by Straight-Bat for the Saker blog
A question that troubled me often involves different kinds of “state apparatus” witnessed in the history of core Eurasia – principalities, city-states, kingdoms, empires, nation-states etc. Every possible combination of a geographical region (within core Eurasia) and a particular epoch represents a specific historical manifestation of a particular type of geopolitical entity – hence, in the 18th century while Caspian Sea region hosted a number of principalities like emirates/khanates, the Chinese mainland hosted an empire. The question I struggled with: is there a particular form of geopolitical entity that can be termed as better (or worse) for the society compared to the others? An extension of the same question would be whether the history of humankind follows any particular trajectory so far as development of political institutions are concerned. An offshoot of that question is what Marx famously referred to as the ultimate destination of the destiny of humankind – (class-less) ‘stateless’ society. While searching for a plausible response to my query, I also discovered an interesting phenomenon: a specific geopolitical entity can be beneficial and detrimental to the interests of a society at the same time, and with passage of time its impacts on the society transforms dynamically. Thus, an ‘empire’ could be destroyer of the society in a small principality while acting as a facilitator for trade and commerce for the rest of empire – Mongol empire in 13th century was a classic example of this. Russian empire elicits an example of how the positive role of the ‘state apparatus’ in providing arable land in central Asia to the peasants during 18th-19th century transformed into state repression (guided by the large land-owning kulaks) in the second half of the 19th century. Yet another interesting case study could be how the central Asian region around Caspian Sea-Aral Sea-Amu Dariya-Syr Dariya acted as the trade routes (a significant part of the famous Silk Route stretched from eastern China to Mediterranean Sea) that benefitted its aristocracy much more profoundly than the commoners who would actually execute the physical process of goods transportation and arrangements of other logistics. So, there is no straight answer to the basic question I mentioned in the beginning. Rather, I am happy to put the question in an altogether different format – assuming the Marxist idea of a stateless (class-less) society as inevitable, my quest would be to explore which kind geopolitical entity is suitable for bringing about such revolutionary change in the society to transform the selfish unjust and unequal society into a just and equitable society where 90% of the population, the plebs not only gained equal rights legally but, more importantly, they exercise those rights.
Another question, not completely unrelated, that has been bothering me relates to the geography, and history of the single geographic landmass that is known in academic books in two parts – Asia, Europe. To be specific, I have been deliberating on the question whether core Eurasia could really be treated as the ‘heartland’, control of which is a prerequisite to exercise total control over the world? Before one could sincerely take up the issue for a discussion, he/she must be able to grasp the definition of ‘core Eurasia’. Geologically, ‘Eurasia’ is a tectonic plate that lies under much of Europe and Asia. However, there is no well-defined geographic boundary of ‘core Eurasia’ in international politics. The European (geopolitical) strategists and Asian intellectuals converge on this subject remarkably well — the landmass that lies between Pacific Ocean in the east and river Vistula plus Carpathian mountain range in the west, and between Arctic Ocean in the north to the line joining Arabian Sea coast-Himalayan mountain range-South China Sea coast in the south can be termed as ‘core Eurasia’. This particular question has a definite answer – ‘core Eurasia’ indeed can be assumed as heartland because of two reasons. Firstly, the countries that dot the entire landscape of core Eurasia are not only home to 25% of the global population currently but has enough arable land, water, and forest resources for a healthy and continuous population growth. Secondly, the entire landmass of core Eurasia hold deposits of minerals, fossil fuels, rare earth, and gems in disproportionately high quantities compared to its share of total surface area of earth. Hence, the human civilization can grow, sustain, and flourish as a stand-alone phenomenon in core Eurasia even if civilizations in other regions of the world fail to sustain – this, in my opinion, is the single most important characteristic of core Eurasia why it may be considered as the ‘heartland’. Readers who are conversant with the works of geopolitics pundits like Brzezinski will easily conclude that I don’t subscribe to Brzezinski’s thought on this issue which was centred around ‘exercising power to control the world’ as he noted, “The control over Eurasia would almost automatically entails Africa’s subordination, rendering the Western Hemisphere and Oceania geopolitically peripheral to the world’s central continent.”
Having established the fact that there is ample justification for treating core Eurasia as the heartland and having identified the objective of my primary quest as finding out the most appropriate type of geopolitical entity that would facilitate a just exploitation-free society, let me clarify why I’m spending time and effort to author this article. There is a specific background why I’m inclined to get into such a subject. Three to four thousand years back my ancestors roamed in the vast Eurasian steppes with an objective of finding a large inhabitable space to settle down – destiny called them to move to the Indus valley from where they finally spread across the entire south Asian subcontinent. Till now, in our community, when a member passes away, the (direct) descendants have to tie a piece of kush (i.e. long grass) to our body during the grieving period – thus, during the most difficult days of life when one’s parent departs, we remember our origin, the steppe grassland! Apart from that, during the initial 1200 years of current era, my region and people were intellectually involved with the Chinese and Tibetan scholars in a two-way exchange of knowledge, spirituality, religion, trade, and martial art. Buddhist scholars from eastern region of Indian subcontinent traveling to Chinese mainland (including Tibet) were as common as scholars from Chinese mainland staying in Buddhist universities located in the eastern region of Indian subcontinent. Needless to say then, I am concerned about core Eurasia and all those people who inhabit these lands now.
This article is fundamentally based on my thoughts, and I don’t claim to anchor these thoughts on any academic mooring. However, I will present facts based on historical and current affairs and apply rational logic (with minimum role of sentiment) to present my hypothesis. I don’t intend to hurt anybody’s sentiments or sense of patriotism or sense of duty towards own community. I ONLY wish that this article should settle down in the collective memory of all core Eurasian citizens as an abstract idea – may be a ‘utopian’ one – which, in future by 2050 CE, should be discerned by the wise people of all countries and communities, across core Eurasian landmass.
- What is Wrong with core Eurasia Currently?
Quite in disagreement with many alt-media reporters and commentators, I would like to argue that core Eurasia presently is going through a seemingly end-less turmoil – economic, political, social, cultural – majority part of which is orchestrated by the Zionist-Capitalist global oligarchy. I will only list down the current disorders in core Eurasia that has geopolitical and geo-economic implications:
- South Korea – not only South Korea (a phantom-state that got created after WW-II) has been turned into a low-cost military-industrial complex to supply military machinery to countries that can’t afford American and European weapons, but the entire South Korean society also has been infested with immoral vulgar and decaying influence of ‘Jewish’ Christianity [link 🡪 https://www.zerohedge.com/medical/scariest-halloween-my-life-120-dead-south-korea-after-crowd-crushing-incident ]. South Korea is a malignant cancer in core Eurasia that has been growing phenomenally with the capital investment by the Zionist-Capitalist global oligarchy during past 5 decades protected by USA military bases. Unless appropriate treatment is carried out, it will remain a consistent threat to security of core Eurasia
- Taiwan – not only Taiwan (a phantom-state that got created after WW-II) has been turned into a ‘giant weapons depot’ by the Zionist-Capitalist global oligarchy to cause major destruction of industrial belts and technology hubs along the south-east coastal regions of Chinese mainland, but the elite Taiwanese society has also been thoroughly westernized along with tie-up with USA on manufacturing of weapons [link 🡪 https://www.newdelhitimes.com/us-considering-joint-weapons-production-with-taiwan/ ]. Taiwan is another malignant cancer in core Eurasia that has been growing no less remarkably than South Korea (with the capital investment by global oligarchy). Unless appropriate treatment is carried out, it will remain a consistent threat to security of core Eurasia
- Kazakhstan – largest of the artificial-states that came into existence in central Asia after the Soviet stooges of the global Zionist-Capitalist clique demolished the USSR in 1991. Over the decades Kazakhstan has become the anchor state for NATO expansion into core Eurasia – in order to develop the interoperability between elements of its armed forces and those of NATO countries, since 2006 Kazakhstan has hosted annual military exercises called “Steppe Eagle”. ‘Kazakhstan’s PfP Training Centre was accredited by NATO as a Partnership Training and Education Centre in December 2010’. The most dangerous activity on the soil of Kazakhstan is the research on biological warfare by USA funding [link 🡪 https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202203/1254486.shtml ]. If Taiwan and South Korea are malignant tumors on the periphery of core Eurasia, Kazakhstan is right at the centre! It will certainly become a future threat to the stability and prosperity of core Eurasia
- Kyrghizstan-Tajikistan-Turkmenistan-Uzbekistan – other phantom-states that came into existence in central Asia after the planned demolition of the USSR. Significant social-political-environmental issues exist in these 4 state-lets – (i) Wahhabism, the version of Sunni Islamic extremism is rampant in all these 4 phantom-states coordinated by Turkey plus Saudi Arabia based oligarchy, and the most preposterous matter being that in each of these 4 phantom-states the citizens are instigated on the basis of ‘nationalism’ (against other 3 nationalities) and ‘religion’ (against secular state policy, forcing the government to initiate policies that would force the people adopt Arab-Islamic names, wear hijab for women, abstain from music and sports, exclude women from public life, teach only religious education in Arabic language, preach religious militancy through Islamic jihad, etc.); (ii) Decades of extremely high rate of water consumption have taken their toll on these societies – rapid environmental degeneration; (iii) elites from politics, judiciary and bureaucracy have been involved in operating drug trafficking business in order to extract illicit profit from the drug trade (which primarily originated in Afghanistan coordinated by the Zionist-Capitalist oligarchy mostly based out of Anglo countries and Israel). Undoubtedly these ‘four sisters’ can create more headache for core Eurasia in future
- Mongolia – A country where the society apparently loathes to deliberate on modernization of education, industry, and communication. Along with Kazakhstan, Mongolia adds to the geopolitical uncertainties right in the centre of core Eurasia. Till date Moldova offers minimum destabilization to core Eurasia as compared to other regions listed here. However, the local oligarchy is working hand in glove with the global Zionist-Capitalist clique to control the government and force it towards joining NATO block. This country might become a future threat to the security of core Eurasia
- Afghanistan – A country where poverty and lawlessness are the general norms, Zionist-Capitalist clique has been running world’s largest drug cartel since past three decades. During the same period, Wahhabism took a new name in Afghanistan – Taliban. These two problems got exacerbated with collapse of government services, and curtailment of foreign aid. Sudden and unilateral withdrawal of USA and NATO military forces from Afghanistan was NOT really sudden – the entire game was planned well in advance. USA based Zionist-Capitalist oligarchy hoped that the ‘Islamic Wahhabism’ will continue to flourish in Afghanistan and Talibani ideology and militants will become the largest export of Afghanistan [link 🡪 https://www.fpri.org/article/2022/05/northern-afghanistan-and-the-new-threat-to-central-asia/ ] Even if the current Taliban government appears to be taking governance seriously, there is every possibility that in the near future, Afghanistan will become the hotbed of ‘Islamic movements’ which will be utilized to overthrow or destabilize governments across core Eurasia
- Transcaucasia region –apart from the central Asian artificial countries, Transcaucasia was another region where dissolution of Soviet Union created ‘unstable states’. Unlike other 8 regions listed here, this is a region where two rounds of war were fought resulting in much destruction. Subversion is a norm here rather than exception. A deep analysis would indicate that the intra-regional politics is compelling Georgia-Armenia-Azerbaijan to engage in bitter struggle among themselves to diminish each other thereby fettering countries like Russia and Iran with the problem of refugee and migrants. Undoubtedly Turkey (as a coordinator of Islamic militant gangs that directly/indirectly work for the Zionist-Capitalist global oligarchy) and USA governments are managing the puppet show staying behind the curtain, but it is doubtful to what extent that will cause rupture in the Eurasian fabric. Having said that, it must be noted that an unstable Transcaucasian region can create troubles for the trade-routes that crisscross this region used by core Eurasia and other countries in Asia and Europe
- Moldova – along with Ukraine, Moldova adds to the geopolitical uncertainties in the eastern side of core Eurasia. Till date Moldova offers minimum destabilization to core Eurasia as compared to other regions listed here. However, Zionist-Capitalist clique works overtime here also to control the government and force it towards joining NATO block. The country might become a future threat to the security of core Eurasia
- Ukraine – another large artificial-state that witnessed a territorial expansion entirely due to historical undercurrents. Ukraine has been converted into a ‘giant fortress’ by the Zionist-Capitalist global oligarchy which would have joined NATO to host missile bases (if Russia not made its geopolitical demands that Ukraine will never join NATO clear to the Ukraine government in 2021 end). But, the most dangerous situation for the entire planet is: Ukraine is rushing ahead with research and development of (i) biological, (ii) chemical, (iii) nuclear warfare with funding and technology tie-up with institutions based out of USA, and other Anglo countries. on manufacturing of weapons [link 🡪 https://www.unz.com/mwhitney/uncle-sams-bio-weapons-extravaganza/ ]. If an iota of sanity was left with Ukraine government, they would have concluded a treaty with Russian government within one month of special military operation accepting the terms set by Russia. Instead, the skeletons are coming out of the Ukrainian closet – the Ukrainian government for a long time has been 100% owned by the Jewish oligarchy who wants to mobilize the last citizen of Ukraine because the USA and Anglo countries wish to fight and destroy Russian land and society. Russia and core Eurasia must not allow continuation of such a toxic entity in core Eurasia
- Baltic region – region of 3 phantom-states that got created due to the dissolution of the USSR. This region is special because the Zionist-Capitalist global oligarchy has been driving the government policies such that during past three decades, depopulation across the entire Baltic region became a continuous and consistent social phenomenon. There is a robust background to this – the Hegemon wanted the region absolutely free from any settlement in order to (i) convert the entire Baltic Sea coast into a giant naval and land army base, (ii) restrict Russian access to Baltic Sea as much as possible, (iii) invade Kaliningrad (old Konisberg) and destroy the Russian military base. The USA government has been pursuing policies on these (unstated but obvious) objectives for decades [link 🡪 https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Falling-In_Deterrent-Value-of-HNS-in-the-Baltic.pdf ]. Unless appropriate actions are taken, it will transform into a nightmare for the security of Russian society and land impairing core Eurasian architecture considerably.
Except Mongolia and Afghanistan, all other entries in the above mentioned list have been identified as phantom-state / artificial state – Eurasian history corroborates my statement. Few common traits exhibited by the listed entities are: (i) local oligarchy has been in the drivers’ seat to control power and wealth to the detriment of the common population, (ii) an inward-looking religious / nationalist posturing is a common thread across the region, (iii) global Zionist-Capitalist forces are using the local oligarchy to foment socio-political tensions that will divert the people’s hatred towards core Eurasian powers like Russia and China, (iv) USA, Israel, Anglo countries and NATO countries use Turkey and Japan as the spearheads to control these regions, (v) through multilateral institutions like SCO, EAEU, CSTO and geo-economic programmes like BRI China and Russia try to influence the political and economic viability of these regions. Even though (iv) and (v) balance each other, the entire core Eurasia may become an extremely unstable region if the Zionist forces succeed to set a conflagration simultaneously across 3 / 4 entities (which is a wet dream of the Zionists).
Since this article deals only with core Eurasia, I won’t raise geopolitical and geo-economic problems that beset Asia and Europe. However, countries like Japan, Vietnam, Myanmar, Thailand, India, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Syria, Turkey, Balkan countries, Poland, Germany, France, Italy, and the UK present two types of problems through their hard and soft power: (a) presently all of them participate (most of them willingly) in the common global conspiracy hatched by the Zionist-Capitalist oligarchy against core Eurasian countries and societies, (b) historical role played by almost all of them to foment geopolitical instability in their own region with/without involvement of the global Zionist-Capitalist oligarchy.
- Political-Economic Integration in Core Eurasia Initiated by the Mongol Empire
Like it or dislike it, loathe it or love it, romanticize it or demonize it, one can’t simply ignore the role of Mongol empire in shaping the core Eurasian landmass – it is a well-established historical fact that, the Mongol empire shattered the medieval era geopolitics in the core Eurasian region applying ruthless force wherever they faced resistance. Though a united Mongol empire didn’t last even fifty years in the 13th century after demise of Chinghis Khan, the remnants of Mongol khans remained rulers in many smaller regions across core Eurasia for another five centuries as ‘Khanate’ entered the lexicon of modern political studies. If the current doldrums in core Eurasia is put under scanner, a strange observation can’t be avoided – many a current geopolitical trouble has its root in the Mongol-instigated geopolitics during the late medieval-cum-early modern era. That indicates we can’t avoid to briefly explore the geopolitical contour of the Mongol empire during the 13th century. (It will be a splendid historic inquiry if the evolution of Mongol empire is analyzed from 1227 CE when Chinghis Khan died till 1911 CE when Mongolia declared independence as a ‘modern’ state – but that is beyond the scope of this article).
While Chinghis Khan was the creator and the first emperor of Mongol empire, after his death at 1227 CE, the descendants while expanding the boundaries to cover entire core Eurasia also engaged in internecine warfare among themselves – after the death of Mongke Khan, by 1260 CE the empire was transformed into a confederacy of 4 empires, and by end of the 14th century each of those empires again got split into multiple khanates ruled by Chinghis Khan’s successors or non-Mongol rulers with kinship to Mongol aristocracy. The following table 3.1 provides a brief tentative geopolitical summary of 13th century core Eurasian landmass:
Table: 3.1 >
|1227 CE||1300 CE|
|<< UNIFIED MONGOL EMPIRE >>
– Regions of current Peoples Republic of China >
Heilongjiang, Jilin, Liaoning, Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region, Tianjin, Beijing, Hebei, Shanxi, north-east part of Shandong, north-west part of Gansu, Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region except south-east part.
– Currently Mongolia
– Currently Kazakhstan
– Currently Uzbekistan
– Currently Turkmenistan
– Currently Kirghizstan
– Currently Tajikistan
– Regions of current Afghanistan >
Northern part (one-third of state)
– Regions of current Pakistan >
Northern part (one-fifth of state)
– Regions of current Russian Federation >
— Far Eastern Federal District >
Primorsky Krai, Jewish Autonomous Oblast, Khabarovsk Krai (except one-third part in the north), Amur Oblast, Zabaykalsky Krai, Republic of Buryatia, Sakha Republic (except two-third part in the north)
— Siberian Federal District >
Irkutsk Oblast, Tuva Republic, Altai Republic, Altai Krai, Novosibirsk Oblast, Omsk Oblast (except northern half), Kemerovo Oblast, Republic of Khakassia, one-third in south of Krasnoyarsk Krai
— Ural Federal District >
Southern half of Kurgan Oblast, southern half of Tyumen Oblast, one-fourth of Chelyabinsk Oblast in south
|<< YUAN EMPIRE >>
– Regions of current Peoples Republic of China
All except three-fourth of Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region
– Currently Mongolia
– Currently North Korea, South Korea
– Currently Taiwan
– Regions of current Russian Federation >
— Far Eastern Federal District >
Primorsky Krai, Jewish Autonomous Oblast, Khabarovsk Krai (except one-third part in north), Amur Oblast, Zabaykalsky Krai, Republic of Buryatia, Sakha Republic (except two-third part in north)
— Siberian Federal District >
Irkutsk Oblast, Tuva Republic, Republic of Khakassia, southern half of Krasnoyarsk Krai
– Regions of current Myanmar >
North-eastern part (half of the state)
– Regions of current India >
A sizeable stretch of land in north-east abutting south Tibet
|<< CHAGATAI KHANATE >>
– Regions of current Peoples Republic of China
Three-fourth of Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region
– Regions of current Kazakhstan
Two-fifth of the state in east and south
– Currently Kyrghizstan
– Currently Tajikistan
– Regions of current Uzbekistan
Almost entire state except land around Aral Sea
– Regions of current Afghanistan
One-fourth of the state in the north-east
|<< GOLDEN HORDE >>
– Regions of current Russian Federation >
— Siberian Federal District >
Altai Republic, Altai Krai, Novosibirsk Oblast, Omsk Oblast, western half of Tomsk Oblast
— Ural Federal District >
Khanty-Mansi Autonomous Okrug (except a small strip in north-east), Kurgan Oblast, Sverdlovsk Oblast, Tyumen Oblast, Chelyabinsk Oblast
— Volga Federal District
— North Caucasian Federal District
— Southern Federal District
— Central Federal District >
One-third land in south of the district
– Regions of current Belarus
All except northern one-fourth of landmass
– Currently Ukraine
– Currently Moldova
– Regions of current Romania >
One-third land in the east abutting Moldova border
|<< ILL KHANATE >>
– Currently Iran
– Regions of current Iraq
Half of the state in eastern and northern side bordering Iran, Syria
– Regions of current Syria
One-third of the state in north-eastern side
– Regions of current Turkey
Half of the state in eastern side
– Currently Armenia
– Currently Azerbaijan
– Currently Turkmenistan
– Regions of current Afghanistan >
All except one-fourth of the state in the north-east
– Regions of current Pakistan >
Baluchistan province in the south-west side
It can be noted from Table 3.1 presented above and Figure 3.1 given below that by 1300 CE, core Eurasia (except unpopulated northern most lands of Russia near arctic) was under the sway of the Mongol aristocrats – scholars estimated that the Mongol confederacy was spread over around 24,000,000 km2 of land creating the largest land empire in history [Link 🡪 https://maps.lib.utexas.edu/maps/historical/shepherd_1911/shepherd-c-092.jpg ].
Fig 3.1 >
As Morris Rossabi mentioned in the article ‘Mongol Impact on China: Lasting Influences with Preliminary Notes on Other Parts of the Mongol Empire’ (refer ACTA VIA SERICA Vol. 5, No. 2, December 2020) “perhaps the Mongols’ most important contribution was to bring East Asia, the Middle East, and Europe in touch with each other and that Eurasian history began with the Mongols’ creation of the largest contiguous land empire in world history. The Mongols also built splendid cities, promoted the economies, fostered the sciences, technologies, and the artistic advances in their domains.” Discerning readers can’t deny this observation by Rossabi. During the course of past half century, other scholars from different countries also conclusively proved that the Mongol empire facilitated trade and commerce across all regions of Asia and Europe while contributing quite substantially towards propagation of the Sciences and the Arts.
- Why Super-States and Key States in core Eurasia?
Question: What is the mission I’m talking about? Why can’t the current state of affairs in core Eurasia fulfill the mission? Why a reorganization of geopolitical framework of core Eurasia is a necessity?
Answer: ‘The ultimate objective will be to bring complete dignity, widest possible freedom, and maximum possible development for every citizen of the communities in core Eurasia. Every human being (irrespective of his/her background identity like age, sex, ethnicity, language, religion, region, state) will become free from hunger-disease-insecurity-injustice, will spend time in socially useful productive work, can indulge in literature-art-music-cinema, can do research in science-mathematics-life science’, can be at ease equally with technology as well as social studies, ‘can seek knowledge of ‘life’-‘society’-‘world’-‘universe’, can seek entertainment and pleasure at leisure time, without any of these things being morally or physically harmful to any section or people’ of the proposed super-states and key states in core Eurasia.
Most of the existing states are unable to offer such environment to its people not because the countries are poor, (on the contrary core Eurasia is the richest zone of the earth) – the oligarchy which is well-entrenched in the ruling edifice of every country, have been exploiting the population ruthlessly with the help of Zionist-Capitalist globalist clique. Zionist-Capitalists would love if core Eurasia becomes uninhabited and they become the master of the land and its natural resources so that the planet earth nourishes only the ‘golden billion’ (one billion population in Anglo countries, Jews, Europeans). Hence current geopolitical setup is not conducive to such humanitarian missions.
For fulfilling the mission, I mentioned above, core Eurasia should be free from the self-serving elites-aristocrats-oligarchs who misuse their political power to achieve their personal objectives – to gain power and to gain wealth. Most of the artificial-states should be dissolved and made part of one/two super-states. Without geopolitically balanced architecture destabilization in all conceivable and unconceivable forms will continue to ruin core Eurasia. Thus the current borders between so-called states should be reoriented so that,
- The historical background of (mid-19th century) landmass-and-community relationship gets due importance
- ‘Fake states’ don’t act as Zionist-Capitalist agents for destabilization in core Eurasia
- Core Eurasian state-actors can always remain united to become a ‘role model’ for all other regions.
In core Eurasia, during my lifetime, most of the old geopolitical issues resurfaced – some through crude bloody incidents while some others in a very subtle way. So, whether such a dispute is currently a burning issue or a dormant dispute, leaders need to look into those and try proactively to resolve it so that geopolitically balanced architecture can be achieved. Let me list down the key issues, and key actors, and suggest the resolutions considering the historical timeline from the Mongol Empire in 1227 CE to the 1848 Revolution as the ‘age of empire building’ in core Eurasia beyond which change of borders through war would not be considered as ‘valid’ (for setting our benchmark we assumed such validity). There will be certainly a question asked from every quarter – on what basis such a logic is being considered? As such, there can be no definite answer that would please everyone, rather I would like to say, that there will be no basis that is acceptable to everyone! So, I chose 1848 CE as the historical watershed because in the early modern era 1848 CE was the year when plebeians of different societies across entire Europe and some parts of Asia really did stand up against centuries old exploitation-injustice-inequality inflicted by the patricians (even if the commoners were beaten back everywhere, the patricians were forced to start counting its probable demise since then). So a reorganisation of core Eurasia into super-states and key states is suggested as below:
Table: 4.1 >
|Geopolitical Restructuring Issue in Core Eurasia||Proposed Resolution|
|Significant Actor – Super-state in Russia|
|At the time of the dissolution of the USSR in 1991 CE, USSR encompassed the following geographical regions apart from Russia:
1. Baltic Europe – Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania
2. Eastern Europe – Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova
3. Transcaucasia – Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan
4. Central Asia – Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan
There were some remarkable aspects of the territorial evolution of Tsarist Russian empire and the USSR:
(a) NONE of the above mentioned regions/sub-regions were annexed into the Tsarist empire with their 1991 borders. Reorganization of the administrative zones within the empire was a regular exercise for ALL heads of state at different points of time. Few of those were:
(i) In 1708 CE Tsar Peter the Great divided the empire into eight administrative divisions called guberniyas (Archangelgorod, Azov, Ingermanland, Kazan, Kiev, Moscow, Siberia, Smolensk)
(ii) In 1727 CE Catherine I enacted another reform – a total of 166 uyezds was established
(iii) By 1910 CE 104 administrative governorate units (Oblast and Governorate) were formed
(iv) After 1922 CE Bolshevik Party undertook a series of restructuring that transformed the earlier architecture of administrative organization
(b) Historically, some regions have been under the Russian influence (political, cultural, economic) for a very long time before the proposed the cut-off year of 1848 CE — in 1721 CE Livonia, Estonia, Ingria, and Karelia were annexed from Sweden; through second and third partitions in 1793 CE and 1795 CE, Russia acquired southern part of current Latvia (south of Riga), most part of current Lithuania including Wilno (Vilnius), most part of current Belarus including Minsk, Pinsk, Brest, most part of Right Bank Ukraine that forms current Ukraine including Lutsk, Rovno, Zhytomyr, Bratslav, and Galicia from Poland-Lithuanian Commonwealth; Bessarabia (two-thirds of which lies within modern Moldova) was taken over by Russian Empire in 1812 CE defeating Ottoman Empire; parts of Georgia, Dagestan, parts of northern Azerbaijan, and parts of northern Armenia were annexed from Persian Empire by Russian Empire in 1813 CE; in 1828 CE, Persian Empire ceded Caucasian region (present-day Armenia, Azerbaijan) to Russian Empire; Kazakh-Junior Horde and Kazakh- Middle Horde declared to be loyal Russian citizens in 1732 and 1740 respectively, but full control of Russia got established by 1798 CE; Kazakh-Great Horde khanate was annexed into the Russian empire in the 1820s, when the Great Horde khans choose Russian protection against Kokand Khanate
(c) On the other hand it can be easily noted that, the Tsarist empire continued with invasions and annexations after 1848 CE in the central Asia and Pacific ocean coast regions (refer the map given in Fig:4.1 that is copied from Encyclopaedia Britannica: Link 🡪 https://www.britannica.com/place/Russian-Empire ) – Sakhalin island was seized from Japanese kingdom in 1875 CE by Alexander II; khanates of Khiva (1873 CE), Bukhara (1866 CE), Kokand (1876 CE) were annexed by Alexander II; Alexander III annexed Pamir plateau in 1893 and land of Teke Turkomans in 1881 CE; Alexander III annexed the coastal and northern part of Manchuria through a series of unequal treaties forced upon Qing China (the Treaty of Aigun in 1858 and the Treaty of Peking in 1860)
|1. All countries / regions of a country that were part of Russian empire in 1848 CE should move back to the Russian super-state:
– Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania
– Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova,
– Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan,
– Kazakhstan (except south-eastern part – Dzungaria)
2. Russia should hand over such territories to other countries that were annexed from them after 1848 CE:
– Outer Manchuria i.e. modern-day Russian areas of Primorsky Krai, Jewish Autonomous Oblast, Khabarovsk Krai (southern two-thirds), Amur Oblast, Zabaykalsky Krai to China
3. Regions which were part of Russian empire/USSR between 1849 and 1991, and became independent since 1991, should continue their current geopolitical identity as ‘state’:
– Four Central Asian countries i.e. Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan were formed as administrative regions within Russian empire / USSR out of the lands from five annexations by Tsars after 1848 CE – Khanate of Khiva, Khanate of Bukhara, Khanate of Kokand, Pamir plateau, and land of Teke Turkomans
|Significant Actor – Super-state in China|
|By 1848 CE the Qing empire territories included the following regions apart from (directly) Ming-ruled mainland China including Hainan and Taiwan islands:
1. East Asia – Manchuria (Nurgan RMC of Ming empire), Inner and Outer Mongolia
2. South-central Asia – Qinghai (Dokham RMC of Ming empire)
3. Central Asia – Xinjiang (that included some parts of eastern Kazakhstan land from Lake Balkhash up to the current international border with China in the north-east, east and south direction, this region was annexed by Russia in 1860, 1881)
4. South Asia – Tibet (U-Tsang RMC and Elis military-civilian Marshal of Ming empire; it included Aksai Chin region of Ladakh and south-eastern regions of Tibet which were seized by British after 1860 CE)
The key aspects of the territorial evolution of Qing Chinese empire are:
(a) The policy of partitioning the empire into several administrative regions underwent substantial change when the Qing empire replaced the Ming empire. While Ming emperors governed peripheral regions like Tibet, Manchuria through setting up Regional Military Commission, Qing empire established administrative regions across the entire empire.
(b) Unlike Russian Tsarist empire, the Chinese Qing empire ceased expansion by 1800s. When in 1911 CE the Qing empire was abolished (refer the map given in Fig:4.2 that is copied from Wikipedia: Link 🡪 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qing_dynasty#/media/File:China_1911_es.svg ) the following regions were found to be parts of neighbouring states, not China:
(i) a part of western Xinjiang of Qing China (some parts of currently eastern Kazakhstan land from Lake Balkhash up to the current international border with China in the north-east, east and south directions)
(ii) Outer Manchuria, a part of Manchuria of Qing China (currently part of the Far Eastern District of Russia)
(iii) Outer Mongolia, a part of Qing China (currently Mongolia state)
(iv) western Ladakh and south-eastern Tibet, both part of Qing China (part of modern-day India)
(v) Taiwan island, a part of Qing China (currently Taiwan state)
|1. All countries / regions of a country that were part of Chinese empire in 1848 CE should be transferred back to the Chinese super-state:
– The islands in South China Sea
– Outer Manchuria
– Western Xinjiang (Dzungaria)
– Aksai Chin and South-eastern Tibet
2. Regions which were part of Chinese empire between 1848 and 1911, and became independent since 1911, should continue their current geopolitical identity as ‘state’:
– Mongolia which declared independence from China in 1911 occupies outer Mongolian regions of Qing China
|Significant Actor – Key State in Iran|
|Hardly any change in borders happened in Iran after 1848 CE. Hence the country, centre of one of the oldest empire in the history of humankind doesn’t pose any geopolitical challenge.||Not Applicable|
|Significant Actor – Key State in Korea|
|One of the biggest geopolitical tragedy happened in the Korean Peninsula. Following Japan–Korea Treaty of 1905 Korea became the protectorate of Imperial Japan. After Japan’s surrender in 1945 in September People’s Republic of Korea was established by Lyuh Woon-hyung. In February 1946 Lyuh Woon-hyung was murdered by USA led oligarchy. Thereafter in the south of 38th parallel Syngman Rhee established Republic of Korea in August 1948 while in the following month Kim Il-sung established Democratic People’s Republic of Korea in the north. China and North Korea lost about 1 million people as KIA and MIA. A divided Korea is a continuous reminder about creation and growth of a malignant tumour that was implanted in core Eurasia by the USA and Anglo oligarchy after WW II.||USA needs to pull out military forces lock, stock, and barrel; a united Korean government to be formed with representation from ALL regions, professions, and parties. Both the military should combine into a single force. China and Russia to ensure peace during the transition period.|
Looking at the above table 4.1, one would conclude that I have identified only four entities as ‘significant actor’ in core Eurasia. Yes, if one looks into this essay in 2122 i.e. hundred years from now, the reader will find the accuracy and appropriateness of this essay in both its assumptions (that, across this humongous landmass named as ‘core Eurasia’ there are only 4 communities who are not spineless flunkies of Zionist-Capitalist oligarchy and who are not mindless followers of Anglo-Jewish culture) and its suggestions (that, in order to bring out the best possible environment for a community to survive and thrive, geopolitical fabric needs to be reorganized in terms of two super-states and two key states, all of whom will maintain very close coordination among themselves on all geopolitical and geo-economic matters). Finally, the proposed geopolitical restructuring should seriously consider (this is the first time that I’m mentioning this point as an IMPORTANT task) a formal alliance among the 4 significant actors in core Eurasia.
Fig: 4.1 🡪
Fig: 4.2 🡪
Table: 4.2 >
|Geo-economic Restructuring Issue in Core Eurasia||Proposed Resolution|
|1. Any community, any country, any state can be built ONLY with a population that is large enough to sustain the cultural, economic, political, and technological progress achieved by it. Russia, Iran, North Korea in its current form don’t show healthy population growth, it doesn’t generate hope for future – I will rate this problem as severity 1 for all 3 actors.
China, with world’s largest population till 2022, has been beset with continuously reducing rate of population growth – I will rate this as severity 2 for China.
2. Any country, any state can organise itself ONLY on the basis of own currency or currency of a neighbour with whom two-way trade is normal. Apart from that, the dependence on Dollar (as exchange currency) must be brought down to a minimum level to avoid the fate of Russia.
for China, USA debt holding over 1 trillion is a problem of severity 1, for USA will certainly weaponize the debt at the earliest ‘opportunity’ (like, China re-establishes its control over Taiwan).
3. Russia-Iran-China all 3 actors are very rich in terms of natural resources. Energy, metal and mineral, rare earth elements – all three types of deposits are present in substantial quantities in core Eurasia.
Import and export of such ‘natural resources’ should be aimed at enriching the commoners in Asia-Africa-South America continents as much as possible.
4. SCO-BRI-EAEU should be coordinated simultaneously for economic rejuvenation of core Eurasia as well as Asia-Africa-South America continents as much as possible.
As a parallel activity, encourage non-Anglo non-Jewish communities/ countries (like Germany, Japan, Italy, France, Sweden etc.) to enhance their participation in trade and commerce with core Eurasia through multilateral global platforms like RCEP.
5. Minimize use of technology, hardware, and applications owned by the Zionist-Capitalist oligarchy in the areas of international finance, defence, aerospace, and social networking.
As a parallel activity, encourage non-Anglo non-Jewish communities/ countries (like Germany, Japan, Italy, France, Sweden etc.) to enhance their participation in trade and commerce.
|Government should move on two fronts:
(i) encourage early marriage and childbearing at social and cultural platforms
(ii) introduce new rules and laws to facilitate marriage and childbearing for working persons, professionals, even unemployed
(i) A gold-backed currency or a basket of Eurasian currencies needs to be pushed
(ii) Reduce holding of US treasury rapidly by increasing central bank holding of gold to maximum level
(i) These countries should restrict export of raw material and processed minerals to Europe, North America, Australia
(ii) They should also ensure that other countries in core Eurasia do the same as much as possible
(i) Transform the BRI format so that organizations from the participating countries get around 40% share of the capital expenditure.
(ii) Bring in German, Japanese, Italian, French companies into BRI projects for supply of some machinery etc.
(i) Identify areas where all 4 actors or any 3 actors will join hands to form business entities. Invest in research and development jointly.
(ii) Bring in German, Japanese, Italian, French companies selectively.
Obviously a logical question will arise – ‘how such a massive transformation will happen’ and ‘when’. Local oligarchy, nationalist intelligentsia, bureaucracy, business people, and military forces are the groups who have vested interests in perpetuating the current geopolitical framework. In normal situations (where international relations follow unipolar world order) such geopolitical transformation can hardly be talked about. But major upheavals in politics, economics, and environment will compel the 90% population (the plebs) to think and accept such transformation that will bring momentous change in their lifestyle. It will be the responsibility of ALL patriotic leaders, communist party members, community elders in ALL countries to prepare themselves and their countries/communities towards accepting positive transformation.
It can be found in history that, time and again strong leaders created new geopolitical reality (sometimes because of moral high ground and in other times using superior political economy) that created new rules and orders tearing apart the existing order – I will strongly advocate such occurrence if and only if the common people of a country / region find better standard of living in the newly created architecture. Living in the 21st century I won’t criticize Chinghis Khan’s brutality against his adversaries – on the contrary, I would ask two simple questions – (i) was there a single king/emperor in the medieval era across the world who didn’t resort to mind-blowing violence to create a psychological defeat in the opponent camp? (ii) wasn’t it that the Mongol empire brought a new era in trade and commerce across the entire continents of Asia and Europe benefitting the living standard of the inhabitants? Hence I proposed here that the creation of super-states in core Eurasia in the near future – Eurasian Union of Russia and Asian Union of China – would go a long way to create a better society that ushers a new dawn of humanity! Unless the above mentioned territorial reorganizations are undertake, in my opinion, the construction of those super-states can’t really take-off!
Since I’m only discussing about core Eurasia, I’m not mentioning the case of a super-state in the Indian subcontinent. Actually India should be viewed as a super-state which should include half of what is currently Pakistan (Punjab and Sindh regions are truly such historically ‘Indian’ regions without which Indian map can’t be even be thought of! Since the beginning of ancient civilization Punjab and Sindh were the core of all Indian kingdoms/sultanates/empires until 1947 CE when British power connived with ALL key political parties like Congress, Muslim fundamentalists, and Hindu fundamentalists to divide India). But we are not discussing that.
By now, most of the esteemed readers have already formed an opinion about this article and my objectives. To conclude this write-up, let me handle those probable clarifications from an ideological perspective:
1) An “expansionist and empire-apologist”: To be frank, this is the most significant stigma that could be assigned to this article. For a while, this article can truly create such a sentiment among the readers. Fundamentally, I’m a Marxist, and one of the final objectives of a Marxist socialist society is borderless society! Hence, on an ideological platform, I actually condemn ‘empire-building’ as a process of geopolitics. Let me state that, ‘Empire’, as a concept, is the most reactionary, naked, and violent form of ‘state apparatus’. Hence, I can never become an apologist for empire building. If so, the question still remains: what is the objective of this article?
Well, every historic ‘empire’, in reality, has different background and different characteristics. While Spanish, Portuguese, British and French empires built after 1496 CE across the world basically attempted to ‘get rid of’ the aboriginal population as much as possible, and pillaged the foreign land and resources to enrich the elites and oligarchy of those invading powers, completely contrasting behaviour could be noticed in case of the Chinese, and Russian empires. Russian and Chinese empires not only brought order and security to the people of the region they annexed but the trade and commerce got invigorated across the Eurasian landmass benefitting the commoners. Essentially while the European powers brought colonial imperialism, the Eurasian powers acted as the agents of change towards win-win modernisation.
I foresee that before different countries could even imagine a borderless landmass and a society free from exploitation (as the ultimate objective of Marxism), a country would require:
(a) A ‘state’ that ensures education, healthcare, housing, and employment for ALL citizens
(b) A ‘state’ that brings ALL races, religions, languages living in a landmass under an umbrella with an objective of shared security
(c) A ‘state’ that creates enough of social capital as a harbinger of economic prosperity while sustaining the fragile environment
Let me confess, while looking back into the history, I find ONLY Chinese and Russian super-states as the agents who would provide framework for achieving the above results. So, I propose building of such super-states as the prelude for state-less society.
2) A “reactionary feudalist pseudo-Marxist”: There will be certainly a group of dogmatic Marxists who would suggest that this article is actually a step backward which point towards rejuvenation of medieval feudal era political environment. This article doesn’t discuss the ‘class struggle’, neither this speaks about a ‘proletarian revolution’. Actually, looking everything under the sun through the prism of Marxism doesn’t help any Marxist – neither a revolutionary communist party member nor a revolutionary communist state. Abolition of ‘state apparatus’ was never identified by Marx as an immediate objective for a socialist society! On the other hand, if a truly welfare state apparatus can arrange education, healthcare, housing, and employment to all citizens of core Eurasia, people would actually gain through better living standard. And they would further realise how a state apparatus based on Marxist socialist socio-economic political thoughts would transform the current society into a more egalitarian society ensuring truth, justice, and equality and that prevail over deception, injustice, and inequality.
These readers, mostly from Europe and North America, are NOT bothered about a real democracy where the freedom of speech goes hand-in-hand with the freedom from hunger and malnutrition, and right to vote a political party is coupled with right to education and employment. They are actually bothered about the re-emergence of core Eurasia as the centre of global trade, commerce, science, and technology – instead of expressing that point categorically which otherwise would smack of racism and racial hatred (towards Asians), they wrap it up with half-baked politically correct jargons (like democracy, human rights, blah blah).
For these type of readers, I have two simple questions:
(a) What did the Greek city-states mean by ‘democracy’? (Clue – slaves who toiled ceaselessly in ancient Greek city-states or Roman Empire were never counted as citizens). It was not certainly meant for all people of their society, so what do the pseudo-socialists and lapdog-intellectuals licensed by the Zionist-Capitalist clique wish to achieve through the so-called democracy?
(b) What did the European aristocrats and oligarchs mean by ‘human rights’? Most of the regions in North America, South America and Australia continents were subjected to genocide by those same sociopath-cum-psychopath European (aristocrat and elite) marauders who, apparently set up world’s ‘finest’ democratic state apparatus like the ‘USA’, ‘Canada’, ‘Australia’, so why shouldn’t they pay respect to the concept of human rights and leave those continents lock stock and barrel one fine morning (better late than never)?
Anyway, by promoting super-states like Russia and China, I’m looking forward to a future reinstatement of Marxist ideas and philosophies among the people of core Eurasia. And, please don’t say that Marxist ideas and organisation could flourish in liberal capitalist democratic countries in Europe and North America (where the entire leftist/socialist political spectrum has been hijacked by the opportunist corrupt labour aristocracy since early 1890s) – those entities can’t be termed as ‘country’ or ‘democracy’, they are simply a bunch of oligarchs thriving in their respective ‘estate’ using lies and deception that can be termed as ‘demon-cracy’!
3) A “utopian arm-chair strategist”: To those readers who would identify me as such, I have a simple counter question – could anybody in 1942 even dream of the boundaries of USSR and PRC that were internationally accepted in 1950? What appears as ‘utopian idea’ may become a reality just 10 years from now – history of core Eurasia time and again proved it! After all, exactly hundred years back the foundation was laid for the first super-state in the history of humankind – USSR.
By and large, there are another two categories of shaming which would be applicable to the readers who consider themselves as ‘nationalist’:
i) A “Russian stooge and Chinese agent”: many readers who hail from countries – Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Moldova etc. – that have been proposed here as phantom-states would like to curse me as a ‘Russian’ agent and/or a ‘Chinese’ agent. This is another stigma that fits in with this narrative. Particularly, many of the readers find any statement that talks in favour of China and Russia, as support to ‘authoritative and despotic foreign regimes’. Let me respond to this – on the face of it, my proposition appears as a simple ancient trick of ‘annexation of more landmasses. But, it isn’t so – I consider the people as the primary subject of ‘patriotism’ and the landmass as the secondary subject. Let me elaborate on this through a historical example. Alexander Nevsky served as the Prince of Novgorod (1236–56 and 1258–1259), Grand Prince of Kiev (1236–52) and Grand Prince of Vladimir (1252–63) during the most difficult times in medieval Rus’ history. He paid a tribute to the Mongol Golden Horde while fighting against ALL European powers approaching from north-west. In my opinion, Nevsky revealed the finest expression of ‘patriotism’ that flowers in the well-being of the people of his kingdoms while paying less importance to geographical expansion of the landmass he dominated! Nevsky was bothered about his society, culture and commerce, hence as soon as he identified that European powers would destroy exactly those aspects he stood as a rock against such invasions.
Let me again acknowledge, while looking back into the medieval and modern history, I find ONLY Chinese and Russian super-states as the institutions that can ensure exchange of ideas, knowledge, goods, and services among different regions and different societies across the world without pontificating.
ii) An enemy to Russia and China: many readers who hail from current RF and PRC, would stand exactly opposite to the readers from say, Kazakhstan or Ukraine! They would come back asking why (his/her) country should give away even an inch of land to the neighbouring country. Ultimate tragedy of human life is that they always seek ‘ownership’ of almost everything under the Sun, we forget that everything – land, water body, forests, mountains, deserts – belong to mother earth. Humankind is nothing but a small part of the nature – we don’t own anything; we need to be grateful to nature for providing ALL means for living our life! If giving away some part of one country to another country proves beneficial for both the communities, why not? True patriots ALWAYS bother about the advancement of economy and culture of the people if required with little adjustments. Every society has a memory and every community has a tradition centred on some regions which they consider as inalienable part of their history – Ukraine and Belarus are such regions for the Russian society, south Korea is such a region for the Koreans, Manchuria and Tibet are such regions for the Chinese, Punjab and Sindh provinces of Pakistan are such regions for the Indians!
I’m certainly not an enemy of any country or any society or any people! On the contrary, (as I laid out in the introduction) I consider myself as a part of the people of core Eurasian landmass. I’m against hypocrisy, insanity, deception, vulgarity and above all, inequality and injustice – history alone proves that ALL these banes witnessed by the humanity since ‘civilization’ dawned, were caused by the 1% aristocracy-elite-oligarchy in EVERY region across the world! The proposed two super-states, in my opinion, will go a long way to provide a stable environment and opportunity for amelioration of the plebeian lives in core Eurasia. It will usher the beginning of a new era!
Straight-Bat is an Engineer by profession, currently pursuing higher study in Economics. A keen observer of global affairs, Straight-Bat enjoys being an analyst of history, politics, economy, and geopolitics.
One of the few decade-old members of The Saker blog-site, Straight-Bat finds this website as a capstone entity that is dedicated to focus on truth and justice in public life across the world.
Marxism states that Capitalism was progressive until the imperialist epoch. We are now in the imperialist epoch. Therefore according to Marxism,, a capitalist super state at this time will necessarily be regressive. Russia is capitalist. China, depending on one’s point of view, is either capitalist or a hideously deformed communist state.
The ultimate goal of Marxism IS a stateless society. Your proposal for super states as a means to communism is like f-cking for the sake of virginity.
To me all states are gangs of thugs who promise to protect you if you hand over your freedom to them. That is why I will never allow anyone to represent me.
I forgot to mention, I won’t be voting today.
….feel same after 39 yrs as citizen I will not vote today…
Maybe relocating to a stateless society will educational ?
Por ejemplo: las tribus de indios yanomami del amazonas, de no más de 30 individuos.
Waoh! The Yamanote tribe of Japan packs más de 2,000 individuos in one train.
A more recent examples is Libya, where Empire intentionally destroyed the state structure. Tribe fighting Tribe, going from the wealthiest country in Africa to a basket case.
Empires goal is not to win wars, but to destroy the state structure of any non aligned nation. See Libya, Iraq, Somalia, Syria, Sudan, Afganistan, Yemen, Yugoslavia, USSR etc.
A functional state is the only thing that stands between an individual/tribe, and exploitation/plunder by Empire.
Marx, according to my admittedly limited understanding, was very clear that the natural evolution of capitalism was socialism. He was also clear that the pinnacle of capitalism was imperialism. Although he did not investigate finance capitalism because it hardly existed in his day, later Marxist scholars have done so, and finance capitalism and its imperial form are seen as impediments to the evolution to socialism–Michael Hudson believes this was the essence of the WW I struggle, German industrial capitalism versus Anglo-American finance capitalism. In the current period, we still see a struggle of neoliberalism (finance capitalism on steroids) versus the mixed economies of the world–industrial capitalism and state socialism– centered on Russia and China. These are the economies that can evolve into socialism.
Concerning Marxist teleological ‘end state’ of Communism, it is remarkably similar to St Augustine’s City of God.
IMO The world is run on the Law of the Jungle’ where strong survive an the weak are eaten,
example how long would Russia be an independant country if it didn’t have Nukes? same for China
at times in history China was worlds reserve currency, same for India
history moves on
I agree the rise of China an resurgance of Russia into super states is happening an will bring stability to Eurasia in time no matter what US throws into the works.
as to a world paradise at peace….. I’ll believe it when I see it Peace
Very interesting article. All the issues presented in this piece covers important arguments which need further discussions and studies. For the time being however the main obstacle which is preventing the future Eurasian integration from happening is the role of US dollar and huge weights it exerts on the day-to-day workings of the all governments of the world not only in Eurasia but also S/L Americas, Africa, Oceania. It’s the root cause of massive levels of corruption around the globe. …For sure once the major Eurasian powers commence using their own currencies in bi-lateral trades, in earnest, those middle countries: S. Korea, Kazakhstan, Mongolia,…, Azerbaijan…., Italy, Spain…etc. will swiftly switch sides perhaps even overnight if they would want to survive. They have no other options. Once there’s going to be for instance, a new OPEC where all the decisions about production, security, shipping, insurance is handled in Moscow, Tehran, Beijing, Caracas, then the 5-6th columnists and US-Zionist dollar affiliated oligarchic class active in every infested country today, should pack up their stuff and dash to NY or London for hiding.
All the issues presented in this piece covers important arguments which need further discussions and studies.
I can’t agree more. Almost every paragraph covers key arguments that need further elaboration.
The Spanish Empire did not exterminate the natives, let’s make a comparison with all the natives that remain in the North American Lands, caged in reservations.
There are natives, mestizos in the Southlands, most of the gold was left to create infrastructure, schools, universities, highways, roads, bridges. In Afghanistan, the Americans took even the floor tiles, they didn’t want to leave anything in Afghanistan. More than death and ruin.
You tell me that you believe the Black Legend, told by Perfidious Albion, to harm my country, any minimal power was already there to sabotage us and from Spain to Russia, China, everything was enemies.
The similarity between the Spanish Empire and Russia has always called me. The Spanish empire at the end of the 18th century was rich, with an extension somewhat larger than Russia, with 33 universities, innumerable colleges, with more than 500 cities founded, a common language, although only 30% of the population understood it, with great cultural activity (Mexico City, Guadalajara, Bogotá and Lima) without racial problems and militarily very strong (England suffered costly defeats) and it took less than 20 years to disappear. The cause was the liberalism introduced by England to the continental elites. The cement that united the Empire was dissolved and it was this: One God, one King and one people, everything completely disappeared in less than 14 years of fighting.
Within his analysis, he discards the Balkans, which have been the saddle of Eurasia for millennia and a tinderbox. I fear that the real war will start there with the attack of some important Balkan leader, Erdoğan? another, Serbia? getting Erdoğan out of the way could be good news for the usual regulars.
Straight-Bat are you serious? That Spain committed genocide in America? So how do you explain that the first printed books in America (yes, before the English) were in indigenous languages, Nahualt and Quechua, and that in 1577 Carlos I of Spain decreed that Nahualt was the official language of New Spain ( what is now Mexico) go to Latin America and you will see where the genocide is, look at the faces of the people, the traits and tell me.
Completely agree, I wanted to write exactly the same when I read the article this morning. Faces in Latin America come in different colours, from extremely whites to 100 % black and all the colours in between. Would the Spanish have commited genocide, nowadays the faces of Latin Americans would be quite different (unlike in the counties colonized by the Anglo world where the killed everything that was moving especially those brown people….).
The history that Straight-Bat is telling us, is based in Anglo written books (more or less the same BS was written about the so called Spanish Inquisition which never existed, at least in the way the Anglos sold the whole story for centuries)
The myth about the Spanish Inquisition is illustrative about the western propaganda.
The witch burning was mainly a phenomena in the protestant enlightened world, lynch mobs and rumours, no trial … from the top of my head, an estimated 6000 where killed in the UK alone when this thing was in vouge.
Where as in the Catholic part of Europe you had maybe a dozen being punished after decent court proceedings.
The Spanish ‘genocide’ of the Americas was nothing like what the English did in what we call North America. The English effort was more of an extermination than a genocide, then/
I’m quite convinced bout my statement. In fact, my mistake was about the Portuguese colonial empires – they didn’t resort to extermination as a policy. But Spanish elites devastated the central and South American land and society and permanently changed the demography. Among all the European powers, Spanish forces were the first to use smallpox, measles as weapons – that was biowarfare.
When you mention Nahualt as an official language of colonial empire, you actually mean that unlike English marauders Spanish elites didn’t kill all local people!
Your question: “Is there a particular form of geopolitical entity that can be termed as better (or worse) for the society compared to the others?” This assumes ‘the solution’ can be found in ‘a system’, while I think it must be found in humans. Every system can somewhat work (situational depended) when there is a ‘good’ human on the job. The problem is human nature is not evolved enough and eventually there will be a ‘bad’ human who corrupts the system. Maybe the question can be rephrased: “Which system is more able, depending on the situation at hand, to stimulate human evolution into becoming ‘good’?” We cannot co-operate together without a system now, so which system can help us evolve as a species.
A country can have a beautifully written constitution but if the citizens are insane the society will be destructive.
Consciousness (the Inner) always overrides the outer.
A country should protect the weak (and we are all weak at some time in our lives) and deal swiftly, firmly, and fairly with the wicked.
Know the history of the Nizam of Hyderabad a descendant of the Mogol emperors? He had 500 wives and gave his favorite one a gold rolls Royce. Ate all his meals off golden plates and boasted that the English displayed 24 golden plates in London whereas he had place settings for 150 guests. One of favorite diamonds was 182.5 carats which he used as a paperweight? Sat on chairs and couches made out of gold and built a carriage of gold that wasn’t usable because of its weight. A man who ruled over 15 million poverty stricken people? Ah, to have a Golconda Valley of ones own yes?
Welcome to Sociliasm? lol? and with that an A Bomb which changed everything. No monarchy is safe without one and even with one well best to love your neighbor as yourself? lol
…sounds like his majesty the Nizam of Hyderabad could have been one of Rishi Sunak’s ancestors. So wish good luck to UK.
“Every system can somewhat work (situational depended) when there is a ‘good’ human on the job.”
Such an excellent statement I couldn’t agree more. Certain countries or ethnic groups have a propensity to thrive in a more collective form of government where others excel in a less centralized government. Here in the U.S. so many of my colleagues repeat the myth that Capitalism is the key to any nation’s success. Apparently they fail to realize that the poorest and most dangerous nations to live in have mostly all Capitalist systems. One thing that cannot be overlooked is how important principled leadership is for any nation. The U.S. has not had a true leader worthy of praise at least not in my lifetime.
Yes, and when the Americans foisted capitalism on the Russians after the end of the USSR, the result was widespread suffering–massive unemployment, loss of living standards, loss of life expectancy, and loss of life, accompanied my incredible looting and criminal accumulation.
Capitalism–the gift that keeps on giving…
It is said that democracy is the least bad form of government. I always thought democracy was the best form of government. Now I know that democracy is the worst form of government.
The reason is that you are transferring responsibilities to a representative who will never be held accountable for it. Yes, you cannot have this representative return to a post, but he or she does not have to account for the actions taken on your behalf.
In a dictatorship you know who is causing misery, but in a democracy you can only condemn the system itself. A dictator can one day be replaced by a better leader. In a democracy you are forever trapped in ‘the system’.
Ultimately, man does not need external leadership if he has found his inner leadership. Democracy prevents people from finding that inner leadership, it creates and maintains the illusion that others can lead better than you can yourself.
Individualization is necessary to be able to find one’s own leadership and for that all systems have to disappear. Every system makes the individual person dependent. Collaboration is good, but it should not be institutionalized because every system eventually corrupts.
Democracy is now completely corrupted. The system should serve the system instead of the people, the people should serve the system instead of the other way around. When the system contradicts this, you know it’s the case.
The most dangerous thing is when the people fail to see that a dictatorship masquerades as a democracy. The people then live in the illusion of a democracy while being governed by ‘a dictator’. That dictator is not one person, but a system.
A system is a ‘black box’ and contains visible and invisible people and organizations in a network of divers interests. Even the people in such a network do not know everything and do not know all interests. The democratic illusion thus permeates the system.
This system does not only apply to a democracy but also, for example, to a religion. There is a hierarchical network of interests and the actors within it work on a ‘need to know’ basis. An invisible leadership determines the course.
Of course this is also possible in a dictatorship, but at least there you can designate, judge and depose a dictator as a person. When you depose a person in a democracy, he or she is simply replaced by a new figure within the system.
Man needs a way to inner leadership. A democracy helps the least with that. A democracy is a convenient form of government for a system that gives the people the illusion that they can participate. Democracy is a lie.
Thank you for all the work you did putting this together especially the Map’s
Once upon a time,
Empires were ruled by Emperors
Kingdoms were ruled by Kings.
Countries are ruled by …
Nations are ruled by imaginations
IMO, this is essay is a very interesting and study-worthy mixture of phenomenological and ideological (Marxist) content. I’m no Marxist, but I appreciate that Karl was in some senses an existentialist theologian, albeit atheist. This essay has some of that flavor. It gets usefully accurate results, IMO — as Marx did in some matters — through examination of core Eurasia’s political phenomenology over centuries.
I submit that collectivism is desirable up to the point that it obstructs autonomous forces lunging for independence through decentralization. After all, we all come into this world naked and alone and leave it in the same conditions.
That said, although I have not much time left in this body, I am cheered by the thought of Eurasians finding mutual benefit from fabricating for their happiness communications between Lisbon and Vladivostok and everywhere in between. Those comms make culture. Ideologies are just playthings along the ways of hardwired trade.
@The Rev. David R. Graham,
It gets usefully accurate results, IMO — as Marx did in some matters — through examination of core Eurasia’s political phenomenology over centuries.
True. You have pointed out the entire thought process behind this article in few sentences.
So far as the (political) phenomenology as well as economic philosophy are concerned, I have been exploring for quite some time. Hope that in the next year, I would be able to present my hypothesis on the same.
I submit that collectivism is desirable up to the point that it obstructs autonomous forces lunging for independence through decentralization.
Fully agree, and i would like to add “… up to the point that it obstructs autonomous forces lunging for independence through decentralization and it hinders the cunning section of the society to establish complete control over the means of production”.
Human intelligence vs. all States, all organized polities, is the legitimate query.
Framed thusly: what State formation best offers human intelligence the opportunity of thriving? Think of seasons. Think of man. We are but plants. We thrive in a certain climate. States if based upon the entire body politic are climactic regimes. Some permit innovation, the new, the better suited for the location and organism.
Others do not.
I notice that of the two super-states and two key states that you propose, only one, the Russian super state would, in all likelihood, be mostly, if not fully, capitalist economically, based on its current constituents. The others would likely be strongly socialist, to varying degrees, based on current constituents. Despite this, extrapolating from its current relationships, the Russian super state could expect to enjoy excellent relationships with the other super state and key states. I think a lot of this would be due to Russia’s conservatism (as opposed to liberal progressivism) socially. And Russia is successfully multi-ethnic and multi-religious. These are good foundations for a generously self-interested outlook towards others.
Are you giving up on the central Asian ‘Stans’ ever finding a place within your framework of two super states and two key states because of the influence within them of elements of radical, fundamentalist Islam?
I wonder if, in the medium to long term, a number of the former Warsaw Pact countries in Eastern Europe might come to see great benefit in becoming a part of a Russian super state. Furthermore, I can imagine that happening more quickly than the formation of the Korean key state.
I think that you have given Sakhalin Island back to the Japanese. Was that your intention?
As always, you have offered us a very thought-provoking piece. Thanks and best wishes.
“I notice that of the two super-states and two key states that you propose, only one, the Russian super state would, in all likelihood, be mostly, if not fully, capitalist economically, based on its current constituents. The others would likely be strongly socialist, to varying degrees, based on current constituents.”
IMO, China is a communist party ruled state that is currently running on capitalist mode of economy – private and state capital. CPC wish to become a socialist economy in future. (i don’t consider the terminology of ‘socialist market economy’ as appropriate – ‘market’ by definition is a capitalist construct, how could ‘socialist’ economy operate on market forces? … It is okay as a temporary phenomenon, whatever way you name it!) Russia, Iran are people oriented states running on capitalist mode of economy – private and state capital. North Korea (and Cuba) are probably only country in the world where private capital is absent (hence these are the most demonized entities in the Zionist-Capitalist owned global media – no wonder, they are the worst ‘offenders’ in terms of democracy and human rights much more than China or Russia or Iran). Probably you are thinking of ruling party when you raised this point – I can see, future destiny of core Eurasia (as i defined in this article) moving into Marxist states (with different architectures depending on regional parameters).
“Russia is successfully multi-ethnic and multi-religious.”
Absolutely agree. In fact the concept of super-state can succeed 100% if there are multiple constituent communities with different culture, religion, language – but they stand together shoulder-to-shoulder for their country. I look forward China to become a super-state from the current fabric of state – let people of Tibet, Manchuria, Xinjiang fully participate in country’s growth and progress. I feel (though I’m not sure) that PRC and united front led by CPC started its journey on a strong federal character in 1940s, but by 1970 that flavour got lost to a great extent. Interestingly, not only the USSR, but RF also has a very good environment in this aspect which could easily be transformed into a super-state now. IMO, when foundation for USSR was being laid super-state was the target of CPSU top leaders – rather i feel that way.
“Are you giving up on the central Asian ‘Stans’ ever finding a place within your framework of two super states and two key states because of the influence within them of elements of radical, fundamentalist Islam?
I wonder if, in the medium to long term, a number of the former Warsaw Pact countries in Eastern Europe might come to see great benefit in becoming a part of a Russian super state. Furthermore, I can imagine that happening more quickly than the formation of the Korean key state.
I think that you have given Sakhalin Island back to the Japanese. Was that your intention?”
Let me frankly tell you that, during my entire adulthood, I have spent probably more than 50% of my free time on research and study of Soviet Union, China, and Marx-Engels – history, geography, politics, economy, sociology. Since the 2008 global financial meltdown when i started reading The Saker blog-site, i used to sincerely believe that USSR should be recreated exactly in the same format (with which it was dismantled) – my belief was based on sentiment rather than sound basis. I started revisiting my understanding of core Eurasia again and again since beginning of 2022 – its the birth centenary of USSR. Time and again i tried to conceptualise what should be the constituents of a Russian super-state in Eurasia, and what should be the logic, basis? IMO, there should be 3 parameters:
(i) up to a point, empire-building can be allowed as a geopolitical and political construct [i assumed 1848, because it was the first outburst of people’s revolution across a huge landmass], after which you take a moral stand that ‘no more land acquisition through war and invasions’ can be accepted
(ii) 2 super-states and 2 key states should have harmonious and orderly relationship among themselves – social, cultural, economic, technological, educational. But unless there is geopolitical harmony among themselves, how could they achieve the other aspects? Throughout this year, i could sense murmur in small section of Chinese and Iranian media that identifies a new super-state in Russia as a possible re-birth of Tsarist Russian empire. Nobody could think of a possible rebirth of Lenin’s Soviet Union in 2022, simply because Russian state politics and leadership don’t speak about socialism. So, I thought how to prove that a new kind of union (super-state in Russia) is not empire-building, and new super-state in Russia can live in complete harmony [i assumed, transfer of land to China that was annexed after 1848 will be logical ]
(iii) harmony of core Eurasia with other Asian countries and European countries is a huge area that i didn’t touch in this article. But, let me answer your point about Sakhalin, as you raised it. I feel all 4 significant players in core Eurasia should have friendly relationship with immediate NEIGHBOURS like Japan, Myanmar, India, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Romania etc. as far as possible. If Sakhalin can bring perpetual peace with Japan, it is worth considering
(iv) On Warsaw Pact countries, my take is really different from yours. IMO super-state in Russia should be the target, Warsaw Pact should never be attempted. Even Stalin didn’t wish that – it was only after NATO was formed, Stalin could sense trouble unless CPSU create a united front bringing in the east Europeans. A compact super-state in Russia is 100% feasible (whenever possible in future), but such compactness will be compromised if east European societies are brought under that umbrella. Think of the scenario of 1914 when Poland was part of Tsarist Russia, did CPSU ever think of keeping Poland in future communist union ? i think, answer is ‘no’. There has to be historic trend of ethnic /communal/ linguistic affinity that will bind the people in 2 super-states and 2 key states. And, I don’t find any such factor in say, Hungarian society to be clubbed with the proposed super-state in Russia.
Forgot to mention that, I don’t consider Kazakhstan as a central Asian ‘Stan’ simply because this entity was involved with Russian power almost always since Mongols established khanates there – Russian aristocrats and Kazakhs used to be part of same ‘power elites’ helping each other some time and quarreling some time.
4 central Asian ‘Stan’ states were annexed after 1848 and unlike Kazakhs, these khanates were not part of Russian state and society earlier. These 4 states were made up of khanates of Khiva, Bukhara, Kokand that had vibrant socio-cultural and economic fabric quite distant from Russia. Hence, i didn’t consider these 4 ‘stans’ in the proposed super-state.