Historical Reflections: Russia’s Geopolitics (Part 2)

In the previous instalment of this series, I briefly outlined a historical parallel between the relationship of Russia and the United States today, in regards to an ascendant China, and the relationship between Fascist Italy, and the British Empire, in regards to an ascendant Third Reich in the lead up to WWII. In this instalment we will briefly discuss the current geopolitical relationship between Russia and the US as it developed from the post Cold War period up to today. This article was originally meant to be an exposition on the parallels between contemporary Russia and Fascist Italy, with details of Russia’s contemporary geopolitical situation mixed in, but as I began writing, it became clear that these two subjects each deserved their own entry, as trying to put them together would have lead to a meandering and confused mess. Therefore, I’ve decided to use this instalment to elaborate on points made in the previous article about Russia’s geopolitical situation today, thus clearing the way for the discussion of parallels in the next instalment of this series.

Despite predictions by Western observers of the “end of history” in the period immediately following the Cold War, tensions began to soon build. In 2008 Russia invaded Georgia, a country on its border, in support of separatists in the region of South Ossetia. According to the Kremlin, two-thousand people were killed when the Georgian state attacked the capital of the breakaway state of South Ossetia. Among the dead were a number of Russian citizens. The Kremlin justified its intervention by claiming its involvement was aimed at restoring order, and putting a stop to the violence as well as alleged ethnic cleansing directed at Russians citizens.

Regardless of the veracity of these claims, the Russians were bound to start taking a more active role in what has historically been their sphere of influence, especially considering that the years following the Cold War saw more of Russia’s former Soviet allies pivot to the West by joining NATO – which was created as an implicitly anti-Russian alliance –  and the European Union. Thus the so called “end of history” saw NATO creeping ever eastward, where today there are NATO member states on the borders of Russia (this didn’t exist during the Cold War) such as Latvia and Estonia, both of which joined the alliance in the early 2000’s, preceded by former Warsaw Pact countries such as Hungary and Poland in the early 1990’s. With this incremental encroachment into it’s sphere of influence it’s only natural that Russia would once again begin asserting it’s interests, which, considering the circumstances, might include supporting the creation of small buffer states in it near abroad, existing within its sphere of influence in order to keep NATO at bay and away from its borders. Essentially, this is what happened when they supported the South Ossentian separatists. While most of the world doesn’t recognize South Ossetia as an independent state, Russia does, and with Russian support, South Ossetia is a de-facto nation, existing as a Russian protectorate. If we take into consideration the fact that Georgia is yet another state bordering Russia and pivoting towards NATO, which has been actively seeking membership in the alliance since 2005, these facts probably go a long way in explaining the actions taken by the Russians.

One could ask why the Russians felt the need to create such a buffer state in a period with relatively good relations with NATO, but one could also ask why NATO felt the need to constantly expand east, putting itself right in the back yard of a Russia that was friendly at that time, disregarding Russia’s historical sphere of influence – a move that can only be seen as menacing from the Russian perspective. This conflict of geo-strategic interests caused a chill in relations between NATO and the Russian Federation, with then Russian President Dmitry Medvedev threatening to cut all ties with NATO, including joint participation in the NATO-Russia Council – created in 2002 as “a forum for consultation and cooperation” replacing the Permanent Joint Council created in 1997 – in response to the alliances reaction to Russia’s intervention in Georgia,.

This situation only accelerated when Russia annexed Crimea after the Madian Revolution in Ukraine, which saw the replacement of a government friendly (although not too friendly), to Moscow, with a government that was intentionally pivoting to the West and towards the EU and NATO. Many observers believe this revolution was sponsored, or at least, supported by the US or other NATO members. This strikes me as a likely possibility – as Maiden resembles the other colour revolutions sponsored by the West – the result of which is yet another country on the border of Russia looking towards NATO, (and therefore to Washington) as it’s centre of gravity.

After the annexation of Crimea, the NATO-Russia Council released a statement stating “We have decided to suspend all practical civilian and military cooperation between NATO and Russia.”, which also contained a section from the Foreign Ministers of NATO condemning Russia’s annexation of Crimea. This statement was released in 2014, and was the last post on the organizations website.

Late in 2020, Russia announced it would participate in military exercises with as yet unspecified NATO member countries, however, official relations between Russia and NATO as an organization remain cold to the point of a standstill, according to an unnamed NATO official quoted by Reuters,

“Our practical cooperation remains suspended as a consequence of Russia’s illegal and illegitimate annexation of Crimea from Ukraine in 2014,” [1]

If we reflect on what was discussed in the first part of this series, the parallel between the deterioration in relations between the Italian and British empires and those of Russia and the United States should be clear, the dominant power alienates a former ally, due to the perception of an aggressive territorial expansionist policy. Yes, Russia and the United States were allies, they had warmer relations after the Cold War, but even before that, they were allies in the Second World War against the Axis Powers. They fought together side by side as allies in the most destructive war in human history.

Russia like Italy, is the weakest of the powers in question both militarily and economically. Although, there is some question in regards to Russia’s military technology, as the Russians have made impressive advances in hypersonic technology which, as of yet, the US appears not to have matched. Like Italy, Russia was subjected to economic sanctions by the international community lead by the dominant world power, after a territorially expansionist military action. While Italy’s invasion of Abyssinia was to restore its national pride Russia, on the other hand, had much more practical reasons for the annexation of Crimea, maintaining its territorial integrity against the expanding power of the world’s only superpower, as well as securing access to the Black Sea.

At the end of the Cold War, relations between the two powers looked bright, what happened? That depends on who you ask. One fact mentioned above that definitely contributed to the souring of relations between the two powers was NATO’s eastward expansion. At the end of the Cold War was Russia promised by NATO it would not expand to include former Soviet and Warsaw Pact nations? Putin says yes, NATO says no. However, anybody at all with any understanding of Russian history or the Russian mentality will realize that Moscow has a deep concern about possible invasions from the West, as it has been reoccurring for hundreds of years. To quote Tim Marshall, author of Prisoners of Geography,

“Looking at it another way, if you count from Napoleon’s invasion of 1812, but this time include the Crimean War of 1853–56 and the two world wars up to 1945, then the Russians were fighting on average in or around the North European Plain once every thirty-three years.” [2]

What NATO did promise was to not deploy troops in what was once East Germany. According to Gorbachov, NATO agreed that its “military structures would not advance and that additional armed forces would not be deployed on the territory of the then-GDR after German reunification,” and while, according to Gorbachov, NATO hasn’t violated the letter of the agreement, NATO’s expansion violated the spirit of the accord. However, Vladimir Putin would disagree. In a 2007 speech Putin asked,

“[A]gainst whom is this [NATO] expansion intended? And what happened to the assurances our Western partners made after the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact? … I would like to quote the speech of NATO General Secretary Mr. Woerner in Brussels on 17 May 1990. He said at the time that: ‘the fact that we are ready not to place a NATO army outside of German territory gives the Soviet Union a firm security guarantee.” Where are these guarantees?”  [3]

Like the British in Abyssinia, the American’s have no vital interests in Russia’s territorial backyard. The only reason for NATO, and thus the Americans, to creep ever closer to Russia is to posit an aggressive footing and thus put Russia on the defensive. Is colour revolution, and thus the implementation of an American approved system and government in Moscow, the long term goal for the American national security establishment? According to David P. Goldman aka “Spengler” at the Asia Times,

“Bringing democracy to Russia has been an obsession of American policy since the fall of Communism, and revolution in Kiev has always been a way-station towards regime change in Russia for ideologues like Victoria Nuland, now the State Department’s number three official. In 2014, Nuland, then the Obama Administration’s ranking official for European affairs, was caught on tape cherry-picking members of the next Ukrainian regime after the Maidan coup.” [4]

While Russia is nominally democratic – the Russians use the term ’sovereign democracy’ to contrast their system from that of Western democracies, and the term ‘power vertical’ to describe the centralized nature of Russia’s political system – Western critics often complain that the system is either corrupt or not democratic enough, but perhaps the solution for Russia is less democracy not more, after all, Putin pulled his country out of a very chaotic period in the late 1990’s, with a level of crime and social chaos that is hard for Westerners who haven’t been exposed to such hostile and chaotic environments to seriously comprehend, (myself included) and Russia has thrived, despite the best efforts of America and her allies. Why do Americans automatically assume more democracy would make things better in the Russian Federation, or anywhere else for that matter? American complaints of Russia’s political system aside, does the American security establishment seriously want to destabilize the country with the second, and arguably the first, most powerful nuclear arsenal in the world? Why is such chaos even on the table with a so-called “status quo power” like the United States?

The answer to that question is American foreign policy has centered on the premise that America’s primacy depends on maintaining control of the Eurasian landmass and preventing any great power from overturning American hegemony in that region, as outlined by Zbigniew Brzezinski in his book, The Grand Chessboard. To this end, propping up smaller countries like Ukraine to use as weapons against the Russians is straight out of Brzezinski’s playbook, as would be staging a colour revolution to install a regime friendly to Washington, or tearing the country apart through civil unrest and civil war, much like the uprising in Chechnya which – some have suggested – has Washington’s fingerprints. This is because of the presence of a Wahhabi Islamist by the name of Iban al-Khattab. Al-Khattab not only fought against the Russians in both Chechen Wars, as well as against them in Dagastan, but also fought the Soviets in Afghanistan when – under the banner of the Mujahideen – Wahhabi Islamists were funded, armed and trained by the CIA under the auspices of Brzezinski himself when he was US National Security Advisor.

Since the dawn of the 21st Century, the American Military has been nothing but a force of chaos and disorder. Its military actions in the Middle East have completely destabilized an already volatile part of the globe. The US Military has taken out regimes that, while perhaps less than exemplary, provided stable governance to their respective territories such as in the cases of Saddam Hussein in Iraq, and Muammar Gaddafi in Libya, turning those places into war zones that resemble a post-apocalyptic hell-scape in the process. The Americans under Obama funded and armed the so-called “rebels” in Syria, many of whom were actually from the group “Al-Qaeda in Iraq”, which eventually metastasized into the organization known as the Islamic State or ISIS. Those brand new Chevrolet pickup trucks ISIS drove didn’t just manifest out of the ether.

Let’s make no mistake, NATO is an American lead military alliance, which exists to shore up and maintain America’s global hegemony. Much like the Delian League of Ancient Greece it was perhaps created for a legitimate purpose, but eventually morphed into an organization that did nothing but serve the interests of it’s leading power. There’s a reason why America has supplemented the defence budgets of its European allies for such a long time. Europe has been weakened by a strategy of learned helplessness, where the Americans trained the Europeans to lean on them for military security, threatened by the spectre of Russian aggression. This made sense at the end of the Second World War when all of Europe was in ruins, but the Europeans, exhausted and drained from fighting the two most apocalyptic wars mankind has ever seen – in the span of two and a half decades no less – became accustomed to not only peace, but to decadence. Thus, Europe became comfortable with an arrangement which allowed the Americans to take the lead in handling their security concerns, relieving themselves of the burden. 

So, will America and her subordinates in NATO attempt to destabilize not only another nation, but a great power such as Russia? (They will if there’s an opening). And for what practical end other then shoring up their waning global dominance? (Nothing). Do they really have such a problem with the Russian political system? (Probably not, look at their cozy relationship with the Saudi’s). Is the Intersectionality cult over at the CIA really that offended by Russias turn towards Traditionalism and its resurgence of Christianity? (This could be part of the issue. Russia’s cultural turn would definitely offend the sensibilities of America’s new ideological cult).  Are they just too busy fighting the last war? (There’s probably a little truth to this one too. It’s hard to change the ingrained ideological doctrines of such a massive and powerful conglomerate of institutions such as those that make up the US foreign policy apparatus). Most importantly, does the American ruling class really think they can indefinitely contain the rise of a multipolar world in favour of a pseudo-world state, aka the “rules based international order” where they get to decide the exception as the Schmittian global sovereign? (They’ll try, but it remains to be seen if the elite are even capable of such a contest, or for how long they’ll have the stamina for it. This will be much more difficult then blowing up poor countries in the Middle East or harassing their domestic population for ideological heresy). Moral grandstanding aside, what qualifications does America have to such a position, considering the mess America has made of the Middle East in the last twenty plus years? It’s policy in the Middle East, which is simply the practical application of it’s primary foreign policy goal of maintaining hegemony by control of Eurasia, has been a disaster.

Considering these failures, the only rational decision for the Americans is to accept the rise of a multipolar world, pursue a rapprochement with Russia, and come to terms with a rising China, while maintaining the integrity of the US’s own sphere of influence in the Americas. There’s no reason why America shouldn’t content itself to reinforcing the Monroe Doctrine, and forcing China and Russia to keep a respectful distance from South America in return for staying out of Eastern Europe and East Asia. Unfortunately such a reconciliation with Russia is much easier said than done. 

Unlike the Italians and the British, the animosity between the Russians, and the Americans, is much more ingrained, deep-seated, and unfortunately, institutional, at least on the American side. To see this in action, take a moment to reflect on the daily smears conducted by America’s mainstream media – which act as the mouthpiece of the American establishment – towards the Russian President, and the Russian nation itself between the years 2016 to 2020 (the narrative has seemingly moved on since Biden has taken office, while Russia is still looked at as the enemy the hyperbolic rhetoric has been seemingly toned down). For years, representatives of official opinion took to both the airwaves, and to the web, with histrionic declarations (remember Keith Olbermann?) decrying Russia’s nefarious interference in America’s 2016 Presidential election. I personally don’t hold much stock in such theories, it worked out all too well for the imbedded interests of the American establishment convinced, rightly or wrongly, that the Forty-Fifth President of the United States was an existential threat to their position and power. The constant barrage of accusations and insinuations about an illegal, and even treasonous relationship between the Forty-Fifth President and the Kremlin – the result of which was a long and drawn out Special Counsel investigation – worked to not only demonize but to effectively block any implementation of the electoral agenda of the President, which  – one can’t help but notice – went largely unfulfilled. Its hard to know how much of this was the result of incompetence on the part of Forty-Five, and how much this result was owed to the fact that he was surrounded on all sides by those who were opposed to his agenda, and the fact that the very infrastructure of the state transformed itself into an obstacle. I do believe the way the system worked to neutralize the Forty-Fifth President says something profound about the American system, but I digress…

Even if the allegations of Russian interference in the 2016 Presidential election are true, so what? How many elections have US black ops steered in a direction that’s convenient for American interests? Turnaround’s fair play Washington.

This is not the place to delve deeply into America’s long and sordid history of staging coup’s and interfering with the electoral process in other countries, however, it strikes me that for our current purposes, the most poignant illustration of Washingtons double standard can be found back in the 1990’s, 1996 to be precise, where – under the leadership of President Bill Clinton – the US interfered in the Russian election to the benefit of Boris Yeltsin in order to prevent Russia from electing a regime hostile to American interests. In order to do so the Clinton Administration employed it’s diplomatic clout to secure a ten billion dollar loan from the IMF to help prop up Yeltsin’s government. Clinton also sent three top American political consultants, no doubt schooled in the latest techniques of public relations and perception management, including Richard Dresner, who worked on Clintons Arkansa campaign to give a boost to Yeltsin’s dwindling chances for reelection. [5]

Despite being declared a clean and fair election, an election observer from the UK later alleged that he was witness to large scale fraud in the 1996 Russian election, but was pressured to keep quiet about it. Thomas Graham the former political analyst at the US embassy in Moscow during the campaign, admitted that the Americans knew the election wasn’t fair.

“[T]his was a classic case of the ends justifying the means, and we did get the result that we wanted. We got the result that our partners, reformers, in Russia wanted…” [6]

The real question is, the degree to which the Americans were involved in the election fraud on the ground.

American commenters are very keen on disparaging the Russian system, claiming Putin and his functionaries engage in large-scale electoral fraud, that the Russian system is nothing but a corrupt kleptocracy, and therefore nothing but a scam. Yet, is America’s system as great as its advocates claim? Despite what establishment media might have to say, questions of electoral fraud in the 2020 Presidential election still linger. Why weren’t the results called on election night, as has happened in pretty much every other contemporary US election? How did Biden go from being so far behind, to such a masterful victory? The fact is that many states controlled by Democrats loosened restrictions on absentee ballots and made it harder to disqualify illegal votes thus enabling voter fraud. Of course this has been disputed by the talking heads in pay of the power structure of the American commercial empire, and while this isn’t the place to go into the case for the theft of the 2020 election, suffice it to say that questions linger.

However, for our purposes, it matters little. Their have been countless cases of voter fraud documented in the American electoral system, indeed, the Democrats in their time made such claims in the 2000 Presidential election between George W. Bush, and Al Gore – yet now balk at the possibility that a Presidential election could be stolen. At that time, Democrats alleged that Republicans used “felon” lists, that illegally disqualified hundreds of thousands of low-income non-white voters, who statistically vote Democrat. They also point to the fact that the Supreme Court halted a recount that could possibly have handed thousands of votes to Al Gore.

Contemporary Presidential elections aside, America has a long history of electoral fraud. On their website, The Heritage Foundation showcased a sample from its database, of 11 examples of electoral fraud. These examples range from very small scale – of an illegal resident voting – to a much grander scale – conspiracies by local officials to use fake ballots to swing elections in the direction of their choice.

“1982

An estimated 100,000 fraudulent ballots were cast in a 1982 Chicago election. After a Justice Department investigation, 63 individuals were convicted of voter fraud, including vote buying, impersonation fraud, fictitious voter registrations, phony absentee ballots, and voting by non-citizens.

1994

After an extensive investigation of absentee ballot fraud in a 1994 Greene County, Alabama, election, nine defendants pleaded guilty to voter fraud, and two others were found guilty by a jury. The defendants included Greene County commissioners, officials, and employees; a racing commissioner; a member of the board of education; a Eutaw city councilman; and other community leaders. Among other things, the conspirators used an assembly line to mass produce forged absentee ballots meant to swing elections in favor of preferred candidates.

2003

Allan “Twig” Simmons, an operative for the East Chicago, Indiana, mayor’s campaign, persuaded voters to let him fill out their absentee ballots in exchange for jobs. He pleaded guilty and was sentenced to three years of probation and 100 hours of community service. Fraud in the 2003 East Chicago mayoral primary was so widespread that the Indiana Supreme Court ultimately overturned the election results and ordered a special mayoral election that resulted in a different winner.

2004

Chad Staton, a worker associated with the NAACP National Voter Fund in Cuyahoga County, Ohio, pleaded guilty to 10 felony counts for filing false voter registrations during the 2004 presidential election in exchange for crack cocaine. Staton filled out more than 100 forms in names such as Mary Poppins, Michael Jackson, Michael Jordan, Dick Tracy, and George Lopez.

2004

Six Democrats from Lincoln County, West Virginia, pleaded guilty to charges of participating in a conspiracy to buy votes dating back to 1990. The indictment charged that the cabal conspired to buy votes in every election held between 1990 and 2004, handing out slates listing preferred candidates and using liquor and cash—typically $20 per vote—to seal the deal. They also laid gravel on roads for supporters and fixed traffic tickets.

2004

East St. Louis, Illinois, precinct committeemen Charles Powell, Sheila Thomas, Jesse Lewis, and Kelvin Ellis, as well as precinct worker Yvette Johnson, were convicted of conspiracy to commit election fraud after participating in vote buying activities in the 2004 election, including submitting budgets that would allow city funds to be used to pay voters to vote for Democrat candidates.

2008

ACORN workers in Seattle, Washington, committed what the secretary of state called, “the worst case of voter registration fraud in the history of the state of Washington.” The group submitted 1,762 fraudulent voter registration forms. The group’s leader, Clifton Mitchell, was convicted of false registrations and served nearly three months in jail. Four other ACORN workers on his team also received jail time, and ACORN was fined $25,000 to cover the cost of the investigation.

2010

Paul Schurick, former campaign manager to Maryland Gov. Robert Ehrlich, a Republican, was convicted of election fraud after approving a robocall to black voters telling them not to vote because the Democrats had already won the 2010 gubernatorial election. A circuit court judge spared Schurick jail time, opting to sentence him to 30 days’ home detention, four years of probation, and 500 hours of community service.

2012

Robert Monroe, identified by prosecutors as the worst multiple voter in Wisconsin history, pleaded no contest to charges that he voted more than once in 2011 and 2012. Monroe’s record was extensive: he voted twice in the April 2011 Wisconsin Supreme Court election, twice in the 2011 recall election of state Sen. Alberta Darling, and five times in Gov. Scott Walker’s recall election. He also cast an illegal ballot in the August 2012 primary, and voted twice in the 2012 general election.

2012

While running for re-election, Martin, Kentucky, Mayor Ruth Robinson and a cabal of co-conspirators targeted residents living in public housing and in properties Robinson owned, threatening to evict them if they did not sign absentee ballots that Robinson and her family had already filled out. Robinson also targeted disabled residents, and offered to buy the votes of others. She was convicted and sentenced to serve 90 months’ imprisonment.

2014

Rosa Maria Ortega, a non-citizen, was found guilty on two counts of voter fraud for voting in the November 2012 general election and the 2014 Republican primary runoff. Ortega claimed she thought she was a citizen, and blamed her lack of education for the mix-up, but prosecutors pointed out that Ortega had previously indicated on a driver’s license application that she was a non-citizen. A judge sentenced her to eight years’ imprisonment, after which she faces the possibility of deportation.”  [7]

So, while Russia’s sovereign democracy – with its “power vertical” – differs from Western norms, the idea that America’s corrupt ruling class are in a moral position to lecture the Russians on the sanctity of democracy is absurd. This is especially true when we account for the fact that it was the Americans themselves that had a hand in subverting Russian democracy in the 1990’s for their own geopolitical ends. Now granted, it’s par for the course that great powers will do what they can to steer the internal political situation in other countries – especially that of their rivals – in a direction that benefits their strategic interests, but the moral haranguing that the Anglo-American elite routinely engage in – when dealing with the rest of the world (particularly their strategic rivals) – is as tiresome as it is disingenuous. Instead of simply asserting it’s strategic interests and engaging in a dialogue where other powers can do the same – in an open and forthright negotiation of the interests of both sides – America attempts to cut its competitors off at the knees through empty moralizing and appeals to a “rules based international order” – which is simply an appeal to the current unipolar world order where America is the dominant power, and the rest of the world is subject to the whims of her elite.  

The second most popular party in Russia is the Communist Party of the Russian Federation (CPRF), which likely holds its place more due to nostalgia for a time when Russia was on an equal footing with America then for any real ideological loyalty to Communism on behalf of the Russian people. Would America’s interests really be served by the CPRF coming to power, backed by a very large stockpile of nuclear weapons and driven by an ideological zeal  to revive the Soviet Union? Or perhaps the American establishment would prefer a radical nationalist coalition who would oppose American interests much more aggressively then Vladimir Putin? Despite what Western observers want to believe, Putin is a relative moderate in Russia, and liberal democracy carries little weight. The liberal individualist ideology so prevalent in America and Western Europe, is simply alien to the Slavic – and particularly the Russian – soul. The problem of course is that America sees human beings not as distinct and unique people’s, but as interchangeable cogs in a machine. This universalism will be the cause of an escalating tension in the world of emerging civilizational blocks which – as America’s power continues to wane relative to that of other powers in the emerging multi-polar world order – will become evermore confident to assert their unique nature, and view of the world, inevitably leading to these powers becoming increasingly defiant of America’s assumption of moral supremacy,

The next instalment will not only examine further parallels between Fascist Italy and contemporary Russia, including what I see as the metaphysical drive behind the rise of both powers, we’ll also be looking at the arguments of bad faith actors who attempt to link Putin and Mussolini, not to gain a better understanding of any situation, but to simply smear Vladimir Putin by associating him with the word “Fascism”.

SOURCES AND CITATIONS

[1] Russia says it will join drills with NATO member ships off Pakistan, Reuters, December 10th 2020

[2] Prisoners of Geography, p7 (New York: Scribner, 2015) Tim Marshall

[3] Did NATO Promise Not to Enlarge? Gorbachev Says “No”, Steven Pifer, Brookings Institute, November 6, 2014

[4] Eurasian anti-West alliance didn’t have to happen, Spengler, Asia Times, May 7th 2021

[5] The U.S. Needs to Face Up to Its Long History of Election Meddling, The Atlantic, By Peter Beinart, July 22nd 2018

[6] Interview with Thomas Graham (Chief Political Analyst at the U.S. Embassy in Moscow from 1994-1997) by PBS Frontline – https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/yeltsin/interviews/graham.html

[7] The Heritage Foundation Explains Voter Fraud – https://www.heritage.org/election-integrity/heritage-explains/voter-fraud