Russia Plays The European Card
Moi je dis qu’il faut faire l’Europe avec pour base un accord entre Français et Allemands. (…) Une fois l’Europe faite sur ces bases (…), alors, on pourra se tourner vers la Russie. Alors, on pourra essayer, une bonne fois pour toutes, de faire l’Europe tout entière avec la Russie aussi, dut-elle changer son régime. Voilà le programme des vrais Européens. Voilà le mien”.
Charles de Gaulle (1949)
In a recent ground-breaking foreign policy paper, Wladimir Putin reveals the contours of his grand strategy: “Russia is an inalienable and organic part of Greater Europe and European civilization. Our citizens think of themselves as Europeans. We are by no means indifferent to developments in united Europe.” That’s quite a relief for anybody who supports European civilization warm-heartedly as well has an understanding of Europe’s precarious energy situation. About the energy situation Putin has reassuring words: “We must also consider more extensive cooperation in the energy sphere, up to and including the formation of a common European energy complex. The Nord Stream gas pipeline under the Baltic Sea and the South Stream pipeline under the Black Sea are important steps in that direction.” If European leaders know what’s good for Europe they should enthusiastically accept Putin’s offer. More than a year earlier Putin had already signaled his readiness for far-reaching integration of the EU and Russia, where he envisioned “a unified continental market with a capacity worth trillions of euros.“. Yes, that’s right, euros.
What is happening here is the realization in slow motion of the grand strategy of the French general Charles de Gaulle of ‘l’Europe des Patries‘ as a counterweight against Anglo-Saxon world domination schemes of the Straussian elites running AIPAC-Washington today.
‘l’Europe des Patries‘ to replace the Brussels-EU American water carriers.
We are witnessing nothing short of the formation of a Paris-Berlin-Moscow axis that had its origins in the refusal of Greater Europe to join the US in its illfated Iraq safari.
True Europeans having a good laugh letting the US stumble into Iraq on their own to the tune of 3-5 trillion $. Who were the real winners after the debacle?
What happened between 2003-2012 was that the US blundered into de facto creating the foundations of a Shia super alliance dominating the Middle-East, by handing over Shia dominated Iraq to the Iranian sphere of influence.
At the moment the US is meddling in Syria by supporting the insurgents, much like the western alliance did in Libya, in an attempt to break that country away from its alliance with Iran. Turkey is watching along the sidelines and amused as it sees potential for a neo-Ottoman expansion of its sphere of inflluence southwards, now that integration with the EU is becoming an ever less likely prospect, with the southern European financial meltdown. Turkey would be the most likely candidate to fill the vacuum in the Arab Sunni territories once the Pax Americana implodes, which it eventually will, either the soft way like the implosion of the USSR or after a major confrontation with SCO (WW3).
The US are looking for an excuse to destroy Iran. The excuse is going to be the alleged intention of Iran to produce nuclear weapons, for which no proof exists. In reality Iran is a geopolitical pivot and a proxy and line of defense for Russian and Chinese interests. The control over the remainder of ME oil sources means control over China. The US goal (or that of the Straussians/neocons rather) is world government on their terms, located in either Washington or Jeruzalem. The result will be a world without borders and nations, which is not exactly in the interest of ordinary Europeans in either Europe or America.
– Germany is almost totally dependent on Russia for its supply of fossil fuel. This is geopolitical fact with enormous repercussions. Russia basically owns Germany.
– Population distribution of (potential) alliances:
– The perceived US naval superiority is a myth. This is the 21st century, that is the age of the supersonic missiles. If party A has a fleet of carriers and cruisers and party B has supersonic missiles, party B will win. Even the US-Navy admitted that. The Falklands war in 1982 already showed the new reality: Argentina would have won, had it obtained 10 or so more Exocet missiles and sank a few extra British vessels. The US navy is merely a drain on already overstretched domestic fiscal resources. The US navy is a Chinese asset.
– Chinese and Russian armies can occupy the Middle East over land; the US cannot
– The US has an adventurous ethnic make-up, for which history shows that the half-life of these political entities usually is very short (USSR, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, Iraq to mention a few examples of ‘designer states’). It is unlikely that the majority Mexican US states like California and Texas are keen on fighting Washington’s war en will attempt to break away.
The conflict likely will begin in the Gulf/Strait of Hormuz/Taiwan.
End result: the West is going to be scuttled in the middle of the Atlantic and to be replaced by the North (Greater Europe). The world likely is going to be divided in two major spheres of influence: I) the European world located around the Atlantic, with center of gravity in Europe (Paris-Berlin-Moscow with 700 million people) plus a Euro-American annex of 180 million after the balkenization of North-America. II) the Asian world, dominated by China, including Australia and Japan and Korea and America’s west coast. Taiwan is going to be reabsorbed by Beijing.
[Timothy Garton Ash – Turkey’s neo-Ottoman game plan]
[Michael Weiss – Turkey’s Neo-Ottoman Foreign Policy]
[This Is How the Carriers Will Die (Updated Version) – Gary Brecher]
[U Sank My Carrier! – Gary Brecher]