http://www.newdawnmagazine.com.au/Articles/Russia_vs_New_World_Order.html
Plan to Disempower Russia
In his 1993 book, Out of Control, Zbigniew Brzezinski describes the US
Russia's Concept of the World in the 21st Century
Since Vladimir Putin has been in charge of Russia, his initiatives have
Post Cold War Attempts to Crush Russia
In the 1990s Russia was not only perceived as a state without politics, but
Russian Efforts to Counter NATO
Russia’s political elite and intellectuals gradually began to sober up to
Russia's Active Foreign Policy Strategy for Multipolarity
Russia has reinvigorated its relationships with Libya, Iraq, North Korea,
Russia vs. New World Order
By Susan Bryce
At the September 2000 meeting of the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting
Countries (OPEC), Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez characterised the rising
discontent with the US inspired New World Order when he stated: “The 20th
century was a bipolar century, but the 21st is not going to be unipolar.
The 21st century should be multipolar, and we all ought to push for the
development of such a world. So, long live a united Asia, a united Africa,
a united Europe!”
The New World Order, a euphemism for US hegemony, is based upon a unipolar
concept of the world, meaning US superpower domination. What is developing,
however, is a multipolar world, implying many centres of influence,
including Russia. The Russian Federation considers that social progress,
stability and international security can only be guaranteed in the
framework of a multipolar world and resents attempts by the US to
marginalise Moscow in world affairs. Hence, Russia has become a political,
military and cultural thorn in the side of the New World Order,
representing an obstacle to its goals.
Following the end of the Cold War, US President George Bush declared a New
World Order, in which the heavy hand of American imperialism would fill the
post Cold War geopolitical vacuum, enabling the US to ultimately conquer
the geopolitical space of the former Soviet Union and interpose its
authority over all of Europe.
strategy as: “An invasion… created by the dissolution of the Soviet Union,
aiming to transform the former republics of the Soviet Union into an area
of overt and exclusive preponderance of American power.” He argues that
American hegemony is unlike any previous hegemony because it is truly
global. It is based on an unprecedented mixture of military supremacy,
ideological ascendancy, technological innovation and control of the world’s
financial system. Brzezinski says quite clearly that if America wants to
control the world, as she should, then she must establish domination over
Eurasia, especially what he calls “its Western periphery” (i.e. the
European Union) and also its ‘Heartland’, the Middle East, Central Asia
and the oil resources which flow from there.
To coincide with the release of Brzezinski’s Out of Control, former
National Security Adviser to President Clinton, Anthony Lake, defined the
new expansionist doctrine of the United States in a foreign policy
statement, “From Containment to Enlargement”. Lake’s statement asserted
that, “the successor to the Cold War doctrine of containment must be the
doctrine and strategy of enlargement.”
The recent past is testimony to attacks upon Russia, aimed at reducing the
great bear to pauperism and totally disempowering it in line with US
expansionist policy. The dying days of the Clinton administration saw the
release of the Cox Commission report, ‘Russia’s Road to Corruption: How
the Clinton Administration Exported Government Instead of Free Enterprise
and Failed the Russian People.’ The report accused a “troika” of Clinton
administration officials – Vice President Al Gore, Deputy Secretary of
State Strobe Talbott, and Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers – of
implementing policies that fostered corruption and criminality and retarded
Russia’s free market and democratic development.
Russian President Vladimir Putin recently acknowledged that Russia is in
the midst of one of the most difficult periods in its history. In the
aftermath of Gorbachev, Russia was seen as a state without politics.
Explaining this conception, Russian political philosopher Alexander Dugin
says, “the main postulate of the Russian ruling elite in the liberal period
was confidence in the fact that confrontation with the West resulted from
the difference of social, economic and ideological models. On the basis of
this, all the economic, political, foreign, cultural, and defence strategy
of the Russian Federation was built. The country’s leaders seriously
thought that giving up the Marxist outlook along with the socialist economy
would automatically create a balanced system in Russia with the active and
friendly cooperation of the West. This was a fatal mistake and it took a
decade to realise it. With the obvious appearance of geopolitical factors,
everyone realised that the Cold War was not just a display of an
ideological duel, but the display of a historical constant, not dependent
on social or political up-to-dateness. It was just one of the stages in the
‘great war of continents’.”
centred upon opposition to a unipolar world, and the advocacy of
multipolarity. Rather than surrendering to the viperous aims of the New
World Order, Russia has launched a renewed effort to counter the
Anglo-American NATO domination of the world, undertaking reforms which
enable it to take part in the reality of globalisation but in a more
guarded fashion. The keystone of this new approach is the document
“Russia’s Concept of the World in the 21st Century”, released by the
Russian government on the eve of the new millennium. The theme of the
Concept is multipolarity based on integration capabilities of the Russian
regions and their interaction in the interests of stability and security.
The Concept recognises that the movement to multipolarity reflects the will
of the majority of the members of the world community, and its real and
potential centres of influence.
In line with the multipolar view, Moscow is establishing itself as a
mediator between the West and disaffected developing countries, which the
US could never hope to represent. Vladimir Putin’s enthusiasm for a
multipolar world is reflected strongly in his diplomatic initiatives, which
have seen Russia engaging in cooperative mechanisms to enhance
international security, while also considering its own sovereign interests.
For the developing world, Putin is offering diplomatic solutions, strategic
alliances and cooperation, as opposed to the West’s standard reactive
policies of isolating ‘rogue states’, applying sanctions and taking
military action. The US response – to what it describes as ‘Putin’s
diplomatic offensive’ – has been to quickly reassess its attitude toward
the ‘rogue states’, renaming them in more politically neutral terms as
‘states of concern.’
So far, Putin’s diplomatic forays have been remarkably successful. He has
held talks with more than twenty world leaders, including North Korean
leader Kim Jong Il. In this area he has played an important role in
bridging the gap of information between North Korea and the West. Putin
sought and obtained a compromise from North Korea on its missile
development program, undercutting the US rationale for the nuclear missile
defense program. More recently, Putin successfully conducted a telephone
conference of Middle East leaders, bringing Yasser Arafat and Ehud Barak to
the negotiating table.
also as a state without organised and disciplined defence forces.
Dissolving the Warsaw treaty organisation meant the strengthening of NATO,
as opposed to what Russia (perhaps naively) surmised would be NATO’s
demise.
The heady days of glasnost and perestroika saw the Western media portray
Russia as a shadow of its former self. One cartoon accompanying an article
in the New York Times depicted a hopeless Russian teddy bear prostate on
the ground with American soldiers looking down on the poor creature. In the
background, China was shown as an enormous dragon whose claws were poised
ready to destroy both soldiers and teddy. With news headlines such as
“Communism is Dead” and soap drama style news analysis from the bastion of
US propaganda, CNN, Russia was reduced, in the eyes of the Western public,
to third world status.
The Russian media recklessly sang the glories of Westernism and Liberalism,
advocating an end to the Warsaw pact, trade liberalisation and financial
deregulation. Ideological TV centres (refuges for NATO agents) instilled,
day and night, an inferiority complex into the peoples of Russia. Russian
political philosopher Alexander Dugin says the print media also played a
powerful role in this process. The propaganda machine assisted to build
public support for NATO providing America with a geostrategic basis for
control of what Brzezinski called “the Eurasian Balkans”. This area
includes the Eastern Shore of the Black Sea to China, including the Caspian
Sea and its oil resources.
The aims of NATO in the post Cold War era were clearly outlined in a report
prepared for the US Secretary of Defense by the Rand Corporation, titled
“Enlarging NATO: The Russian Factor”. The report’s author Richard Kugler
outlined the strategy or end games of what he called American “open
door-enlargement”, with the overriding objective of destroying the
possibility of an independent, autonomous Eurasian geopolitical space, and
the assumption of that space under American control. The US approach was
also outlined in the Pentagon’s “Defence Planning Guidance” reported by
the New York Times in February 1992. The “Guidance” set out a total
blueprint for domination of the world, concluding “we must seek to prevent
the emergence of European only security arrangements which will undermine
NATO.”
Slowly, the US goal to isolate Russia by creating a NATO-dominated buffer
zone on the periphery of the former Soviet Empire emerged. States that
could act as gas and oil transit lines were subsumed by NATO. Others, whose
importance would increase as Caspian Sea deposits were developed, were
granted NATO “observer status”.
the aims of the aggressive, domination-longing bloc. Not all Russians
slavishly surrendered their principles or agreed to NATO control of
Eurasia. Opposition was expressed through the publications Den, Zavtra,
Sovetskaya Rossia and Elementy. As vehicles for conceptual and creative
work, these publications alerted the conformist press to the fact that the
West and its ideological banner liberalism was no more than a screen for
the direct predatory and egoistic colonial interests of “atlantist
civilisation”, building its own “new world order” to the detriment of all
other countries, nations, cultures, and traditions.
While most Russian efforts to counter US hegemony have focused upon
diplomatic initiatives, Russia’s negotiations with the European Union have
touched upon military cooperation in response to NATO’s expansion.
President Putin has supported the idea of a greater Europe, “in which there
should be no hegemonism of any kind.”
The dangers of an expanded NATO, supporting the barbarism of the New World
Order, have already been dramatically illustrated by the US actions against
Yugoslavia. For all practical purposes, NATO took over all the essential
functions of the UN, in fact, replacing the UN. The ensuing Dayton
Agreement (modelled after the Platt Amendment in regard to Cuba) created a
virtual American protectorate in Bosnia.
Last year Russia offered to join NATO, in an attempt to counter the bloc’s
growing power. However, NATO made it clear that no one had extended such an
invitation. Following the snub, Putin stated: “If nobody expects us in NATO
why should we be happy about the expansion of NATO and its movement toward
our borders?”
Seeking to counter NATO in an appropriate manner, Russia announced in
November 2000 that it was willing to consider military cooperation with
Europe, should it go ahead with plans for an international rapid reaction
60,000 strong force aimed at defusing or preventing conflicts. Further
cooperative relationships between Russia and Europe are developing with an
agreement to open talks on how Russia might contribute to the European
Union’s new common security and foreign policy.
India and China, pursuing an active foreign policy strategy, and
establishing economic partnerships with these nations. Putin’s recent visit
to India highlights these significant strategic shifts. It was the first
visit to India by a Russian President in nearly eight years, and resulted
in a series of seventeen agreements on economic matters, nuclear energy and
defence.
A joint statement issued during Putin’s visit indicated that he and Indian
Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee are both looking to each other as a
counter to aggressive interventions around the world by the US. As Putin
noted in an interview in India Today magazine: “It is in our interest to
have a strong, developed, independent India that would be a major player on
the world scene. We see this as one of the balancing factors in the world.”
The joint declaration stated a preference for “a multi-polar global
structure” and opposed the “unilateral use or threat to use force in
violation of the UN charter, and intervention in the internal affairs of
other states.”
The US response to Russia’s initiatives for multipolarity has been to
identify (or invent) new ‘threats’ and to label Russia’s diplomatic
partners as ‘states of concern’ and proponents of international terrorism.
India’s nuclear status, for example, is now being quietly factored into
Washington’s latest assessments of global security. In the recent report of
the influential Trilateral Commission, titled “21st Century Strategies of
the Trilateral Countries” (North America, Europe, Japan), a former
high-ranking US State Department diplomat, Robert Zoellnik, includes India
as “one of the three great challenges of Eurasia” for early in the 21st
Century. The others being China and Russia itself.
Another response to Putin’s diplomacy has been the renewed and aggressive
push by the US defence establishment for the militarisation of space. Its
planned Nuclear Missile Defence Program is a revival of President Reagan’s
Star Wars program, which would see 20 nuclear missile interceptors deployed
in space by 2005 at an estimated cost of US$60 billion. The US has also
continued to develop and deploy nuclear weapons by the thousand, and the US
government even now refuses to issue a “no first use” pledge.
