Chapter 4 - The redivision of the world

4.1 Land and sea. Common enemy

The new Empire, which the Russian people will create, has its own internal geopolitical logic, inscribed in the natural structure of the geographical space of the planet.

The main geopolitical law, formulated most clearly by Mackinder, states that in history the constant and main geopolitical process is the struggle of land, continental powers (with the natural form of an ideocratic political system) against island, sea states (commercial, market, economic systems). This is the eternal confrontation of Rome and Carthage, Sparta and Athens, England and Germany, etc. Since the beginning of the 20th century, this confrontation of two geopolitical constants has become global in nature. The United States became the sea, trading pole, drawing all other countries into its orbit, and Russia became the land pole. After World War II, the two superpowers finally assigned civilizational roles. The US has strategically swallowed the West and coastal territories of Eurasia, and the USSR united around itself a gigantic continental mass of Eurasian spaces. From the point of view of geopolitics as a science, the ancient archetypal confrontation of the Sea and Sushi, plutocracy and ideocracy, the civilization of merchants and the civilization of heroes (the dualism of “heroes and merchants,” as Werner Sombart, author of the book of the same name) found expression in the Cold War.

The collapse of the Eastern Bloc, and then the USSR, upset the relative geopolitical balance in favor of Atlantism, i.e. The Western bloc and market civilization as a whole. However, geopolitical trends are an objective factor, and it is not possible to abolish them in a voluntaristic, “subjective” way. Sushi trends, continental impulses cannot be unilaterally canceled, and therefore, the creation of a new land, eastern, continental Empire is a potential geopolitical inevitability.

The Atlantic, maritime, commercial pole of civilization today is certainly extremely strong and powerful, but objective factors make the continental reaction of the East practically inevitable. The land Empire potentially always exists and seeks only convenient circumstances to be realized in political reality.

The New Empire should be built on a clear understanding of this geopolitical inevitability. In this Empire, it is the Russians who will have the natural key function, since they control those lands that are axial in the Eurasian continental mass. The New Empire cannot be any other than the Russian Empire, since both territorially, culturally, civilizationally, and socio-economically, and strategically, the Russians naturally and organically correspond to this planetary mission and go to its realization throughout its national and state history. Mackinder called the Russian lands the "geographical axis of history", i.e. the space around which the coastal civilization of Eurasia was created (often identified with “civilization” in general) under the influence of the dialectical opposition of marine (external) and land (internal) cultural and political impulses.Some other people or some other country can act as a pole of the Eurasian continental Empire, only taking control of the totality of Russian lands, and for this it is necessary to fulfill the almost unbelievable condition of destroying the Russian people, wiping off the Russian nation. Since this seems unlikely, the Russians need to recognize, recognize and take on once again the complex role of the center of the Eurasian Empire.

The geopolitical construction of this Empire should be based on the fundamental principle of the principle of "common enemy". The denial of Atlantism, the rejection of the strategic control of the United States and the rejection of the supremacy of economic, market-liberal values, are that common civilizational base, that general impulse that will open the way for a lasting political and strategic alliance, will create the axial skeleton of the coming Empire. The vast majority of Eurasian states and peoples They have a continental, “land” specificity of national history, state traditions, and economic ethics. The vast majority of these states and peoples perceive American political and strategic influence as an overwhelming burden that alienates nations from their historical fate. Despite all the internal civilizational, religious and socio-economic differences between the Eurasian powers among themselves they have a strong and unshakable "common denominator" hostility to the totality of Atlantic control, the desire to free oneself from the transatlantic custody of that Trade Order, which the USA is strenuously planting, the stronghold of the "marine" civilization.

Differences in the regional interests of the Eurasian states, in religious, ethnic, racial and cultural orientation are all important factors that cannot be ignored. However, they can be talked about seriously and fully only if the stifling economic and strategic influence of the “common enemy” disappears, imposing a model that is alien to almost all Christians, socialists, Muslims, national capitalists, and Buddhists, and Communists and Hindus. In the meantime, US dominance continues, all intra-Eurasian conflicts and contradictions are artificial in character, since such a clarification of relations makes sense only in the absence of a more global factor, which, in practice, organizes and controls these conflicts in order to maintain disunity and fragmentation in Eurasia. In this sense, all the "regional powers" in Eurasia logically serve the interests of the Atlantists, since being unable to provide them with large-scale resistance (and this is possible only in the imperial strategic context), they are entirely dependent on a single Superpower and direct their energy to neighbors only with the sanction of overseas rulers.

The “common enemy," Atlantism, should become the connecting component of the new geopolitical construction. The effectiveness of this factor is beyond doubt, and all arguments against this consideration either naively ignore the objective seriousness and totality of the atlantist domination, or deliberately divert geopolitical attention from the only responsible and realistic perspective in favor of secondary regional problems that have no solution at all without taking into account the global alignment forces.

Eurasia is predetermined by geographical and strategic unification. This is a strictly scientific geopolitical fact. Russia must inevitably be at the center of such an association. The driving force of unification is inevitably but must be the Russian people. The civilization mission of the Russians, their universalist ideal, and the logic of the historical formation of the nation and state are in full harmony with this mission. The new Eurasian Empire is inscribed in the geographical and political predetermination of world history and world geopolitics. There is no point in arguing with this circumstance. The interests of the Russian people are inseparable from the construction of such a continental structure.

The Eurasian geopolitics of the New Empire is not just a geographic abstraction or an expression of a hypothetical will for unlimited expansion. Its principles and main directions take into account geopolitical constants, and the current political situation, and really existing international trends, and the strategic balance of forces, and economic and resource patterns. Therefore, the Eurasian imperial project carries simultaneously several dimensions of cultural, strategic, historical, economic, political, etc. It is important from the very beginning to emphasize that in one or another “axial” geopolitical alliance during the creation of the Empire, we are talking about a completely different degree of integration depending on the level. In one case there can be cultural or ethnic rapprochement, in another religious, in the third economic.These issues have a specific solution in each case. The only universal integrating reality in the future Eurasian Empire will be a categorical imperative strategic alliance , i.e. such a geopolitical alliance that will allow in all strategic directions to effectively resist the Atlantic influences, American geopolitical pressure and political and economic dictatorship.

The strategic unification of the continent in question should provide control over the sea borders of Eurasia on all sides of the world, continental economic, industrial, and resource autarky, and centralized management of the Eurasian armed forces. All other aspects of intra-Eurasian integration will be decided on the basis of flexible, differentiated principles, depending on each specific case. This fundamental consideration must be constantly kept in mind in order to avoid unreasonable doubts and objections that may arise if, instead of a strategic alliance, someone mistakenly believes that the case concerns a political, ethnic, cultural, religious or economic association. By the way, representatives of "small nationalism" of all peoples will quite consciously make such a substitution, reproaching the Eurasians and continental imperial builders for wanting to dissolve their ethnic groups, religions, cultures, etc. in the new "internationalist utopia." The Eurasian project in no way leads to the leveling of nations, on the contrary, it proceeds from the need to preserve and develop the identity of peoples and cultures, but it is not about the irresponsible romantic dreams of "small nationalists" (which in practice lead only to chauvinism and suicidal ethnic conflicts), but about a serious and objective understanding of the current situation,where to achieve this goal is possible only under the condition of a radical undermining of the world influence of the atlantist West with its market, liberal ideology, claiming world domination.

Now it remains only to find out the specifics of this continental project, taking into account the negative factors that frustrated the implementation of this grandiose civilization plan in previous periods.

4.2 West axis: Moscow-Berlin. European Empire and Eurasia

In the West, the New Empire has a strong geopolitical bridgehead, which is Central Europe.

Central Europe is a natural geopolitical entity, united strategically, culturally and partly politically. Ethnically, this space includes the peoples of the former Austro-Hungarian Empire, as well as Germany, Prussia, and part of the Polish and West Ukrainian territories. The consolidating force of Central Europe is traditionally Germany, uniting this geopolitical conglomerate under its control.

For natural-geographical and historical reasons, central Europe has a pronounced "land", continental character, opposing the "marine", "Atlantic" spaces of Western Europe. In principle, the political influence of Central Europe can also spread south to Italy and Spain, which has many historical precedents. It is most logical to consider Berlin as the geopolitical capital of Central Europe as a symbol of Germany, which, in turn, is the symbol and center of this entire entity. Only Germany and the German people possess all the necessary qualities for the effective integration of this geopolitical region with a historical will, a well-developed economy, a privileged geographical position, ethnic homogeneity, and the consciousness of their civilizational mission.Terrestrial and ideocratic Germany has traditionally opposed merchant-marine England, and the specifics of this geopolitical and cultural confrontation noticeably affected European history, especially after the Germans finally managed to create their own state.

England is geopolitically the least European state whose strategic interests are traditionally opposed to the Central European powers and, more broadly, continental trends in Europe. However, in parallel with the strengthening of the role of the United States and their seizure of almost complete control over the English colonies, the strategic role of England has significantly decreased, and today in Europe this country acts more as an extraterritorial floating base of the United States than as an independent force. Be that as it may, within Europe, England is the most hostile to the continental interests of the country, the antipode of Central Europe, and therefore, the New Eurasian Empire has in her person a political, ideological and economic adversary. It is unlikely that it will be possible to voluntarily reverse the civilizational path of this particular country, created in its time a gigantic trade-colonial empire of a purely "marine" type and so contributed to the emergence of the whole of modern Western civilization based on trade, quantity, capitalism, speculation and the stock market game. This is completely unrealistic, and therefore, in the Eurasian project, England will inevitably become a scapegoat, since the European processes of continental integration will necessarily take place not only without taking into account English interests, but even in direct contrast to these interests. In this context, a considerable role should be played by European and, more broadly, Eurasian support for Irish, Scottish, and Welsh nationalism, up to and including the promotion of separatist tendencies and the political destabilization of Great Britain.

Another controversial geopolitical entity is France. In many ways, French history was atlantist in nature, opposing continental and central European trends. France was the main historical adversary of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, strongly supported the fragmented state of the German principalities, gravitating to the "progressism" and "centralism" of the antitraditional and unnatural type. In general, from the point of view of undermining the European continental tradition, France has always been at the forefront, and in many cases French politics has been identified with the most aggressive Atlantism. At least, this was the case until the United States assumed the planetary function of the main pole of Atlantism.

In France, there is an alternative geopolitical tendency that goes back to the continental line of Napoleon (which Goethe still perceived as the leader of the land integration of Europe) and clearly embodied in European politics de Gaulle, who was looking for an alliance with Germany and the creation of a European confederation independent of the United States. Partly the same line inspired Mitterrand's Franco-German projects. Be that as it may, it is hypothetically possible to imagine such a turn of events that France recognizes the supremacy of the factor of Central Europe and voluntarily accepts complicity in the geopolitical European bloc with an anti-American and continental orientation. The territory of France is a necessary component of the Eurasian bloc in the West, since control over the Atlantic coast directly depends on this, and, accordingly, the security of the New Empire on the western frontiers. In any case, the Franco-German Union is the main link of Eurasian geopolitics in the continental West, provided that the interests of Central Europe, namely its autarchy and geopolitical independence, are priority here. Such a project is known as the "European Empire". The integration of Europe under the auspices of Germany as the basis of such a European Empire fits perfectly into the Eurasian project and is the most desirable process for a more global continental integration.

All the tendencies towards European unification around Germany (Central Europe) will have a positive meaning only if one fundamental condition is observed for the creation of a solid geopolitical and strategic Moscow-Berlin axis. Central Europe alone does not have sufficient political and military potential to gain true independence from US Atlantic control. Moreover, in the current conditions it is difficult to expect from Europe a genuine geopolitical and national awakening without the revolutionary influence of the Russian factor. The European Empire without Moscow and, more broadly, Eurasia is not only unable to fully organize its strategic space with a shortage of military power, political initiative and natural resources, but also in a civilizational sense does not have clear ideals and guidelines, since the influence of the Trade System and market liberal values deeply paralyzed the foundations of the national worldview of the European peoples, undermined their historical organic value systems.The European Empire will become a full-fledged geopolitical and civilizational reality only under the influence of a new ideological, political and spiritual energy from the depths of the continent, i.e. from Russia. In addition, only Russia and the Russians will be able to provide Europe with strategic and political independence and resource autarky. Therefore, the European Empire should be formed precisely around Berlin, which is on a direct and vital axis with Moscow.

The Eurasian impulse should come exclusively from Moscow, transmitting the civilizational mission (with appropriate adaptation to European specifics) of Russians to Berlin, and that, in turn, will begin European integration on the principles and projects inspired by the deep geopolitical continental impulse. The key to the adequacy of the European Empire lies in the unequivocal prevalence of Russophile tendencies in Germany itself, as the best German minds understood from Müller van den Brook to Ernst Nikisch, Karl Haushofer and Jordis von Lauhausen. And as a continuation of such geopolitical Russophilia, the rest of Europe (and, first of all, France) should follow the Germanophile orientation. Only under such conditions will the western vector of the Eurasian Empire be adequate and strong, strategically provided and ideologically consistent. But it should be recognized that any other unification of Europe is simply impossible without deep-seated contradictions and internal schisms. For example, the current unification of Europe under American, NATO control will very soon make it feel its geopolitical and economic contradictions, and therefore, it will inevitably be frustrated, or suspended, or spontaneously acquire the unexpected, anti-American (and potentially Eurasian) dimension that was foreseen by Jean Tiriar.

It is important to emphasize right away that the unification of Europe around Germany must take into account the major political miscalculations of previous attempts, and first of all, the failure of the epic of Hitler and the Third Reich. In no case should the geopolitical unification of Europe around Central Europe (Germany) imply the ethnic domination of the Germans or the creation of a centralized Jacobin structure in the form of a gigantic German State. According to Tyriar, “Hitler’s main mistake was to make Europe German, while he should strive to make Europe European". This thesis remains completely relevant at the present stage, and in general can apply to all neo-imperial processes, including in Russia. The European Empire, organized around Germany, should be exactly European ; free from the ethnic and linguistic domination of any one nation. In order to be the geopolitical heart of Europe, Germany must acquire a supranational, civilizational, imperial character in itself, abandoning the contradictory and impracticable attempts to create a racially homogeneous "nation-state". European nations should be equal partners in building the western bridgehead of Eurasia and adapt the general imperial impulse to their own national and cultural specifics. The European Empire should not suppress European nations, not subordinate them to Germans or Russians, but, on the contrary, liberate them from the yoke of quantitative, consumer, market civilization, awaken their deepest national energies, return them to the bosom of history as independent, living and full-fledged political actorswhose freedom will be guaranteed by the strategic power of all Eurasia.

The creation of the Berlin-Moscow axis as the western supporting structure of the Eurasian Empire involves several serious steps in relation to the countries of Eastern Europe lying between Russia and Germany. The traditional Atlantic policy in this region was based on Mackinder’s thesis about the need to create a “sanitary cordon” here, which would serve as a conflict buffer zone, preventing the possibility of a Russian-German alliance, which is vitally dangerous for the entire Atlantic bloc. To this end, Britain and France tried in every possible way to destabilize the Eastern European peoples, to instill in them the idea of ​​the need for "independence" and liberation from German and Russian influences. In addition, the Atlantist diplomatic potential by any means sought to strengthen Russophobic sentiments in Germany and German-Phobic in Russia in order to draw both of these powers into a local conflict over the division of spheres of influence in the intermediate spaces in Poland, Romania, Serbia, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, the Baltic states, in Western Ukraine, etc. The current NATO strategists are pursuing the same line, putting forward the idea of ​​creating a "Black Sea-Baltic Federation" of states that would be directly related to Atlanticism and potentially hostile to both Russia and Germany.

The creation of the Berlin-Moscow axis presupposes, first of all, the disruption of the organization of the “sanitary cordon” in Eastern Europe and the active struggle against carriers of Russophobia in Germany and Germanophobia in Russia. Instead of being guided by regional interests in a zone of mutual influence and unilaterally supporting the politically and ethnically close peoples of this region, Russia and Germany should all try to resolve disputed issues jointly and in advance, having developed a general plan for redistributing the geography of influence in this region, and then rigidly suppressing all local initiatives of East European nations to revise Russian-German plans. Moreover, the main thing to strive for is the categorical elimination of any semblance of a “sanitary cordon”, the deliberate dispelling of the illusions of intermediate states regarding their potential independence from geopolitically powerful neighbors. It is necessary to create a direct and clear border between friendly Russia and Central Europe (Germany), and even with the prospect of creating a single strategic block along the Berlin-Moscow axis, this border should retain its geopolitical significance as a limit to cultural, ethnic and religious order to deliberately exclude ethnic or confessional expansion in border areas. Russian-Ukrainian, Russian-Baltic, Russian-Romanian, Russian-Polish, etc. relations should not initially be considered as bilateral, but as tripartite with the participation of Germany. The same applies to relations between Germany and the East European countries (peoples); they should also be of a triple character with the obligatory participation of the Russian side (and with the exception in all cases of extraneous, Atlantic, American intervention). For example, German-Ukrainian relations must necessarily be German-Russian-Ukrainian; German-Baltic relations German-Russian-Baltic; German-Polish relations German-Russian-Polish, etc.

The Moscow-Berlin axis will help solve a whole range of the most important problems that both Russia and Germany face today. Russia in such an alliance receives direct access to high technology, to powerful investments in industry, and acquires guaranteed European complicity in the economic expansion of Russian lands. At the same time, there will never be economic dependence on Germany, since Germany will participate in Russia not as a charitable party, but as an equal partner, receiving strategic cover in return from Moscow, guaranteeing Germany political liberation from US domination and resource independence from energy the reserves of the Third World controlled by Atlanticism (the energy blackmail of Europe by the USA is based on this). Germany today is an economic giant and a political dwarf. Russia, on the contrary, is a political giant and an economic cripple. The Moscow-Berlin axis will cure the affliction of both partners and lay the foundation for the future prosperity of Great Russia and Great Germany. And in the long run, this will lead to the formation of a solid strategic and economic structure for the creation of the entire Eurasian Empire of the European Empire in the West and the Russian Empire in the East of Eurasia. At the same time, the welfare of individual parts of this continental structure will serve the prosperity of the whole.

As preliminary steps in the formation of the Moscow-Berlin axis, it makes sense to thoroughly clear the cultural and historical perspective of mutual relations from the dark sides of the past history of the Russian-German wars, which were the result of the successful subversive activities of the Atlantic lobby in Germany and Russia, and not an expression of the political will of our continental peoples. In this perspective, it is advisable to return the Kaliningrad region (East Prussia) to Germany in order to abandon the last territorial symbol of the terrible fratricidal war. In order for this action not to be perceived by the Russians as another step in geopolitical surrender, it makes sense for Europe to offer Russia other territorial annexations or other forms of expanding the strategic zone of influence, especially from among those states who stubbornly seek to enter the "Black Sea-Baltic Federation". Issues of restitution of East Prussia should be inextricably linked with the territorial and strategic expansion of Russia, and Germany, in addition to maintaining Russian military bases in the Kaliningrad region, should, in turn, contribute to the diplomatic and political strengthening of Russia's strategic positions in the Northwest and West. The Baltic countries, Poland, Moldova and Ukraine as a potential “sanitary cordon” should not undergo a geopolitical transformation. After the restitution of Prussia, and simultaneously with it, as elements of the same process of the final fixing of borders between friendly Russia and Central Europe.

Bismarck’s words “Germany has no enemy in the East” should once again become the dominant German political doctrine, and the reverse maxim should be accepted by the Russian rulers “on the Western borders, in Central Europe, Russia has only friends”. However, in order for this to become a reality, and not just good wishes, it is necessary to ensure that it is geopolitics and its laws that become the main basis for the adoption of all significant foreign policy decisions in both Germany and Russia, since only from this point of view is necessity and inevitability the closest Russian-German union can be realized, understood and recognized totally and completely. Otherwise, an appeal to historical conflicts, misunderstandings and disputes will frustrate any attempt to create a solid and reliable base of the vital Moscow-Berlin axis.

4.3 East axis: Moscow-Tokyo. Pan-Asian project. To the Eurasian Trilateral Commission

The New Empire should have a clear strategy regarding its eastern component. Therefore, the eastern borders of Eurasia for this Empire have the same strategic significance as the problems of the West.

Proceeding from the fundamental principle of a “common enemy," Russia should strive for a strategic alliance with precisely those states that are more burdened by political and economic pressure from the Atlantic superpower, have a historical tradition of geopolitical projects that are opposed to Atlanticism, and have sufficient technological and economic power to to become the key geopolitical reality of the new bloc.

In this perspective, the need for maximum rapprochement with India, which is our natural geopolitical ally in Asia in terms of both racial, political, and strategic parameters, seems to be absolutely unconditional. After decolonization, India sought to avoid any means of joining the capitalist bloc and, in fact, led the movement of “nonaligned countries”, who were looking for opportunities in the narrow “no man's” geopolitical space to adhere to the Third Way policy with undisguised sympathy for the USSR. Today, when harsh communist dogma has been abolished in Russia, there are no obstacles to close rapprochement with India.

India itself is a continent. The sphere of its geopolitical influence is limited, however, by Hindustan and a small zone in the Indian Ocean, located south of the peninsula. India will necessarily become a strategic ally of the New Empire, its southeast outpost, although it should be borne in mind that Indian civilization is not prone to geopolitical dynamics and territorial expansion, and in addition, the Hindu tradition does not have a universal religious dimension, and therefore this country can play an important role only in a limited part of Asia. At the same time, the rather weak economic and technological development of this country does not allow fully relying on it, and therefore, the alliance will not solve any problems of the New Empire at this stage. India can serve as a strategic outpost of Eurasia,and on this her mission is actually exhausted (if you do not take into account her spiritual culture, familiarity with which can help to clarify the most important metaphysical landmarks of the Empire).

India is an important ally of Eurasia, but not the main one. Two geopolitical realities in the world today claim the role of the true east pole of Eurasia: China and Japan. But between these countries there is a deep geopolitical antagonism, which has a long history and is consistent with the typology of two civilizations. Therefore, Russia must choose one thing. The problem cannot be posed in this way: both China and Japan at the same time. Here you need a choice.

At first glance, China is a continental land mass, its civilization is traditional authoritarian (non-trade) in nature, and the very preservation of communist ideology during the liberal reforms in modern China, it would seem, would finally contribute to the choice of China, in contrast to the capitalist, island Japan. However, history shows that China, and not Japan, was geopolitically the most important base of Anglo-Saxon forces on the Eurasian continent, while Japan, on the contrary, supported an alliance with Central European countries of the opposite orientation.

In order to understand this paradox, you should carefully look at the map and note on it the geography of the last two world wars. In the northern hemisphere, four geopolitical zones can be distinguished, corresponding to the main participants in world conflicts (countries or blocs of states). The Far West, Atlantism, unites the USA, England, France and several other European countries. This zone has a definite geopolitical orientation, uniquely identical to the “marine”, “Carthaginian” lines of world history. This is the space of maximum civilizational activity and the source of all anti-traditional, "progressive" transformations.

The second zone is Central Europe, Germany, Austria-Hungary. From the East, from the geopolitical point of view, this space, directly adjacent to the Atlantic bloc, has all the signs of an anti-Atlantic, continental, land orientation and geographically gravitates to the East.

The third zone is Russia itself, which lies at the center of gravity of the continent and is responsible for the fate of Eurasia. The land and illiberal, “conservative” essence of Russia is obvious.

And finally, the fourth zone is the Pacific area, where it is Japan that has a central role, developing rapidly and dynamically, while possessing a rigid system of traditionalist values ​​and a clear understanding of its geopolitical role. At the same time, Japan is oriented essentially anti-Western and anti-liberal, since its value system is something directly opposite to the ideals of "progressive" Atlantist humanity.

The Western world (Atlantism) in the person of its deepest ideologists (Mackinder, Mahan, etc.) was well aware that the biggest threat to planetary Atlantism would be the consolidation of all three zones of Eurasia from the Central European to the Pacific with the participation and central role of Russia against the Anglo-Saxon and French "progressivism." Therefore, the main task of the atlantist strategists was to contrast the three Eurasian zones with their immediate neighbors and potential allies. And the Russo-German and Russo-Japanese conflicts were actively provoked precisely by the Atlantists, acting both within the Eurasian governments and from the outside, using diplomatic and power levers. Opponents of atlantism since Haushofer have finally come to the conclusion that an effective opposition to atlantism is possible only if the logic imposed on the three Eurasian zones is rejected, i.e. with the categorical rejection of Russians from German- and Japanese-phobia, and Japanese and Germans from Russophobia, no matter what historical precedents the proponents of these “phobias” may have resorted to.

Moreover, it is Japan, as a symbol of the entire Pacific space, that is of paramount importance in these anti-Atlantic projects, since Japan's strategic position, the dynamics of its development, and the specifics of its value system make it an ideal partner in the planetary struggle against Western civilization. China, for its part, did not play a special role in this geopolitical picture, being deprived first of political independence (English colonization), and then of geopolitical dynamics. It was only during the period of active Maoism that a purely soil, Eurasian tendency manifested itself in China, when the projects of "peasant socialism", all-China nationalism and pronounced Sovietophilia prevailed. But this state did not last very long,and China, under the pretext of disagreeing with the development of the Soviet model, returned to the dubious geopolitical function of destabilizing the Far Eastern interests of Eurasia and escalating conflicts with Russia. There is no doubt that the Chinese perestroika that began in the 1980s was the final turn from the Maoist period to the pro-Atlantic model, which should have finally fixed the gap between China and the USSR and its orientation towards the West. Moreover, the “Atlantization” of modern China was much more successful than in Russia, since economic liberalism without political democratization allowed China to become dependent on Western financial groups without conflict, while maintaining a totalitarian system and the appearance of political independence. Liberalism was propagated in China by totalitarian methods, and that is why the reform was fully successful. The political power of the party oligarchy was supplemented by the economic power of the same oligarchy, which had successfully privatized the national industry and national wealth and fused with the international cosmopolitan elite of Torgovy Stroy. China's economic successes are a rather ambiguous reality, since they have been achieved at the cost of a deep compromise with the West and cannot be combined with any clear geopolitical concept that could serve as a guarantee of political independence and independence. Most likely, the new liberal China,having two serious competitors next to it, economically powerful Japan and strategically powerful Russia will again, like many times in history, return to a purely Atlantic function in the Far East, combining political dictatorship and the potential of capitalist development for this. Moreover, from a purely pragmatic point of view, the strategic alliance of Russia with China to create a single bloc will immediately push Japan away from the Russians and, accordingly, will again hostile that key Pacific region on whose participation in the common Eurasian project the ultimate geopolitical success of the confrontation between Sushi and the Sea depends.

In the New Empire, the Tokyo axis should be the Moscow axis. This is a categorical imperative of the East, Asian component of Eurasianism. It is around this axis that the basic principles of the Asian policy of Eurasia should take shape. Japan, being the northernmost point among the islands of the Pacific Ocean, is located at an exceptionally advantageous geographical point for the implementation of strategic, political and economic expansion to the South. The Pacific Federation around Japan was the main idea of ​​the so-called The “pan-Asian project,” which began to be implemented in the 1930s and 1940s, was interrupted only due to the defeat of the Axis countries in the war. It is necessary to return to this Pan-Asian project today in order to undermine the expansion of American influence in this region and deprive the Atlantists as a whole of their most important strategic and economic bases. According to some futurological forecasts, in the future, the Pacific area will become one of the most important centers of civilization as a whole, and therefore the struggle for influence in this region is more than relevant is the struggle for the future.

The Pan-Asian project is the center of the eastern orientation of the New Empire. An alliance with Japan is vital. The Moscow axis Tokyo, in spite of the Moscow axis, Beijing is a priority and a promising one, opening up horizons for continental imperial construction that will finally make Eurasia geopolitically complete , and that the Atlantic empire of the West will weaken, and possibly destroy, it completely.

The anti-Americanism of the Japanese, who perfectly remember the nuclear genocide and are clearly aware of the shame of political occupation, which has been going on for several decades, is beyond doubt. The principle of a “common enemy" is here. In the book of American Serge Friedmann, "The Coming War with Japan" (the book is called "Coming war with Japan") seems inevitable. The economic war between Japan and the USA is already underway. Russia, building the Eurasian Empire, cannot have a better ally.

Axis Moscow Tokyo also solves a number of critical problems in both countries. Firstly, Russia is getting into the allies of the economic giant, equipped with highly developed technology and huge financial potential. However, Japan lacks political independence, a military-strategic system, and direct access to resources. Everything that Japan lacks is abundant in Russia, and everything that the Russians lack is in abundance among the Japanese. By combining efforts to build a continental Empire, the Japanese and Russians could as soon as possible create an unprecedentedly powerful geopolitical center covering Siberia, Mongolia, Japan itself and, in the long term, the entire Pacific region. In exchange for strategic protection and direct access to Eurasian resources, Japan could quickly and effectively help the Russians in the technological development and development of Siberia, laying the skeleton of an independent regional organism. Japanese technological and financial assistance would solve many problems in Russia.

In addition, Russia and Japan together could restructure the Far Eastern part of continental Eurasia. Indicative in this regard is the ever-increasing intensity of Mongolian-Japanese contacts based on unity of origin, racial affinity and spiritual and religious kinship. Mongolia (possibly even Inner Mongolia and Tibet, which are currently under Chinese occupation), Kalmykia, Tuva, Buryatia form the Eurasian Buddhist enclave, which could serve as a strong connecting element between Russia and Japan, and provide intermediate links for the Tokyo axis of Moscow. On the one hand, these regions are closely and inextricably linked with Russia, and on the other hand, they are culturally and racially close to Japan. The Buddhist bloc could play a crucial role in creating a solid geopolitical structure in the Far East, which would be the continental link of the Pacific Pan-Asian Union. In the event of an aggravation of relations with China, which will inevitably happen when the Tokyo axis begins to realize, the Buddhist factor will be used as the banner of the national liberation struggle of the peoples of Tibet and Inner Mongolia for the expansion of Eurasian and continental spaces to the detriment of pro-Atlantic China.

Generally speaking, China has every chance of becoming a geopolitical "scapegoat" in the implementation of the pan-Asian project. This can be done both by provoking internal Chinese separatism (Tibetans, Mongols, the Muslim population of Xinjiang), playing regional contradictions, and also with the active political support of the anti-Atlantic, purely continental forces of the potential Buddhist (and Taoist) lobby within China itself, which in the future may lead to the establishment of such a political regime in China itself, which will be loyal to the Eurasian Empire. In addition, China should offer a special vector of regional geopolitics directed strictly south to Taiwan and Hong Kong. Southward expansion partly offset the loss of China’s political influence in the North and East.

China in the eastern regions of the New Empire should be compared in the West not to England, but to France, since in relation to its Eurasian Empire will be guided by two criteria in case of active opposition to Eurasian projects, China will have to be treated as a geopolitical adversary with all the ensuing consequences, but if it succeeds to create a powerful pro-Japanese and pro-Russian political lobby at the same time, in the future China itself will become a full-fledged and equal participant in the continental project.

The Moscow-Tokyo axis along with the western Moscow-Berlin axis will create such a geopolitical space that is directly opposite to the main model of the atlantist ideologists, whose Trilateral Commission has become today the highest instance. The Trilateral Commission, created by the American circles of the highest political establishment, implies, as a new configuration of the planet, the strategic unification of three geopolitical zones that exactly correspond to the three geopolitical elements of the four that we spoke about above. The three sides of this commission, which seeks to fulfill the functions of a "World Government", correspond to:

  1. The American zone (USA, Far West, pure atlantism),

  2. The European zone (continental Europe, Central Europe, but under the auspices of France and England, not Germany)

  3. The Pacific zone (united around Japan).

Trilateral, therefore, seeks to construct a geopolitical model in which Eurasia (= Russia) itself will be surrounded on both sides by reliable US geopolitical partners, i.e. three of the four zones that encompass the northern regions of the planet fall under the direct control of the United States. At the same time, between the potential Eurasian adversary of the Atlantists (Eurasia) and the very center of Atlantism (USA) there are two official geopolitical spaces (Europe and Japan). It is also important to note that perestroika in China at the beginning of the 1980s began precisely with the submission of representatives of the Trilateral Commission, who sought to finally bring China back to the mainstream of Atlantic politics.

The Eurasian project offers something directly opposite to the plans of Trilateral. The New Empire is anti-Trilateral, its reverse, inverted model. This is the union of three geopolitical zones with a center in Russia, oriented against America. According to the same logic, according to which the United States seeks to geopolitically keep Europe and Japan under its control, realizing all the strategic benefits for American power in such a balance of power, Russia during the construction of the New Empire should strive in every way to create a strong strategic alliance with Europe and Japan, so that to achieve their own geopolitical stability, power and guarantee political freedom to all Eurasian peoples. In principle, we can talk about creating our own Eurasian “tripartite commission” with Russian, European and Japanese branches, in which, however, not politicians of the Atlantic and pro-American type, but intellectual and political leaders of a national orientation, understanding the geopolitical logic of the current state of affairs in the world, will participate. At the same time, of course, unlike the Atlantic Trilateral, the Eurasian Tripartite Commission should not have a Frenchman, but a German as the main representative of Europe.

Given the strategic need of the Japanese factor in the Eurasian project, it becomes clear that the issue of restitution of the Kuril Islands is not an obstacle to the Russian-Japanese alliance. In the case of the Kuril Islands, as in the case of the Kaliningrad region, we are dealing with the territorial symbols of the Second World War, alliances and the entire course of which was a complete triumph of the Atlantists, who dealt with all their opponents at the same time through the extreme depletion of the USSR (upon imposing such a geopolitical position on it, which could not in the long run lead to perestroika collapse) and the direct occupation of Europe and Japan. The Kuril Islands is a reminder of the absurd and unnatural fratricidal massacre of Russians and Japanese, the early oblivion of which is a necessary condition for our mutual prosperity. The Kuril Islands must be returned to Japan,but this should be carried out within the framework of the general process of the new organization of the Eurasian Far East. In addition, the Kuril restitution cannot be carried out while maintaining the existing alignment of political forces in Russia and Japan. This is the business of only Eurasian, imperialist-oriented politicians who can fully be responsible for the true national interests of their peoples. But the understanding of the geopolitical need for the Kuril restitution among the Eurasian elite should be present now.

4.4 Moscow-Tehran axis. Central Asian Empire. Pan-Arab project

The policy of the Eurasian Empire in the south should also be guided by a solid continental alliance with the strength that satisfies both the strategically, ideologically, and culturally common Eurasian tendency of anti-Americanism. The principle of a “common enemy" here should be a decisive factor.

In the south of Eurasia, there are several geopolitical entities that could theoretically act as the south pole of the New Empire. Since India and China should be attributed to the East and connected with the prospect of pan-Asian integration, only the Islamic world remains, stretching from the Philippines and Pakistan to the Maghreb countries, i.e. West Africa. In general, the entire Islamic zone is a naturally friendly geopolitical reality in relation to the Eurasian Empire, since the Islamic tradition, more politicized and modernized than most other Eurasian denominations, is well aware of the spiritual incompatibility of Americanism and religion. The atlantists themselves see the Islamic world as a whole as their potential adversary, and therefore the Eurasian Empire has in his person loyal potential allies, striving for a common goal, undermining and, in the long term, the complete cessation of American, Western domination on the planet. It would be ideal to have an integrated Islamic world as the southern component of the entire Eurasian Empire, stretching from Central Asia to West Africa, religiously united and politically stable, basing its policy on the principle of loyalty to tradition and spirit. Therefore, in the long term, the Islamic Empire in the South (the “new caliphate") may become an essential element of New Eurasia along with the European Empire in the West, the Pacific in the East and the Russian in the Center. It would be ideal to have an integrated Islamic world as the southern component of the entire Eurasian Empire, stretching from Central Asia to West Africa, religiously united and politically stable, basing its policy on the principle of loyalty to tradition and spirit. Therefore, in the long term, the Islamic Empire in the South (the “new caliphate") may become an essential element of New Eurasia along with the European Empire in the West, the Pacific in the East and the Russian in the Center.It would be ideal to have an integrated Islamic world as the southern component of the entire Eurasian Empire, stretching from Central Asia to West Africa, religiously united and politically stable, basing its policy on the principle of loyalty to tradition and spirit. Therefore, in the long term, the Islamic Empire in the South (the “new caliphate") may become an essential element of New Eurasia along with the European Empire in the West, the Pacific in the East and the Russian in the Center.

However, at the moment, the Islamic world is extremely fragmented and within it there are various ideological and political trends, as well as opposing geopolitical projects. The most global are the following trends:

  1. Iranian fundamentalism (continental type, anti-American, anti-Atlantic and geopolitically active),

  2. The Turkish secular regime (of the Atlantic type, emphasizing the Pan-Turkist line),

  3. Pan-Arabism, preached by Syria, Iraq, Libya, Sudan, partly Egypt and Saudi Arabia (rather diverse and controversial projects in each case),

  4. The Saudi Wahhabi type of fundamentalism (geopolitically solidarity with atlantism),

  5. Various versions of "Islamic socialism" (Libya, Iraq, Syria, models close to left-wing pan-Arabism).

It is immediately clear that the purely Atlanticist poles in the Islamic world, whether they are "secular" (as in the case of Turkey) or Islamic (in the case of Saudi Arabia), cannot fulfill the functions of the south pole of Eurasia in the global project of the continental Empire. Remains "Iranian fundamentalism" and "pan-Arabism" (left wing).

From the point of view of geopolitical constants, Iran, of course, has a priority in this matter, since it satisfies all Eurasian parameters, it is a major continental power closely connected with Central Asia, radically anti-American, traditionalist and emphasizing at the same time a “social” political vector (defense) mustazafov "," destitute "). In addition, Iran occupies such a position on the map of the mainland that the creation of the Moscow -Tehran axis solves a huge number of problems for the New Empire. By including Iran as the south pole of the Empire, Russia would instantly achieve the strategic goal to which it went (in the wrong ways) for several centuries, access to the warm seas. This strategic aspect of the absence of such an exit from Russia was the main trump card of the atlantist geopolitics since the time of colonial England, which completely controlled Asia and the East, taking advantage of Russia's lack of direct access to the southern coast of the continent. All Russian attempts to enter the Mediterranean Sea through the Bosphorus and Dardanelles were a desire for complicity in the political organization of the coastal regions of Eurasia, where the British reigned supreme, easily suppressing any attempts of Russian expansion through control of this coastal zone. However, even if Russia had succeeded in doing this, Atlantic control over Gibraltar would always remain an obstacle to truly large-scale naval operations and would not have allowed Russia to undermine British power. Only Iran, continentally adjoining Russia and going directly to the Indian Ocean, and then and now it could and can be a radical solution to this most important geopolitical problem. Having received strategic access, first of all, of naval bases on the Iranian coast, Eurasia will be completely safe from the “anaconda ring” strategy, i.e. from the implementation of the traditional atlantist plan to "strangle" the continental expanses of the continent through the seizure of coastal territories throughout Eurasia, and especially in the south and west.

The creation of the Moscow-Tehran axis at once dissects the “anaconda” in the most vulnerable place and opens up unlimited prospects for Russia to acquire more and more bridgeheads inside and outside Eurasia. This is the most significant point.

On the other hand, there is the problem of the former Soviet Central Asia, where three geopolitical tendencies “pan-Turkism” (Turkey, Atlantism), “Wahhabism” (Saudi Arabia, Atlantism) and “fundamentalism” (Iran, anti-Atlanticism) compete today. For understandable reasons, “pan-Arabism” cannot be among the Turkic-speaking peoples of Central Asia for the most part. The presence of a powerful pro-Russian orientation in parallel should also be taken into account, but it is difficult to imagine how these Islamic regions with an awakening national self-consciousness can again join Russia bloodlessly and painlessly. It is clear that among the “non-Moskovo” trends, the New Empire can rely only on the pro-Iranian orientation, which will bring this region out of direct or indirect control of the Atlantists. At the same time, the solid axis of Moscow Tehran will remove all the contradictions between Russophilism and Islamism (Iranian type), make them the same geopolitical tendency, oriented both to Moscow and Tehran at the same time. In parallel with this, such an axis would automatically mean the end of the civil conflict in Tajikistan and Afghanistan, which are fueled only by the geopolitical uncertainty of these entities, torn by contradictions between the Islamic-Iranian fundamentalist vector and gravitation towards Russia. Naturally, against the backdrop of such a contradiction, petty-ethnic frictions are also aggravated, and the activities of the Atlantist “agents of influence”, which directly or indirectly (through Turkey and Saudi Arabia) seek to destabilize the Asian territories in their key centers, are also facilitated.

Iran is geopolitically Central Asia, just as Germany is Central Europe. Moscow, as the center of Eurasia, its pole, should delegate to Tehran the mission of guiding the "Iranian world" (Pax Persica) in this space, organizing a strong Central Asian geopolitical bloc that can withstand Atlantic influence throughout the region. This means that the pan-Turkic expansion, as well as the financial and political invasion of the Saudis, will be abruptly interrupted. Iran, traditionally hostile to both Turkey and Saudi Arabia, will fulfill this function much better than the Russians, who will solve their geopolitical problems in this complex center only with the strategic support of the Iranian side. But here, as in the case of Germany, we should not talk about the creation of the Iranian Empire or the Iranization of Central Asia. We should talk about the creation of a “Central Asian Empire”, which on a federal basis could integrate various peoples, cultures and ethnic groups into a single southern geopolitical bloc, thereby creating a strategically homogeneous, but ethnically and culturally diverse Islamic formation, inextricably linked with the interests of the whole Eurasian Empire.

The Armenian question occupies an important place on the Moscow axis issue, as it traditionally serves as a center of destabilization in the Transcaucasus. It should be noted that the Armenians are the Aryan people, clearly aware of their Japhetian nature and relationship with the Indo-European peoples, especially Asian i.e. with Iranians and Kurds. On the other hand, the Armenians are Christian people, their Monophysite tradition fits precisely with the general mood of the Eastern Church (although it is recognized by Orthodoxy as a heretical trend), and they are very vividly aware of the geopolitical connection with Russia. Armenians occupy lands of extreme strategic importance, as the route from Turkey to Azerbaijan and further to Central Asia lies through Armenia and Artsakh. In the Moscow-Tehran axis, Yerevan automatically becomes the most important strategic link, additionally linking Russia with Iran, and cutting off Turkey from inland spaces. With the possible reorientation of Baku from Ankara to Tehran in the general Moscow project, Tehran will quickly resolve the Karabakh issue, as all four parties will be vitally interested in the immediate establishment of stability in such an important strategic region. (Otherwise, that is, while maintaining the pro-Turkish orientation of Azerbaijan, this “country” is subject to division between Iran, Russia and Armenia.) Almost the same applies to other regions of the Caucasus, Chechnya, Abkhazia, Dagestan, etc. , which will remain zones of conflict and instability only if the geopolitical interests of Atlantic Turkey and Eurasian Russia clash in them. Connecting the Iranian geopolitical line here instantly removes the appearance of a clash between "Islam and Orthodoxy" in the Caucasus, which Turkish and Russian "agents of influence" of Atlantism are trying to give to conflicts in this area, and will restore peace and harmony.

In this project of restructuring Central Asia, it should be noted that Russian ethnic interests can be best protected, since the Central Asian Empire will not be built on the basis of artificial political structures, fictitious "post-imperial legitimacy", but on the basis of national homogeneity, which implies a peaceful transition to the direct Moscow jurisdiction of all territories of Central Asia (especially Kazakhstan), compactly populated by Russians. And those territories whose ethnic composition is controversial, will receive special rights on the basis of Russian-Iranian projects within a given Empire. Consequently, through the Eurasian geopolitical project, the Russians will be able to achieve what appears to be the goal of “small (ethnic) nationalism,” but that this nationalism itself will never be able to fulfill.

It is also important to consider the need to impose the role of a scapegoat in Turkey in this project, since the interests of this state in the Caucasus and Central Asia will not be taken into account at all. Moreover, support for Kurdish separatism in Turkey itself, as well as the autonomous demands of Turkish Armenians, in order to wrest peoples ethnically close to Iran from under secular-Atlanticist control, should probably be emphasized. To compensate for Turkey, one should offer either southward development into the Arab world through Baghdad, Damascus and Riyadh, or provoke pro-Iranian fundamentalists in Turkey itself to radically measure the geopolitical course and to enter the Central Asian block under the anti-Atlantic and Eurasian sign in the long run .

The Moscow-Tehran axis is the basis of the Eurasian geopolitical project. Iranian Islam is the best version of Islam for joining the continental bloc, and this version should be given priority but supported by Moscow.

The second line of the Eurasian alliance with the South is the Pan-Arab project, which covers part of the front of Asia and North Africa. This block is also vital for continental geopolitics, since this zone is strategically important in terms of control over the southwestern coast of Europe. That is why the English, and later the American presence in this region is a historical and strategic constant. Controlling the Middle East and North Africa, the Atlantists have traditionally held (and are holding) continental Europe under political and economic pressure.

However, the integration of the Pan-Arab project with the common Eurasian Empire should be entrusted to purely European forces, returning to the projects of the Euro-Africa, which, from a purely geopolitical point of view, is not two continents, but one. The European Empire, which is vitally interested in penetrating the south of the African continent as deeply as possible, must in the future fully control, relying on the Pan-Arab block, Africa right up to the Sahara, and in the future try to strategically infiltrate the entire African continent. In the perspective of Euro-Africa, the Mediterranean Sea is not a genuine “sea”, but only an internal “lake”, which does not constitute either a barrier or protection from Atlantic influence. Beyond the borders of Arab Africa, a detailed multi-ethnic project should be developed to help restructure the black continent along ethnic, ethnic and cultural lines, instead of the controversial post-colonial conglomerate that modern African states represent.A nuanced pan-African (non-Arab) national project could become a geopolitical addition to the pan-Arab integration plan.

Given that the model of a purely Iranian fundamentalism is unlikely to become universally acceptable in the Arab world (in many respects due to the specifics of the Shiite, Aryan version of Iranian Islam), the Pan-Arab project should strive to create an independent anti-Atlantic block, with Iraq and Libya as priority poles and liberated Palestine (under certain conditions also Syria), i.e. those Arab countries that are more aware of the American danger and more radical than others reject the market-capitalist model imposed by the West. Moreover, in the Pan-Arab project, the scapegoat will be, first of all, Saudi Arabia, too rooted in Atlantic geopolitics to voluntarily enter the Pan-Arab bloc friendly to Eurasia. With regard to Egypt, Algeria and Morocco, the situation is somewhat different,since the ruling pro-Atlantic forces in these states do not express national trends, do not completely control the situation and rely only on American bayonets and American money. When the Pan-Arab Liberation War begins at a fairly intense level, all these regimes will fall in one hour.

But it is necessary to clearly understand that the most harmonious construction of the pan-Arab space is not so much Russia, as Europe, Central Europe, Germany, and more precisely, the European Empire. Russia (more precisely, the USSR) intervened in Arab problems only when it alone represented a Eurasian state in the face of Americanism. In the presence of a powerful European base of Eurasian orientation, i.e. after the creation of the Moscow Berlin axis, this function should be delegated to Berlin and Europe as a whole. The direct concern of Russia in the Islamic world should be precisely Iran, on the union with which the vital strategic and even narrowly ethnic interests of Russians depend.

Iran, which controls Central Asia (including Pakistan, Afghanistan and the remains of Turkey or "Turkey after the pro-Iranian revolution") together with Russia, is the center of Moscow's priority interests. In this case, one should use the traditional influence of Russia among the "left" pan-Arab regimes (primarily Iraq and Libya) for the rapprochement between the Arab countries and Iran and the early oblivion of the artificial and Atlantic-inspired Iran-Iraq conflict.

4.5 Empire of many Empires

The New Empire, the construction of which would meet the global, planetary civilization mission of the Russian people, is a super-project with many sublevels. This New Empire, the Eurasian Empire, will have a complex differentiated structure, within which there will be various degrees of interdependence and integration of the individual parts. It is obvious that the New Empire will not be either the Russian Empire or the Soviet Empire.

The main integrating moment of this New Empire will be the fight against Atlantism and the tough rebuff of that liberal-market, "marine / Carthaginian" civilization, which the USA and planetary political, economic and military structures that serve Atlantism embody today. Creation of a giant geopolitical continental bloc, united strategically . It is the unity of strategic continental borders that will be the main integrating factor of the New Empire. This Empire will be a single and indivisible organism in the military strategic sense, and this will impose political restrictions on all internal sub-imperial formations. All the blocks that will be part of the New Empire will be politically limited in one categorical ban on serving the Atlantic geopolitical interests, leaving the strategic alliance, and harming continental security. At this and only at this level, the New Empire will be a holistic geopolitical entity.

At the next, lower level, the New Empire will be the "confederation of Large Spaces" or secondary Empires. Of these, four main European Empires in the West (around Germany and Central Europe), the Pacific Empire in the East (around Japan), the Central Asian Empire in the South (around Iran) and the Russian Empire in the Center (around Russia) should be singled out. It is completely logical that the central position is the main one in such a project, since the territorial coherence and homogeneity of all the other components of the gigantic continental block depends on it. In addition, separate independent Large Spaces will exist, in addition to the indicated blocks, India, the Pan-Arab world, the Pan-African Union, and, possibly, a special region of China, whose status is still difficult to determine even approximately.Each of the secondary Empires will be based on a particular racial, cultural, religious, political or geopolitical integrating factor, which in each case may be different. The degree of integration of the Empires themselves will also be a variable, depending on the specific ideological base on which this or that Empire will be created.

A confederate principle will also operate within these secondary Empires, but this will apply to smaller ethnic, national and regional units to what, with greater or lesser approximation, can be called a "country" or "state". Naturally, the sovereignty of these "countries" will have significant limitations in the first place, strategic (arising from the principles of the entire continental New Empire), and in the second, related to the specifics of those Large Spaces into which they will be included. And in this issue the principle of extremely flexible differentiation will be applied, taking into account the historical, spiritual, geographical, racial characteristics of each region.

The Great Russians, for example, can be considered as a separate people or even a “country” within the Russian Empire, along with Ukrainians, Belarusians, possibly Serbs, etc., but at the same time they will all be closely connected with the jurisdiction of the Slavic-Orthodox type embodied in a specific state system. At the same time, the Russian Empire will depend on the Eurasian Empire, the New Empire, whose strategic interests will be placed above the national - racial and confessional interests of the Eastern Orthodox Slavs.

The same can be said, for example, of the French, who will remain a people or a “country” within the framework of the European Empire, along with Germans and Italians, associated with them by a common European imperial tradition, Christian religion and belonging to the Indo-European race. But the European Empire itself, in turn, will be subject to the strategic imperatives of the entire great continental New Empire.

The same will be the case in Central Asia, and in the Pacific, and in the Arab world, and in black Africa, and in India, etc.

At the same time, at the global level, the construction of a planetary New Empire will be the main scapegoat for the United States, whose power (up to the complete destruction of this geopolitical structure) will be realized systematically and uncompromisingly by all participants in the New Empire. In this regard, the Eurasian project involves Eurasian expansion into South and Central America with a view to removing it from the control of the North (here the Spanish factor can be used as a traditional alternative to the Anglo-Saxon one), as well as provoking all types of instability and separatism within the United States (it’s possible to rely on the political forces of African-American racists). The ancient Roman formula "Carthage must be destroyed" will become the absolute slogan of the Eurasian Empire, since it will incorporate the essence of the entire geopolitical planetary strategy of the continent awakening to its mission.

The specifics in ascertaining the status of this or that people, this or that "country", this or that "Empire of Large Spaces" within the framework of the common continental bloc will become relevant only after geopolitical unification, after the creation of the necessary axes, and only then can the Eurasian peoples and states to solve their internal problems completely freely, without pressure from the Atlantic forces, which are fundamentally interested in only one thing, to prevent peace, harmony, prosperity, independence, dignity and prosperity of Tradition in Eurasia.

Last updated