permaculture

[Lawrence London <lfljvenaura@gmail.com>]

On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 11:58 PM, Lawrence London <lfljvenaura@gmail.com>
wrote:

> The only good thing is if Bolton is appointed Secretary of State. He will
> put that sadistic Stalin-clone in the Kremlin, Putin, in his place. People
> like Steve & friends who spammed us with anti HRC propaganda will be hoist
> on their own petard.


I hope he does partly because of all the anti-capitalist (phony) "leftist"
pro-Russia America-hating ingrates who campaigned alongside the alt-right
against Hillary, the obvious best choice, thinking Trump would be good for
Putin's version of Russia, allowing him to continue his aggression
unimpeded. With Bolton on board they will be hoist on their own petard.

These items are profoundly disturbing:

The Gerasimoc Doctrine
"The *doctrine* posits that the rules of war have changed, that there is a
“blurring of the lines between war and peace,” and that “nonmilitary means
of achieving military and strategic goals has grown and, in many cases,
exceeded the power of weapons in their effectiveness.”Jul 26, 2016"

The Foundations of Geopolitics by Alexander Dugin is it.

The GWU .pdf essay on it by John B. Dunlop

and a non-pdf here at CIAO:

https://www.ciaonet.org/catalog/13498

The Wikipedia version

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundations_of_Geopolitics

I found this also:

FOUNDATIONS OF GEOPOLITICS Summary

http://arctogaia.com/public/geopeng.htm


How World War III Could Begin in Latvia
http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/11/16/how-world-war-iii-could-begin-in-latvia/

Four years ago, I predicted
<http://foreignpolicy.com/2014/03/07/i-predicted-russias-invasion-of-ukraine/>
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Here’s my next prediction, which by now will
strike many people as obvious: The Baltics are next, and will pose one of
President-elect Donald Trump’s first and greatest tests. It probably won’t
take the form of an overt invasion.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has a clear goal and a grand strategy. But
it’s not the most realists perceive. Some argue that he is driven by
fundamentally rational, defensive goals: NATO expansion appeared
threatening and Russia is pushing back. The West expanded its sphere of
influence at Russia’s expense, and Russia is now retaliating. That’s why
the “Ukraine Crisis Is the West’s Fault
<https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/russia-fsu/2014-08-18/why-ukraine-crisis-west-s-fault>,”
according
to John Mearsheimer.

As with most academic realist analysis, this is nonsense. Putin is not
driven by cold calculations of rational self-interest, because no human is.
We are not Vulcans. We are driven by our perception of self-interest as
shaped and defined by our deeper presuppositions and beliefs — which is to
say, our ideology or religion.

Putin believes hegemony over Russia’s near-abroad is necessary for Russian
security because of his beliefs about Russian nationhood and historical
destiny. Putin (and, perhaps more so, his inner circle) isn’t merely
nationalist. The Kremlin appears to be driven by
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/putins-global-ambitions-could-destabilize-europe/2014/03/18/69abb2a2-aec5-11e3-9627-c65021d6d572_story.html>
peculiar form of Russian nationalism infused with religion, destiny, and
messianism. In this narrative, Russia is the guardian of Orthodox
Christianity and has a mission to protect and expand the faith.

A truly rational Russia would not see NATO and European Union expansion as
a threat, because the liberal order is open and inclusive and would
actually augment Russia’s security and prosperity. But, for Putin and other
Russians who see the world through the lens of Russian religious
nationalism, the West is inherently a threat because of its degeneracy and
globalism.

In this view, NATO is not the benign guarantor of liberal order in Europe,
but the hostile agent of the degenerate West and the primary obstacle to
Russian greatness. Thus, Putin’s grand strategy requires breaking NATO.
Specifically, he must make the Article V mutual security guarantee
meaningless.

Putin has already succeeded in eroding NATO’s credibility. His last two
targets, Georgia and Ukraine, were not NATO members, but in 2008 had been
explicitly and publicly assured that they would be granted Membership
Action Plans, the roadmap to membership. Russia clearly and publicly
opposed any steps towards NATO membership for both countries — and then
proceeded to invade them.

Russia’s invasions of Georgia and Ukraine created disputed territories —
South Ossetia, Abkhazia, and Crimea — occupied by Russian soldiers. No
country will ever join NATO while being partly occupied by Russia.

Putin now has the most favorable international environment since the end of
the Cold War to continue Russian expansion. European unity is fractured.
Alliance members are questioning the value of the mutual security pact. And
the next American president seems openly favorable to Russia and ready to
excuse Russia’s irresponsible behavior.

Putin’s next step is more dangerous than the previous ones, because he is
likely to move into the Baltics, which are NATO members. He will not send
large formations of uniformed Russian soldiers over the international
border — even the most cautious NATO members will not ignore an overt
conventional invasion.

Instead, Putin will instigate an ambiguous militarized crisis using
deniable proxies, probably in the next two years. Perhaps Russian-speaking
Latvians or Estonians (a quarter of Latvians and Estonians are ethnically
Russian) will begin rioting, protesting for their rights, claiming to be
persecuted, asking for “international protection.” A suspiciously well
armed and well trained “Popular Front for the Liberation of the Russian
Baltics” will appear. A few high-profile assassinations and bombings bring
the Baltics to the edge of civil war. A low-grade insurgency may emerge.

-- 
Lawrence F. London, Jr.
lfljvenaura@gmail.com
https://sites.google.com/site/avantgeared