Why we fight today (Part I)




Since the implosion of the USSR, “a great  geopolitical play” is played on all the territory of the ex Soviet republics and at the borders of Russia. The goal is the control of the energy richnesses (oil, gas, strategic ores) and their ways of routing. But more especially domination in Eurasia, whose theorists of American imperialism, like Brezinski and his “Big chessboard”, make – rightly – the key of the world domination.



The Goal: to drive back Russia, to dismember the Russian Federation (like Yugoslavia, first stage of this vast imperialist  project), to dissociate its historical core. 

“The Baltic States already members of NATO, the Ukraine and Georgia which knock on the door of NATO, Azerbaïdjan will  do the same  in the near future: in short, they are  tightening around Russia a “medical cord” following the example that which was established by the world community in the first quarter of  last century around the bolshevic State which had just made its  appearance”, denounces the NEZAVISSIMAÏA GAZETA of Moscow. 

Brezinski precisely published in the end of the Nineties in the prestigious American review NATIONAL REVIEW a plan of dismemberment of Russia in three small states (Moscovia, the Ural, Siberia). An air of deja vu since it was already the project of the Nazi theorist Alfred Rosenberg, racist herald of the Germanic expansion in the East !

Russia – paralysed during one decade by its pro-Western leaders, the clique of Eltsine, of the liberal politicians and of the oligarchs who plundered the country –, has a  long time undergoes this new “Drang nach Osten”, going from retreat to retreat, brought back to its borders of the sixteenth century, losing historical territories (like the Baltic States) and allies. 



But today, and it is a geopolitical revolution, Russia is back. World energetic power, equipped with an extremely restored State, proud of its past whether Soviet or Russian, refusing the Western way. After the disappearance of the Soviet Union, Russia did not cease only one moment to aspire to its  restoration and, at the present time, it is carrying out this plan to some extent”, commented on the daily newspaper of Azerbaidjan AZADLIQ (November 29 2006). 

And the projects of Moscow reveal the regained power of the European giant “the experts foresee in the policy of the Kremlin attempts to create a new alliance on the chess-board of the CIS. Contrary to the projects of the Western political technicians, Russia not only preserved, but reinforced its role of economic, political and cultural leader in the countries Moscow calls nicely “the close foreigner” ... And if the Kremlin wanted secretly to lead the processes of integration in space of the CIS to their fine logical, until the creation of a new State, one alliance to the  manner of the European Union ?”, questioned the daily newspaper GOLOS ARMENII (September 7 2006).



Around Russia and its allies, but also China, so anxious of the claims of Washington in Eurasia –a geopolitical, economic and military pole of power is formed again, which again draws up on the ex-Soviet Space a great power, able to compete with Washington and its colonial armed arm NATO.

Around the transnational organizations which constitute themselves around Moscow the eurasiatic economic Community (EAEC: Bielorussia, Kazakhstan, Kirghizia, Uzbekistan, Russia and Tadjikistan), the Organization of the Treaty of collective security (OTCS of the Community of the independent States, military alliance of the type of the Organization of the Treaty of Warsaw), Organization of co-operation of Shanghai (OCS: Russia, Kazakhstan, Kirghizia, China, Tadjikistan and Uzbekistan. Pakistan, Iran, India and Mongolia have the statute of observer there, China and Russia play there key roles), common economic Space (EEU, Russia, Bielorussia, Kazakhstan, Kirghizia and Tadjikistan) –, a SECOND EUROPE, another EUROPE, Eurasian draws up facing the Atlantic Small-Europe of Brussels prostitute to the USA.

Nobody any more disputes today this geopolitical thesis, stated for the first time by Jean THIRIART, the father of our “European Communitarianism” since 1964 according to which Europe goes from the Atlantic to Vladivostok.

It is well a second Europe which emerges. As clearly Russian President Putin affirms it today.   The recent article of Vladimir Putin “on the partnership Russia-European Union” published initially in the FINANCIAL TIMES caused vast echoes in the world press. From the words of Vladimir Putin, one can understand that an agreement with the EU is his great wish. For example, it is instructive to read that, in the opinion of  Putin, Russia belongs to the European family.

This second Europe is, it, independent of the USA to the difference with Brussels and Strasbourg  puppet Europe – economic giant and political dwarf due to NATO . 



It is significant that the NATO media never speak about the new block and its transnational organizations which draw up  in the EAST. Who in the Western-European public heard of the OCS, the EAEC or the OTCS ?

It is a question of making believe to the lobotomized Western masses that the European Union only embodies the European project (sic) and that NATO is the only very powerful military block of the new century (resic).

Nothing is falser ! “Beyond objective criticisms, the EAEC is today one of the most effective regional alliances on the postsoviet chess-board... The rallying of Uzbekistan to the EAEC last January and the resumption of negotiations on the adhesion of the Ukraine make it possible to  suppose that the EAEC will succeed the CIS. And if the EAEC is linked  with the Organization of the Treaty of collective security (CSTO: Armenia, Bielorussia, Kazakhstan, Kirghizia, Russia and Tadjikistan), which is extremely probable, one will finally attend the final formation of a new militaro-politico-economic international organization… Russia thus starts to actively carry out its own project of integration in the postsoviet space, equipped with a strong military component and reinforced with real economic subsidies”, the daily newspaper of the Caucasus LRAGIR (August 23, 2006) commented on recently. 

As for the OCS, it is a block which frightens Washington  and NATO At the total scale, it is a powerful association. The members of the organization occupy the three fifths of the  territory of Eurasia, count a quarter of the population of the planet and  have a total GDP of 2500 billion dollars, commented on the VOENNO-PROMYCHLENNY KOURIER (October 11, 2006).  Taking into account the possible adhesion of new members, the OCS will have immense human resources (3 billion people), half of the gas and world's oil reserves and approximately half of the defensive potential accumulated on the terrestrial sphere. In addition to economic integration  (the organization projects free movement goods, capital, technologies and services within twenty years), not less significant military integration (...). Meeting at the end of September in Peking, the Council of the regional antiterrorist Structure of the OCS confirmed that the six countries had  instituted their organization not only for the development and of the economic co-operation but also to ensure their security and to achieve geopolitical tasks.

Military integration and the energetic geopolitics of the six States of the OCS already “frightened” the United States so much so  that the American under-secretary of State for Central Asia and South Asia, Richard Boucher, exhorted the OCS, in the name of the Bush administration, to give up the geopolitical declarations to concentrate on the economy. The OCS and the United States and also, in a certain direction, NATO are, already in fact, the  geopolitical rivals”. 

Let us add that the SCO and the CSTO lead a policy of integration at the military level. The next summer, these two organizations will proceed to their first joint tactical exercises “the CSTO and the OCS gathers almost half of the population of the world. By their influence within the UNO and other international organizations, they can compete with the United States and the NATO  countries, which many political leaders for the countries in question hardly appreciate, analyze RIA NOVOSTI. Result: Brussels still refuses to accept the proposal of the CSTO inviting it to cooperate in the fight against the surge of Afghan drug, even if many OTCS Member States share a common border with Afghanistan, and that the joint efforts of NATO and the CSTO would be more useful than the disparate actions. The fact remains that NATO does not regard the CSTO as an equal partner. However, Moscow is concerned little with it”. 



At the beginning of the Eighties, with Jean THIRIART, I launched the “Euro-Soviet School”,  which advocated the unification – against the USA and NATO – of Greater-Europe from East to West, the USSR becoming the Piedmont of a “Euro-Soviet Empire” a thesis which made  since much way in the East. 

Our support to Moscow, Piedmont of the Other Europe, is the adaptation of this fundamental thesis to the geopolitical conditions of the new Century. Today Russia, like formerly the USSR, is the only European power really independent of Washington, the only one to follow an independent policy, really Eurasian and not Atlantic. 

In Western Europe, another power, France, still has sporadic inclinations of independence, when it remembers the great anti-Atlantic policy – and already pro-Russian – of General De Gaulle. But post-gaullist France is a schizophrenic state, paralysed by powerful foreign lobbies, where cohabit gaullist impulses and the states of submission to Atlanticism (as in Lebanon and in Syria, where France, playing against its own interest, carries the neocoloniaslist bags of Washingtton and Tel-Aviv). The French leaders – Chirac, Villepin, Sarkozy (small French Bush) – have since a long time betrays Gaullism. To claim the opposite is a political swindle.   

An Paris-Moscow Axis – that we advocate – will exist really only if France remembers De Gaulle and breaks up with Atlanticism. We are extremely far from it. Thus remain Moscow and  the block which is organized around it.



Between these two blocks, which are geopolitical rivals de facto, an increasingly open confrontation is outlined. The analysts speak openly, and rightly, of “return to the Cold war”. 

“The conflicts which burst for various reasons with the closest neighbors (Baltic States and those of the CIS), and on many problems with the United States, the countries and the structures of the European Union became lately a constant of the Russian foreign politics. These conflicts are interpreted inside the country as a testimony of the return of the power of yesteryear which seemed to be lost forever”, commented on Russian daily newspaper KOMMERSANT recently. 

In response to this crisis, the Russian Defense Minister Sergueï Ivanov proposed to divide the world between the Organization of the Treaty of collective security (CSTO) and NATO.  According to him, “the development of a mechanism of co-operation between NATO and the CSTO, then the clear delimitation of the spheres of responsibility, will contribute to the reinforcement of  international security (...) the proposal of Sergueï  Ivanov brings back at the time of confrontation between NATO and the countries of the Warsaw Pact”, add KOMMERSANT.

In Washington, the Yankee hawks seek confrontation. The American senator Richard Lugar  uttered the remarks in the spirit of the “cold war” aimed at Russia, accusing it not to want to share its energy sovereignty. However, one of the principal objectives of the CSTO is to ensure the energy sovereignty of the Member States of this organization. The very  influential republican senator Richard Lugar, president of  the senatorial Committee of the Foreign Affairs declared that the NATO military block was to be held ready to react to an “attack” and to a blackmail with use of energy as a weapon on behalf of country as Russia. “The use of energy as a weapon is not a theoretical threat of the future: it is already in progress”,  affirmed Mr. Lugar in Riga, this 28 November 2006, the day before the NATO summit.  According to the Yankee senator, “the suspension by Russia of the energy matter deliveries to Ukraine testified to a temptation to use energy in order to achieve political goals”. “Russia gave up  confrontation after a severe reaction of the West, but which would  have been the response of NATO if Russia had maintained the embargo?”, asked the American senator, informing that, in this case, “the economy and the Ukrainian armed forces would have been sapped for sure, and the danger and the losses suffered by several NATO countries would have been considerable”. 

“NATO must determine the measures to be taken if Poland, Germany, Hungary or Latvia were the subject of the same threat as the Ukraine”, Richard Lugar hammered, inviting to extend to the energy sector “chapter 5” of the statutes of NATO which specifies that an aggression against a member of the Alliance is equivalent to an aggression against the entire military block. “Since an attack with use of energy as a weapon can ruin the economy of a country and make hundreds, even thousands of victims, the Alliance must pledge according to which the defense against such an attack is within the framework of “chapter 5” the president of the senatorial committee continued, stressing that, under the current conditions, an energy conflict was  equivalent to a war. “That does not make practically any difference when a member (of NATO) is constrained to subject himself to the will of others because of a cut of energy or when it encounters a military blockade or a show of force at his borders”, he has said. 

“Accepting the demolition of the Berlin Wall, Russia hoped that NATO would hold its promises not to be extended to the East, but the former members of the Warsaw Pact and the Baltic  States joined to the Alliance. Reacting to the notes of confrontation which point in the relationship with NATO, Moscow proposes to the Alliance of the North Atlantic a new format  of the relations in Europe. NATO would like to continue to extend by admitting new States from the CIS (the Community of the independent States). Russia is opposed to it actively. The  diplomatic steps do nothing there. Hardly remains the alternative of violent measures”, still informs KOMMERSANT. 

The opposition of the blocks in the spirit of the “cold war” must dissuade certain postsoviet republics to join in a  precipitated way to the Alliance. For this reason the CSTO –  “this new Warsaw Pact” dixit KOMMERSANT - DEFINES CLEARLY ITS PLACE IN EUROPE.   This block counts, among its potential allies, the countries of Asia belonging to the Six of Shanghai, before all China, which represents an imposing force in the competition with  NATO. 


Why we fight today (Part II)


(Article published initially in the Frenchspeaking review LA CAUSE DES PEUPLES – THE PEOPLES’ CAUSE, Brussels-Paris, n° 31, December 2006 / Copyright Luc MICHEL, all rights reserved of reproduction and translation – Free reproduction with mention of the author:  info@pcn-ncp.com)