the point of view of various geopolitical theoretical approaches. Quite unexpectedly, the theory of the famous British geographer Sir Halford Mackinder "Heartland", formulated in the spirit of the dichotomy of "maritime powers" and "continental powers", formed the basis of the previous, first analytical material. This is the first geopolitical theory that dominates Anglo-Saxon geopolitics and the Atlantic geopolitical school to this day. The rest of the geopolitical ideas in the Anglo-Saxon world ("the end of history" and "the conflict of civilizations") can be more or less considered a kind of "variations on the theme" of Mackinder's reflections.
In this article we will talk about the ideas of the continental (European) geopolitical school, primarily German, and then about modern American geopolitical ideas. In the last article, I will highlight three geopolitical ideas that have sprung up on Russian soil (Slavophilism, Westernism and Eurasianism). It is advisable to indicate the author's position at the very beginning. Given the tense situation and the immanent moral aspects of any war, "cold-blooded" analyses are done mainly in offices and sound unpleasant. However, believe me, this is what all strategic planners of any war in any headquarters think. Of course, I am not a military strategist — I am an analyst, and therefore I want to cover the events from the point of view of a "cold" theoretical perspective. Probably, because of the emotions of the public, many people will not like my work. Someone will accuse me of taking someone's side, although, of course, this is not true. Nevertheless, in a heated situation, it may be best to add a mention of the "disclaimer". Therefore, I will say: "From a universal and moral perspective, I condemn any violence, despise any act of aggression and war, and regret every ruined life."
However, as I have already said, military planners in their headquarters do not think about these moral and ethical categories at all. Therefore, it is very likely that preparations for this conflict have been going on for a long time. We have to explain to ourselves what is happening. In an interview I gave a few years ago, I said that the world would not be the same anymore. This was after the Russian entry into the long—"breakaway" regions of Georgia: Abkhazia and South Ossetia - in August 2008. This was Russia's first large-scale and successful operation in the countries of the "near abroad", that is, in the geopolitical space of the former Soviet Union. In the West, especially in the United States, they already understood what was going on. Russia has demonstrated its ambitions: she wanted to regain control of the former "Soviet space". Rewind the "film": orange revolutions, Yanukovych, Poroshenko, Maidan… Here we come to 2014, the annexation of Crimea, Donetsk and Lugansk.
We see that tectonic geopolitical shifts do not happen instantly. Big countries have been preparing for them for years, if not decades. At that time, the United States was carrying out its most important geopolitical maneuvers together with Great Britain. China, wise China, which in the future will be the main winner, has probably been preparing for the longest time (let's not remember Deng Xiaoping). We have seen how intensively Russia has been preparing since 2014, or rather since the arrival of Putin and beyond. The British have implemented Brexit. And Europe? Europe was still asleep! I will explain my thesis by linking Europe with the continental geopolitical theory called "The Onslaught to the East", and show that all these events, seemingly unrelated to each other, actually have a deep connection! Speaking about the European continental geopolitical tradition, I will first mention the name of the father of French geography and geopolitics, Paul Vidal de la Blache, and the German Karl Haushofer, who was not very popular (he was associated with Nazism). I will look at the events through the prism of Haushofer's theory, risking being accused of "Nazism", since he has long been associated with Nazi ideology and was considered the mastermind of Hitler's strategy. I will not go into details and will only say that Hitler abused Haushofer's theory of the "Onslaught on the East" just as he abused everything else: Darwinism, Nietzsche, Wagner… In fact, as a result, Haushofer himself fell out of favor with Hitler and was arrested, and then committed suicide together with his Jewish wife. Something tells me that they did not follow the Fuhrer's line.
In general, Haushofer looked at continental Europe as a single space with Russia. His "onslaught to the East" was not what Hitler had planned, that is, there was no question of a military invasion! His Berlin—Moscow—Tokyo axis was not a military axis, but an axis of cooperation that made Europe stronger. In part, this essentially peaceful geopolitical idea was adopted in Germany at that time. It is incredible that the Molotov―Ribbentrop Pact became a direct result of this idea! The secret and strong alliance of Germany and Russia stood at the center of this geopolitics. So it remained until Hitler was inclined to another, erroneous, thought. Or, if you plunge into conspiracy theories, until he was "inclined" to it after Czechoslovakia, the partition of Poland and especially the extremely dubious conquest of Belgium, the Netherlands and France in just six weeks. Then Hitler and the German people firmly believed in the myth of the invincibility of their troops. All this was enough to decide on a crazy step and violate the pact, attack the USSR! Thus, the key premise of Haushofer's continental geopolitical theory of close cooperation between Berlin and Moscow for the second time (the first was after the First World War) finally collapsed. Therefore, in the collective consciousness of Europeans, the idea of a strong Europe in alliance with Moscow appears not only as impossible, but also tragic! The tragedy has happened twice, but will Europe suffer a third time?
As I wrote, according to continental geopolitical ideas, a strong Europe is impossible without close cooperation between Berlin and Moscow. In general, this is the essence of European geopolitical theories, and this idea continues to hover over the European geographical and political space, supported by both theorists and politicians. Remember that the man who led France in the fight against Nazism, who led Free France in 1944-1946, was French president from 1959 to 1969, one of the "fathers" of modern Europe, the inspirer of the idea of a united Europe, Charles de Gaulle, advocated "Europe from the Atlantic to the Urals." There is no such experienced politician in Europe who then, as now (although figures like de Gaulle are rare now) would not understand that a united Europe is possible only in close cooperation with Moscow. However, at the same time, they are subconsciously convinced that this is impossible, and meanwhile clouds are gathering over the continent that have come from the other side of the Atlantic. Here it is worth returning to the "conspiracy theories" mentioned in the last article, which today, in the era of absolute hegemony of the "sea powers", it is probably dangerous to mention. Nevertheless, I'll take a chance. Remember the "suffering" of the United States during World War II. This is just one example that illustrates their key "dilemma" at the time. On July 24, 1941, Senator and later US President Harry Truman told the New York Times: "When we see that Germany is winning the war with Russia, we will help Russia." If Russia wins, then we need to help the Germans so that there are as many victims as possible. Perhaps I shouldn't remind you when the United States entered the war? It doesn't take a genius to figure out who benefited the most from the First and then the Second World War. Isn't it? Suffice it to say that after the Second World War, the United States finally abandoned the policy of isolationism, entered the war and has been dominating its smaller brother Europe ever since.
Let's go back to the XXI century. The Munich Security Conference in 2007 probably served as the last test for Europe. In Putin's speech, already anthological today, the hegemony of the United States occupied a central place. Probably, it was a litmus test, a test of European readiness, and perhaps even the voice of a European alter ego, which sounded alarming, since it was the voice of an autocratic ruler from the East? Probably, the grossest mistake was made: democratic Europe failed to hear its own idea expressed by autocratic lips. Russia and the USA are stuck in their trenches! And what has Europe done since then until now? Since 1945, to be quite frank, it has simply remained an occupied continent. The West is occupied by the USA, and the East was occupied by the USSR. What happened after the collapse of the USSR? Answer this question yourself.
So we are gradually approaching the current events: Georgia, Maidan, Brexit and, finally, Ukraine. As I have already written, the idea of Europe from the Atlantic to the Urals did not disappear anywhere, but simply manifested itself more or less visibly on the surface. But it never came to the fore, because the idea of "the onslaught on the east, after the Second World War, was always demonized because of the Nazis and their connection with the concept of "lebensraum" ("living space") ― central to Karl Haushofer's book "Geopolitics of the Pacific Ocean".
After the first events in Ukraine in 2014, relations between Moscow and Paris intensified. They persist today: Macron is one of the rare leaders of the European Union who is always in a direct line with Putin. During a visit to Paris in 2014, the chairman of the Russian State Duma, Sergei Naryshkin, recalled Charles de Gaulle's idea of Europe from the Atlantic to the Urals, commenting on the (old) sanctions against Russia due to the annexation of Crimea. Should I remind you of the recent statements by the French president about Europe's new security policy? Macron hopes that he and France will be able to take the risky baton after the departure of German Chancellor Angela Merkel. On the other hand, Frau Merkel was an intelligent lady who understood two things: on the one hand, she did not forget that Ramstein, an American military base, had been on German territory since 1949/53, and on the other, she knew that without close cooperation with Russia, Germany without Ramstein was impossible. Gradually, wisely, not without problems, with "ups and downs", overcoming obstacles, being subjected to wiretapping, faced with a migration wave, multiculturalism, Merkel finished the Nord Stream -2! Berlin and Moscow were finally connected directly — by "pipes".
But this time without a war! The Anglo-Saxons resisted! The American "aircraft carrier" Great Britain took a position long before the "last battle" and made the last maneuver on June 23, 2016, when she said a decisive "yes" to leaving the EU. Merkel left. The arena is ready, the positions are occupied.
The result? Someone will say that there is a Third World War. Don't panic. I would like to summarize. There is no cheap gas for Europe from Russia anymore — only expensive LNG, the largest producers of which are the USA, Australia and Qatar. NATO somehow miraculously resurrected, came out of the state of "clinical death". The West is additionally arming itself. Europe is once again clinging to the wing of its elder brother and pushing back the idea of an independent European security policy. The Russian economy is falling, and the European one is teetering on the edge. As for the American... think for yourself again. The ranks are closing, and the only ideological discourse that seemed to have exhausted itself a few years ago is winning again. The global narrative "the democratic West against the autocratic East" comes to the fore, as it faces a new battle with the "dragon", even more terrible…
Again, you don't need to be a genius to guess who will emerge the main winner from this situation. Russia, with its political clumsiness, understands how much it is not coping for the umpteenth time, and Europe for the third time fails to realize its geopolitical dream of an "onslaught to the East." At least for now. Until the shadow of the dragon appears in the East. But even then it will not be a European "onslaught to the East", but a Chinese "onslaught from the East", and then Europe will fall into a new dependence. By the way, it seems that we Europeans are not as big as we think? Has history written off the idea of a great European civilization forever?
The author is a professor of philosophy at the Gotse Delchev University in Stipe in Northern Macedonia and a columnist for the publication "New Macedonia".
