© 2000

This year, and with it all the century ends is extremely unfavorable for Russia in geopolitical terms. In the west and south of the events occurred so worsened the international situation, that now it has become apparent to all.

“The world became different after Kosovo!” – a cry of one of the political commentators expressed the opinion of many. The shock caused by the NATO attack on Yugoslavia replaced insight. Illusion of peacefulness West and its readiness to consider the interests of the new, democratic Russia, hopes for a general movement towards a united Europe finally collapsed.

The negative effects of the current Western policy Russia is magnified for powerful historical processes that are considered to be natural.

Not in time, at least in part, to normalize the situation in the Balkans as in Dagestan and then in Chechnya broke out conflict related to another constant source of danger is already on the southern borders of Russia.

It is time to re-examine the geopolitical situation. This is all the more important that the dynamics of the international situation is becoming more alarming for Russia.


Powerful promotion of NATO in the west to the east, in the direction of Russia – a disturbing fact. Twice during this century Russia were caught unawares alien aggression emanating from the West. It would be remiss to ignore this danger once again.

The current attack on Yugoslavia was undoubtedly a landmark event. And in 1914 and 1941. after the aggression against the Serbs followed the invasion of our country. This sequence is explained by the traditional geopolitical logic: the expansion directed from Central Europe to the east, deep into the Eurasian space, requires the prior fixing of the aggressor Balkan foothold.

Mogilevkin Ilya Moiseevich, PhD, Chief Scientific Officer IMEMO.

It is because the bombing of Yugoslavia and the occupation of Kosovo Serbs did not break completely, the struggle against them continues.Fierce pressure on Serbia to open a demand regime change combined with efforts to tear Montenegro from Serbia and attempts to destabilize the situation in the Serbian province of Vojvodina, sending it by “Kosovo” way. The goal – to break up the Yugoslav federation, Serbia relegate to a position isolated from the weak state of the sea, easily blocked at any time. How does this mechanism unpunished blockade was recently demonstrated when our recent “brothers” – Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria have refused to provide air corridors for aircraft with Russian peacekeepers, citing the need to obtain permission of the NATO leadership. Even before the US announced the oil blockade of Yugoslavia.At the same time, US officials directly threatened to use force if the Russian oil tankers will be sent to the Yugoslav ports. Thus once again been demonstrated direct disregard for international law, which considers the blockade of ports or coasts of a State as an act of aggression.

The United States and NATO authorities to take these steps in order to achieve strategic goals – extending its domination on Yugoslavia, to gain a foothold in the Balkans bridgehead for further expansion to the east.

The strategy of “eastward” using military means is historically known. In this century it has received theoretical justification in the writings of a number of well-known Western geopolitics, and in practice it tried to implement the first Kaiser Wilhelm II, and then Hitler during the two world wars.

Over the past decade, and the geopolitical science and practice have been further developed that was reflected in the expansion of the complex, which is now made of NATO.

Features and forms of this “Drang nach Osten” lies in the fact that the expansion is carried out vigorously, en masse, over a broad front along the perimeter boundaries of European Russia from the Arctic Ocean and the Baltic Sea to the Black Sea, further – the Caucasus and Central Asia. In this case, the penetration deep into the former Soviet Union is becoming a common practice. Set the means and methods of this powerful onslaught of unprecedented political, military, economic, information, special. All new country quickly included in the Atlantic bloc and their simultaneous transformation, as confirmed by events in the Balkans, in the docile satellites of the United States.

What are the main directions of developing the offensive against Russia, and what is it expressed?

On our north-west block NATO after the inclusion in the ranks of Poland firmly controls all the continental coast of Europe from the Atlantic to our borders. Russia has in fact pushing off (after the collapse of the USSR) from the Baltic Sea, with the exception of the Gulf of Finland and the freezing gradually “moves away” from the rest of the country’s Kaliningrad enclave, there is very vulnerable.

The practical experience shows how such attenuation can be used against Russian: from “soft pressure” (increase transit rates and charges, the introduction of the technical limitations, such as Baltic) until stiff power blockade. The latter is easily carried out, as all the entrances to the Baltic Sea and outs of it, including the Skagerrak and the Kattegat, are the NATO countries, and can be instantly blocked. Moreover, given the current balance of forces in this region even cabotage in the eastern part of the Baltic will become impossible, which means, at a minimum, a complete blockade in this area. Also, you should also bear in mind that the situation in the Russian North-West is connected with the situation on the northern flank of this trend – in Scandinavia, in the Norwegian and Barents Seas.

The expansion of the Atlantic bloc in the north-west is not only a pretty extended front, but also a great activity using a variety of methods and forms.

Vigorously seeking accession of the Baltic states to NATO, the Western countries cooperate even with local political forces, which are associated with former Nazis. Scandalous story with SS parades, solemn reburial of war criminals is no condemnation of the democratic and civilized Western countries, who set goals of its expansion to the east above conventional morality. Against this background, the “export” from overseas in Latvia and Lithuania, the current president looks like a political farce, although in reality this fact, on the one hand, shows the degree of dependence of the Baltic states of Washington, on the other – a measure of US involvement (policy- NATO) to work to strengthen its foothold here.

The peculiarity of Western expansion to the east most fully reveals itself in relation to Belarus. This republic after the collapse of the Soviet Union and Poland’s absorption Atlantic bloc has become a kind of “last obstacle” to exit NATO directly on the Russian border on the most important, the western direction. It is in this direction took place in the past, the way of the conquerors, who made an invasion from the west, trying to break through deep into central Russia, Moscow.

The desire of the West to extend its control to Belarus – a part of the plan to establish a Black Sea-Baltic union which is to cover a giant semicircle Russia, taking its entire European part in the “iron pincers.” If they have not yet managed to do so, in no small part thanks to Belarus. However, if Belarus, which awaits the fate of the central element of the geopolitical “tongs” resisting the implementation of the plan, to the south, south-west the situation is more alarming.

In the south-west direction during the decay of the USSR state border was moved from the Prut River to the headwaters of the Northern Donets, to Belgorod. As a result, Russia’s frontiers were pushing off to Moscow about half the previous distance. Russia on the Black Sea, where the most important export and import cargo traffic has been limited section of the Kerch Strait to Adler. Besides defense had serious economic and related transport and communication problems.

In these difficult conditions on Russia is a strong push for the express purpose to displace our country out of this vast region.

Primarily used political and economic resources in order to maximize alienate Ukraine from Russia, to persuade Ukraine to hold progressively more pro-Western policies, to involve them in close cooperation with NATO. In this case, the United States make no secret of their intentions with regard to Ukraine. Zbigniew Brzezinski, whose work is of interest primarily to the fact that the opinions expressed in them prevailing in the American establishment,

in his latest book “The Grand Chessboard” he says: “… between 2005 and 2010 years … Ukraine should be ready for serious negotiations with both the European Union and NATO” [2] the extent to which the present situation proved inadequate theory itself?

– What has been the erroneous use of the geopolitical position in practice?

Answers to these questions should help in developing the new strategy for Russia in order to bring the country out of difficult spatial situation.

These arguments show that, in fact, negative reasons played a fatal role in certain circumstances, although to varying degrees.

Active struggle of Soviet Russia – the Soviet Union on the world stage in the first half of the century has affected more than successful due to a number of important factors. First of all, the revolutionary mood among workers and intellectuals in the industrialized countries, as well as the national struggle in the colonies created an atmosphere of solidarity with the “advice” in most countries. Another important factor that is usually ignored, was the fact that the Soviet leadership, at least, after coming to power IV Stalin, apparently supporting the “global” slogans and carrying out very wide in spatial policies, in fact acted cautiously and pragmatically, pursuing only achievable goals. It is this “politics as the art of the possible” provided a number of achievements while success.

After World War II, seriously believing in the fact that the prospect of “victory of socialism throughout the world,” is real, the Soviet leadership directed at achieving this objective huge funds, that is bled the country for ambitious world domination chimeras.

G “However, in the postwar period, the entire course of world development demonstrated the ever increasing value of the time (temporal) factor and its inextricable link with the spatial factor. Gradually, it became also clear that the old,” classic “

geostrategy option should be replaced with new approaches, new theoretical positions. However, since these considerations are still not recognized in international politics

great powers continued to be guided by the previous installation, follow recipes

quickly outdated theory course has brought to a standstill foreign policy strategy of the USSR. Now the United States is repeating the same path, seeking to strengthen its “dominate the world”, and vigorously carry out a foreign policy that can lead to catastrophic consequences in Eurasia.From my side

Russia (formerly the USSR) did not refuse from the desire to create, if not a “continental bloc” in some form “continental axis”. In principle, it continues to be absolutely correct statement of principle, however, it was not possible to implement it in practice.

The experience gained in our country is closely associated with two profiling characteristics of its geo-strategy – Globally, foreign policy activities and methods of stabilizing the situation in Eurasia, through the consolidation of inter-state relations from Central Europe to the Pacific, it should be utilized in the foreseeable future.

Adhering to the purely spatial approach, it is possible to identify a number of issues of particular relevance to the improvement of the geopolitical situation in which Russia finds itself. First of all it is important to understand the factors that could potentially neutralize the influence of negative forces.

Even in the study of US geopolitics strictly within the framework of spatial subjects revealed a number of inherent flaws. The main one is that it is contrary to the national interests of the countries of Central and Eastern Europe. “The most important task” of American strategy – establishing their dominance in the former Soviet Union with the alleged collapse of Russia into several states and the output of the United States, as a result of such a “forced march” to the northern borders of China – boldly conceived, if not dashing. However, the NATO offensive in the East will inevitably lead to a dangerous confrontation between European member states bloc and Russia, which will support Belarus and, apparently, a number of other states. Europe is not just a “split” into two camps, but once again will face a real risk of a major conflict. This situation is especially contrary to the fundamental interests of Germany.The confrontation with the East would hamper the possibility of Germany will reduce its role in the unification of Europe, ultimately, will make it more dependent on the US and British influence.

The second important fact is very dangerous for the fate of foreign Europe, due to the fact that any weakening of Russia and its influence on the post-Soviet space frees the way to Central Europe and other countries on the continent for the powerful ethnic and “ideological” (in Brzezinski’s terminology) the invasion of the South. In a nutshell Europe is already experienced, and continues to suffer as a consequence of his Yugoslav policy. Streams of Albanian refugees, hundreds of thousands of immigrants have added to the many millions of immigrants from the Balkans, Asian and African countries have already filled the European continent. Europe is facing a real threat of losing their cultural and historical identity. This prospect of turning Europe into the Asian-African colonies enormously increase,

It seems that in Europe, many are beginning to understand the dangers posed by obedient following in the wake of US policy. The results of the elections to the Diet of the seven German states showed clear dissatisfaction with German voters Germany policy in Yugoslavia.

Thus, there is a fundamental opportunity to achieve better mutual understanding between Russia and Germany, primarily because indigenous long-term interests of the country lie in maintaining stability on the Russian territory and in collaboration with Russia, not to renew the confrontation.

Other important elements in the process of stabilization of the western direction would be, first, the association completion with Belarus and convergence with Yugoslavia.

On the “southern front” from the Black Sea to the Kyrgyz Republic there are a number of countries interested in appeasing the situation in the region and are able to take part in its normalization.

So, on the problems of the Caspian Sea and the surrounding areas have much in common in the approaches of Russia and Iran. Both countries are aware of the need to resolve and in Afghanistan, where insurgent Taliban forces, actively supported by Pakistan, are waging a war against the legitimate coalition government. Iran is concerned about the fate of the Shiites living in the bordering provinces of Afghanistan. The spread of religious fanaticism and extremism in Central Asia and China is very concerned about who is interested in maintaining stability in the region, which borders Xinjiang and Tibet.

Moreover, with China, there is a basis for long-term partnership and in the Pacific, the Far East, as the Chinese leadership has no illusions about US intentions, blocks with Japan and Taiwan. Full clarification of the spatial plans of China’s environment from Siberia and the Primorye will strengthen the desire of China and Russia to cooperate in order to preserve the territorial status quo.

In general, so there are real opportunities for the gradual development of a system of “continental agreement” from Central Europe to the Pacific Ocean. If this is done, Eurasia will be shielded from the worst geopolitical upheavals. In other words, even pure following conventional scheme can significantly improve Russia. At the same time we consciously abstract from the opportunities that are open to influence directly the interests of the United States itself due to defects inherent in their globalist geostrategic concept. This is a special big topic.

However, Russia can not and should not be limited to application in practice only the old geostrategic schemes.

The essence of the fundamental problems facing Russia, goes back to both spatial and temporary factors. The novelty of the situation around Russia and in Russia itself requires new approaches. The possibility of such new approaches arise, in particular in the framework of a new discipline, which treats the problem of large-scale nation-wide long-term strategy in close connection with the basic concepts of space and time. It is about metastrategii, which can and must be placed at the service of the interests of Russia *.

4 On the bases metastrategii see more of the author “ME and MO” number 8., 1996; № 11, 1997 and №6, 1999.

[2] B. Razuvaev. The game of checkers in a scientific way. Seven features of the present geopolitical literature ( “Independent Newspaper” 17.12.98).

[3] Zb. Brzezinski. Game Plan: A geostrategic Frame Work for the conduct of the US. – Soviet Contest. NY 1986, p. 131.

Leave a Reply

Your e-mail address will not be published. Required fields are marked *