Foundations of Geopolitics
Search…
PART 1 - Founding fathers of geopolitics
Part 2 - Modern geopolitical theories and schools (second half of the twentieth century)
Part 3 - Russia and Space
Part 4 - Geopolitical future of Russia
Part 5 - Domestic Geopolitics of Russia
Chapter 5 - Geopolitics of the European "New Right"
5.1 Europe one hundred flags ; Alain de Benoit
One of the few European geopolitical schools that have maintained a continuous connection with the ideas of the pre-war German geopolitics-continentalists is the "new right." This trend arose in France in the late 60s and is associated with the figure of the leader of this movement, philosopher and publicist Alain de Benoit.
The “New Right” are very different from the traditional French right-wing monarchists, Catholics, Germanophobes, chauvinists, anti-communists, conservatives, etc. on almost all counts. The "new right" supporters of "organic democracy", pagans, Germanophiles, socialists, modernists, etc. At first, the “left camp”, traditionally extremely influential in France, considered this a “tactical maneuver” of the ordinary right, but over time, the seriousness of evolution was proved and recognized by all.
One of the fundamental principles of the ideology of the "new right", analogues of which soon appeared in other European countries, was the principle of "continental geopolitics." Unlike the “old right” and classical nationalists, de Benoit believed that the principle of the centralist State-Nation (Etat-Nation) was historically exhausted and that the future belongs only to the “Great Spaces”. Moreover, the basis of such "Great Spaces" should be not so much the unification of different States in a pragmatic political bloc, but the entry of ethnic groups of different scales into a single "Federal Empire "on an equal footing. Such a "Federal Empire" should be strategically united and ethnically differentiated. Moreover, strategic unity should be supported by the unity of the original culture.
The "Great Space" that de Benoit was most interested in was Europe. The "New Right" believed that the peoples of Europe have a common Indo-European origin, a single source. This is the principle of a "common past." But the circumstances of the modern era, in which the tendencies of strategic and economic integration, necessary for possessing genuine geopolitical sovereignty, are active, dictate the need for unification in a purely pragmatic sense. Thus, the peoples of Europe are doomed to a “common future”. From this, de Benoit concludes that the thesis “United Europe of a hundred flags” should become the main geopolitical principle (16). In this perspective, as in all concepts of the “new right,” the desire to combine “conservative” and “modernist” elements, that is, "right" and "left." In recent years, the "new right" have abandoned this definition, believing that they are "right" to the same extent as the "left".
De Benoit's geopolitical theses are based on the assertion of the "continental fate of Europe." In this, he fully follows the concepts of the Haushofer school. From this follows the opposition of "Europe" and "West", characteristic of the "new right-wingers". "Europe" for them is a continental geopolitical entity based on an ethnic ensemble of Indo-European origin and having common cultural roots. This is a traditional concept. The "West", on the contrary, is a geopolitical and historical concept associated with the modern world, which denies ethnic and spiritual traditions, which put forward purely material and quantitative criteria for existence. It is a utilitarian and rationalistic, mechanistic bourgeois civilization. The United States and the most complete embodiment of the West and its civilization are the United States.
This makes up a specific project of the "new right". Europe should integrate into the “Federal Empire”, which is opposed to the West and the USA, and regionalist tendencies should be especially encouraged, as regions and ethnic minorities have retained more traditional features than megacities and cultural centers, struck by the “spirit of the West”. France should be guided by Germany and Central Europe. Hence the interest of the "new right" in De Gaulle and Friedrich Naumann. At the practical policy level, starting from the 70s, the “new right” advocated for a strict strategic neutrality of Europe, for withdrawal from NATO, for the development of a self-sufficient European nuclear potential.
Regarding the USSR (later Russia), the position of the "new right" has evolved. Starting with the classic thesis "Neither West nor East, but Europe", they gradually evolved to the thesis "First of all, Europe, but better even with the East than with the West." At a practical level, the initial interest in China and the projects for organizing a strategic alliance between Europe and China to counter both “American and Soviet imperialism” were replaced by a moderate “Sovietophile” and the idea of an alliance between Europe and Russia.
The geopolitics of the "new right" is oriented radically but anti-Atlantic and anti-mondialist. They see the fate of Europe as the antithesis of Atlantic and Mondialist projects. They are opposed to "thalassocracy" and the concept of One World.
It should be noted that in the conditions of the total strategic and political dominance of Atlanticism in Europe during the Cold War, de Benoit's geopolitical position (theoretically and logically impeccable) was so contrasted with the "norms of political thinking" that it simply could not be widely disseminated. It was a kind of "dissent" and, like any "dissidentism" and "non-conformism", was marginal in nature. Until now, the intellectual level of the New Right, the high quality of their publications and publications, even the large number of their followers in the academic European environment, are in sharp contrast with the negligible attention given to them by the authorities and analytical structures serving the government with geopolitical projects.
5.2 Europe from Vladivostok to Dublin ; Jean Tiriar
A somewhat different version of continentalist geopolitics was developed by another European "dissident" Belgian, Jean Tiriard (1922 1992). Since the beginning of the 60s, he has been the leader of the pan-European radical movement Young Europe.
Tiriar considered geopolitics the main political science discipline, without which it is impossible to build a rational and far-sighted political and state strategy. A follower of Haushofer and Nikisch, he considered himself a "European National Bolshevik" and a builder of the "European Empire". It was his ideas that anticipated the more developed and sophisticated projects of the "new right."
Jean Tyriar built his political theory on the principle of "autarchy of large spaces." Developed in the mid-19th century by the German economist Frederick Liszt, this theory argued that a full-fledged strategic and economic development of a state is possible only if it has a sufficient geopolitical scale and great territorial capabilities. Tiriar applied this principle to the current situation and came to the conclusion that the global significance of the states of Europe would be completely lost if they did not unite into a single Empire opposing the United States. At the same time, Tyriar believed that such an “Empire” should not be “federal” and “regionally oriented,” but extremely unified, centralistic, corresponding to the Jacobin model.This should become a powerful single continental State-Nation. This is the main difference between the views of de Benoit and Tiriar.
In the late 70s, the views of Tyriar underwent some change. An analysis of the geopolitical situation led him to conclude that the scale of Europe is no longer sufficient to free itself from American thalassocracy. Consequently, the main condition for "European liberation" is the unification of Europe with the USSR. From a geopolitical scheme that includes three main zones, the West, Europe, Russia (USSR), he switched to a scheme with only two components: the West and the Eurasian continent. Moreover, Tyriar came to the radical conclusion that it is better for Europe to choose Soviet socialism than Anglo-Saxon capitalism.
So the project appeared "Euro-Soviet Empire from Vladivostok to Dublin" (17). It almost prophetically describes the reasons that the USSR should collapse if it does not take active geopolitical steps in Europe and the South in the very near future. Tiriar believed that Haushofer's ideas regarding the "Berlin-Moscow-Tokyo continental block" is highly relevant to this day. It is important that Tiriar set forth these theses 15 years before the collapse of the USSR, absolutely accurately predicting its logic and reasons. Tiriar attempted to convey his views to the Soviet leaders. But he failed to do this, although he had personal meetings in the 1960s with Nasser, Zhou Enlai, and senior Yugoslav leaders.It is indicative that Moscow rejected his project of organizing clandestine "European liberation units" in Europe for the terrorist struggle against the "agents of Atlantism."
The views of Jean Tiriar are at the heart of the now activating non-conformist movement of European national Bolsheviks (the "European Liberation Front"). They come close to the projects of modern Russian neo-Eurasianism.
5.3 Thinking of the Continents ; Jordis von Laushausen
Very close to Tyriar is the Austrian general Jordis von Laushausen. Unlike Tyriar or de Benoit, he does not participate in direct political activity and does not build specific social projects. He adheres to a strictly scientific approach and is limited to a purely geopolitical analysis. His initial position is the same as that of the National Bolsheviks and the "new right", he is a continentalist and a follower of Haushofer.
Lauhausen believes that political power only has a chance to become long-lasting and stable when rulers think not in momentary and local categories, but in “millennia and continents.” His main book is called “The courage to rule. Think continents” (18).
Laushausen believes that global territorial, civilizational, cultural and social processes become understandable only if they are seen in a "far-sighted" perspective, which he contrasts with historical "myopia." The power in human society, on which the choice of the historical path and the most important decisions depend, should be guided by very general schemes that allow finding a place for a particular state or people in a huge historical perspective. Therefore, the main discipline necessary to determine the strategy of power is geopolitics in its traditional sense, operating with global categories, distracting from analytical particularities (and not the “internal” applied geopolitics of the Lacoste school). Modern ideologies, the latest technological and civilizational shifts,Certainly, they change the relief of the world, but they cannot undo some basic laws related to the natural and cultural cycles dating back thousands of years.
Such global categories are space, language, ethnicity, resources, etc.
Lohausen offers this formula of power:
"Power = Strength x Location"
He clarifies:
"Since Power is Strength multiplied by location, only a favorable geographical position gives the opportunity for the full development of internal forces." (nineteen)
Thus, power (political, intellectual, etc.) is directly associated with space.
Lauhausen separates the fate of Europe from the fate of the West, considering Europe a continental entity, temporarily falling under the control of thalassocracy. But for political liberation, Europe needs a spatial (positional) minimum. Such a minimum is achieved only through the unification of Germany, the integration processes in Central Europe, the restoration of the territorial unity of Prussia (torn between Poland, the USSR and the GDR) and the further folding of the European powers into a new independent bloc independent of Atlantism. It is important to note the role of Prussia. Lauhausen (after Nikisch and Spengler) believes that Prussia is the most continental, “Eurasian” part of Germany, and that if Germany had not been Berlin but Konigsberg, European history would have gone in a different, more right direction,focusing on an alliance with Russia against the Anglo-Saxon thalassocracies.
Lauhausen believes that the future of Europe in a strategic perspective is unthinkable without Russia, and vice versa, Russia (USSR) Europe is necessary, because without it it is geopolitically unfinished and vulnerable to America, whose location is much better, and therefore, whose power sooner or later is much ahead of the USSR. Lauhausen emphasized that the USSR could have four Europe in the West: "a hostile Europe, a subordinate Europe, a devastated Europe and an allied Europe." The first three options are inevitable while maintaining the course of European politics that the USSR followed during the Cold War. Only the desire to make Europe "allied and friendly" at any cost can correct the fatal geopolitical situation of the USSR and become the beginning of a new stage in geopolitical history - the Eurasian stage.
Lauhausen's position is deliberately limited to purely geopolitical statements. He omits ideological questions. For example, the geopolitics of Rus Boyar, Tsarist Russia or the Soviet Union represents for him a single continuous process, independent of the change in the ruling system or ideology. Russia geopolitically is a heartland, and therefore, whatever the regime in it, its fate is predetermined by its lands.
Lauhausen, like Tiriar, predicted in advance the geopolitical collapse of the USSR, which would be inevitable if he followed his usual course. If the outcome of Atlantist geopolitics was seen as a victory, Lauhausen saw in this, rather, the defeat of the continental forces. But with the nuance that the new opportunities that will open after the fall of the Soviet system can create favorable conditions for the creation of a new Eurasian bloc, the Continental Empire, since certain restrictions dictated by Marxist ideology would be removed in this case.
5.4 The Eurasian Empire of the End ; Jean Parvulesco
The romantic version of geopolitics is presented by the famous French writer Jean Parvulesco. For the first time, geopolitical themes in literature arise already in George Orwell, who in the dystopian "1984" described the futurologically dividing the planet into three huge continental blocks "Ostasia, Eurasia, Oceania". Similar topics are found in Arthur Koestler, Aldous Huxley, Raymond Abellio, etc.
Jean Parvulesco makes geopolitical themes central in all his works, opening up the new genre of " geopolitical fiction ."
The concept of Parvulesco is briefly as follows (20): the history of mankind is the history of Power, power. For access to central positions in civilization, i.e. various half-secret organizations, whose existence cycles far exceed the duration of ordinary political ideologies, ruling dynasties, religious institutions, states and peoples, strive for Power itself. Parvulesco defines these organizations, acting in history under different names, as the "Order of the Atlantists" and the "Order of the Eurasians." Between them there is a centuries-old struggle in which the Popes, patriarchs, kings, diplomats, major financiers, revolutionaries, mystics, generals, scientists, artists, etc. participate. All socio-cultural manifestations are thus reducible to the original, albeit extremely complex, geopolitical archetypes.
This is the geopolitical line brought to its logical limit, the premises of which can be clearly seen already among the founders of geopolitics as such, which are quite rational and alien to “mysticism”.
The central role in the plots of Parvulesco is played by General De Gaulle and the geopolitical structure he founded, which, after the end of his presidency, remained in the shadows. Parvulesco calls this "geopolitical gallism." Such "geopolitical gallism" is the French counterpart of the Haushofer school of continentalism.
The main task of the supporters of this line is the organization of the European continental bloc Paris Paris Moscow. In this aspect, Parvulesco’s theories merge with the theses of the “New Right” and the “National Bolsheviks.”
Parvulesco believes that the current historical stage is the culmination of a centuries-old geopolitical confrontation, when the dramatic history of a continental civilizational duel comes to an end. He foresees the imminent emergence of a giant continental construction of the "Eurasian Empire of the End", and then the final collision with the "Empire of the Atlantic." This eschatological duel, described by him in apocalyptic tones, he calls "Endkampf" ("Final Battle"). It is curious that in the texts of Parvulesco fictional characters are adjacent to real historical figures, with many of whom the author maintained (and with some still maintains) friendly relations. Among them are politicians from De Gaulle's close circle, English and American diplomats, poet Ezra Pound, philosopher Julius Evola,politician and writer Raymond Abellio, sculptor Arno Brecker, members of occult organizations, etc.
Despite the fictional form, Parvulesco’s texts have enormous geopolitical value, since a number of his articles published in the late 70s strangely describe the situation in the world only in the mid-90s.
5.5 The Indian Ocean as a path to world domination ; Robert Stoikers
The complete opposite of the “geopolitical visionary” Parvulesco is the Belgian geopolitician and publicist Robert Stoikers, the publisher of two prestigious magazines Orientation and Vuluar. Stoikers approaches geopolitics from a purely scientific, rationalist perspective, striving to free this discipline from all "random" strata. But following the logic of the "new right" in the academic direction, he comes to conclusions strikingly close to the "prophecies" of Parvulesco.
Stoikers also believes that the socio-political and especially diplomatic projects of various states and blocs, no matter what ideological form they are dressed in, are an indirect and sometimes veiled expression of global geopolitical projects. In this he sees the influence of the "Earth" factor on human history. Man is an earthly creature (created from the earth). Consequently, earth, space predetermine a person in its most significant manifestations. This is a prerequisite for "geohistory".
Continentalist orientation is a priority for Stoikers; he considers Atlantism hostile to Europe, and connects the fate of European welfare with Germany and Central Europe (21). Stoikers is a supporter of the active cooperation of Europe with the countries of the Third World, and especially with the Arab world.
At the same time, he emphasizes the great importance of the Indian Ocean for the future geopolitical structure of the planet. He defines the Indian Ocean as the "Middle Ocean", located between the Atlantic and the Pacific. The Indian Ocean is located exactly in the middle between the east coast of Africa and the Pacific zone, in which New Zealand, Australia, New Guinea, Malaysia, Indonesia, the Philippines and Indochina are located. Maritime control of the Indian Ocean is a key position for geopolitical influence immediately on the three most important "large spaces" of Africa, the South Eurasian rimland and the Pacific region. This implies the strategic priority of some small islands in the Indian Ocean, especially Diego Garcia, which is equidistant from all coastal zones.
The Indian Ocean is the territory on which the whole European strategy should focus, since through this zone Europe will be able to influence the United States, Eurasia, and Japan, Stoikers claims. From his point of view, the decisive geopolitical confrontation, which should predetermine the picture of the future XXI century, will unfold in this space.
Stoikers is actively involved in the history of geopolitics, and he owns articles on the founders of this science in the new edition of the Brussels Encyclopedia.
5.6 Russia + Islam = salvation of Europe ; Carlo Terraciano
An active geopolitical center of the continentalist orientation also exists in Italy. In Italy after the Second World War, more than in other European countries, the ideas of Karl Schmitt became widespread, and thanks to this, the geopolitical way of thinking became very widespread there. In addition, it was in Italy that the “Young Europe” movement of Jean Tiriar was most developed, and, accordingly, the ideas of continental national Bolshevism.
Among the numerous political science and sociological "new right-wing" journals and centers dealing with geopolitics, Milan Orion is of particular interest, where for the last 10 years geopolitical analyzes of Dr. Carlo Terraciano have been regularly published. Terraciano expresses the most extreme position of European continentalism, closely adjacent to Eurasianism.
Terraciano fully accepts the picture of Mackinder and Mahan and agrees with the strict civilizational and geographical dualism that they have highlighted. At the same time, he unequivocally takes the side of heartland, believing that the fate of Europe depends entirely on the fate of Russia and Eurasia, on the East. The Continental East is positive, the Atlantic West is negative. Such a radical approach on the part of the European is an exception even among geopolitics of a continental orientation, since Terraciano does not even emphasize the special status of Europe, considering this to be a secondary moment in the face of the planetary confrontation of thalassocracy and tellurocracy.
He completely shares the idea of a single Eurasian State, the “Euro-Soviet Empire from Vladivostok to Dublin," which brings it closer to Tyriar, but he does not share the Jacobinism and universalism characteristic of Tyriar, insisting on ethno-cultural differentiation and regionalism, which brings him, in turn, with Alain de Benoit.
The emphasis on the centrality of the Russian factor is adjacent to Terraciano’s other curious point: he believes that the Islamic world plays a crucial role in the fight against Atlanticism, especially the anti-American regimes: Iranian, Libyan, Iraqi, etc. This leads him to conclude that the Islamic world is the highest exponent of continental geopolitical interests. At the same time, he considers the “fundamentalist" version of Islam to be positive.
The final formula, which summarizes the geopolitical views of Dr. Terraciano, is as follows:
Russia (heartland) + Islam v. USA (Atlantism, Mondialism) (22)
Terraciano sees Europe as a springboard for the Russian-Islamic anti-Mondialist bloc. From his point of view, only such a radical formulation of the issue can objectively lead to a genuine European revival.
Other employees of Orion and the intellectual center working on its basis (Prof. Claudio Mutti, Mauritsio Murelli, sociologist Alessandra Colla, Marco Battarra, etc.) hold similar views to Terraciano. Some leftists also tend to this national-Bolshevik trend. , the social democratic, communist and anarchist circles of Italy, the newspaper Umanita, the magazine Nuovi Angulacioni, etc.
Copy link