The other day, Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov made a statement that Russia is ready to discuss security guarantees for a country, “that is now called Ukraine,” however, the Eurasian context will dominate in reaching any agreements.
The Top Diplomat clearly noted that “the Western part of the continent [Eurasia] cannot shut itself off from giants like China, India, Russia, the Persian Gulf and the entire South Asia, Bangladesh and Pakistan. Hundreds of millions of people populate this region. We must develop the continent to ensure that the issues of its central part, the Central Asia, the Caucasus, the Far East, the Taiwan Strait, and the South China Sea are handled by the countries of the region rather than by former NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, who said that NATO would operate there because the alliance’s security depends on the Indo-Pacific Region.”
Given the fact that at the end of January, the US administration will change, which, in the person of President-elect Donald Trump, is already talking about the need for a geopolitical redrawing of the world map, it is possible to draw unequivocal conclusions that negotiations with the American side on Ukraine and on Eurasia as a whole will not be easy.
Nevertheless, discussions on pan-Eurasian security are important and necessary. They not only correspond to the spirit of the times, but also reflect the historical logic itself. This is not only due to the idea of a Greater Eurasia and a single economic space from Dublin to Vladivostok. In his book “Guns, Germs, and Steel,” American scientist Jared Diamond explains that in Eurasia, the exchange of information, experience, and technical inventions was faster than in other places, and this led to a kind of “integration” long before the word appeared.
It would seem that this should have contributed to the rapprochement between peoples in Modern Era, and even more so now, when people are talking about the triumph of progress and science. However, Modern Era coincided with the Age of Great Geographical Discoveries, and at the same time, a number of peoples of Eurasia on its western peninsula, called Europe, fell into terrible ignorance, which led to the emergence of ideas of racial superiority, and then – Nazism and fascism. The end of the Second World War was also supposed to put an end to conflicts and it was time to think about peaceful coexistence (this formula was later developed by China and India). But the UK and the United States actively intervened here, which began to participate in the fate of the Eurasian peoples not only politically and economically, but also on an ideological level, actually telling European countries what to do.
Now, being Washington’s satellites, the EU has become a hostage to Anglo-Saxon interests and is undermining its economy to the detriment of its own countries and peoples. On the other hand, there is clear weariness from the deadlock situation among the population and part of the political elites of the European Union. And the chances of more adequate parties and movements are growing against this background.
If in the United States, at least rhetorically, the new administration intends to reset the Monroe doctrine (talks about Canada, Greenland, the Gulf of Mexico and the Panama Canal fit into the space of the Americas), then their European partners are nevertheless doomed to cooperate on the Eurasian continent.
And the key question is what it will be like. Either the Cold War-style confrontation will continue, or there will be a thaw in relations and a common security architecture will be created together.
The option of confrontation is quite likely, at least because the Trump administration will try to incite the EU and its other partners to act as a single bloc against China. Russia is not considered by Trump and his people as an existential threat to the United States, but China, which is our strategic partner, will be the number one problem under both Biden and Trump, including due to the rapid growth of this country’s power and the spread of its geopolitical influence.
In addition, Xi Jinping openly told the head of the European Council about the importance of trade and economic cooperation and Beijing’s support for the EU’s strategic autonomy. This autonomy means less dependence on the United States in political and military-strategic terms.
However, in parallel with the EU, NATO continues to exist, which covers a larger territory than the European Union, including Turkey. And the United States continues to play a major role in the Alliance.
In addition to the EU, the UK, which had earlier exited from the European Union, but continues to play an active role in the politics of the continent, poses a certain threat to pan-Eurasian security. Historically, the UK controlled vast territories of Eurasia from Egypt to the Indian Peninsula and China, and still owns territory in the Strait of Gibraltar.
The UK is trying to exploit the current contradictions and strengthen its position in various fields. For example, the British Council on Geostrategy notes that their country faces critical vulnerabilities in its logistics supply chains and maritime transportation capabilities. And the provision of the armed forces is threatened by limited and aging government-controlled maritime transportation capabilities, a dwindling merchant fleet, and excessive reliance on special charters.
The UK is trying to exploit the current contradictions and strengthen its position in various fields. For example, the British Council on Geostrategy notes that Britain faces critical vulnerabilities in its logistical supply chains and sealift capacity. Force sustainment is threatened by a limited and ageing government-controlled sealift capacity, a declining military useful merchant fleet, and an overreliance on ad hoc charters.
Nostalgia for the old days is clearly visible here, when Britain called itself the mistress of the seas. And now she wants to revive this status in new circumstances.
The website of the Council asserts Britain’s central role in the Euro-Atlantic and the NATO area of responsibility. It is worth adding that this organization has a project called The China Observatory, which monitors a wide range of Chinese activity that allegedly threatens London’s interests. In addition, there is a Trilateral Initiative (Britain, Poland and Ukraine), one of the stated goals of which is “a campaign of economic and political struggle against Russia in order to break the Russian military machine and weaken the Kremlin’s influence in the so-called “golden mean” countries, not least in Africa, South America and other places.”
So, the English witch will continue to befoul, both Russia and China. Therefore, in the affairs of Eurasia, special attention should be paid to British initiatives, which, obviously or covertly, will always be aimed at undermining Eurasian unity.
As for the consolidation of efforts from among the major centers, it shows not only the interaction of Russia and China. The signing of the comprehensive partnership agreement in all areas between Russia and Iran strengthens the Eurasian axis. Russia and North Korea already have a similar agreement, although the Koreans do not play such a role in the security of the entire continent and are more focused on the problems of the Korean peninsula and US imperialism.
India is another pole of the emerging multipolar world, which is also interested in strengthening regional security. Alongside with the unresolved problem with Kashmir (there are also interests of Pakistan’s nuclear neighbor) and disputed issues with China, New Delhi cooperates in a number of areas with EU countries and sanctions against Russia are clearly hindering this interaction. On the other hand, India is involved in the development of the North-South corridor through Iran and Russia, and is also interested in the development of the Arctic. In the context of the development of a multipolar world, the Modi government is acting quite rationally, also being a member of BRICS and the SCO.
What remains is the Arab-Muslim bloc of Eurasia, where the region clearly suffers from excessive US attention – the occupation of Iraq and Syria, support of Israel’s for the genocide of the Palestinians, pressure on Lebanon, and the preservation of US military bases in Qatar, Bahrain, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia. But taking into account the real cases regarding Palestine and the Israeli occupation, it is obvious that the Arab-Muslim world is now clearly divided and prone to Tribalist-nationalist thinking, which significantly reduces the possibilities of broad cooperation to solve various problems with Eurasian centers. Another reason is the position of expectation on the part of a number of elites in the region, hoping for a further decline in US hegemony, when it will be possible not to be afraid to act more openly.
However, in general, the consolidation of efforts by Russia, China, Iran and India already indicates the existence of a bloc not even of the Eurasian, but of the world majority with a common position on fundamentally important issues.
Comments