Western geostrategy over Ukraine ends in nuclear conflict
Russia’s key objectives over Ukraine have remained constant, but outdated Western approaches to global leadership threaten a deadly nuclear endgame. There’s still time to change this.
“Control over Eurasia would almost automatically entail Africa’s subordination, rendering the Western hemisphere and Oceania geopolitically peripheral to the world’s central continent” – The Grand Chessboard, by Zbigniew Brzezinski, 1997.
Zbigniew Brzezinski, political strategist and influential US National Security Advisor to Jimmy Carter and subsequent American Presidents, significantly shaped US foreign policy for over 40 years.
His arguments focused on securing control of Eurasia – a key geopolitical region which control over would all but guarantee US global hegemony.
Eurasia is the world’s largest land mass, covering almost 55 million kilometres and with a population of approximately 5.4 billion people.
In addition, it holds 31% of proven natural gas reserves, 17% of oil reserves, 23% of iron ore, 14% of gold and 7% of copper. Russia currently maintains the largest share of oil, gas, mineral reserves and agricultural land in the region, and is the biggest hydrocarbon exporter.
Dominant over global mineral and energy resources.
At the heart of this region is the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU), composed of five post-Soviet States: Belarus, Kazakhstan, Russia, Armenia and Kyrgyzstan, which together account for 75% of the world’s known energy resources.
As of 2021 Russia held natural resources amounting to an estimated total value of US $75 trillion, followed by the US with $45 trillion and a more limited array of natural minerals.
Brzezinski recognised that competition for control of these resources between the major powers would be inevitable.
His ‘geostrategy’ aimed for US prevention of any emerging dominant power, inside or beyond Eurasia, that could challenge its global leadership.
To secure this geopolitical advantage, the US needed to establish an exclusive strategic alignment between key players, supported by a broader network of alliances, and held together by military domination over potential rivals.
Being prepared for war and ensuring the support of Europe has allowed the US to realise:
· Global Resource Control: Establishing economic stability and energy security, particularly in regions rich in energy reserves
· Geopolitical Leverage: Through military bases and strategic alliances across Eurasia, the US and its allies shape global events
· Maintained Unipolarity: With the US as the dominant player, it is prepared to face any challenge through military intervention.
· Security: Using military action to prevent the formation of alliances that challenge Western (US) dominance.
US President Joe Biden’s geostrategy – distinctly influenced by Brzezinski – demands control of Eurasia for the purposes of global dominance.
As a result, support for the Ukraine is fundamental, and Russia must not dominate the region.
This position on the Ukraine war presents the precarious financial threat to the West for the following reasons:
· US Federal debt stands at $34 trillion
· US Household debt is $17.29 trillion
· UK government debt is £2.5 trillion
· UK household debt is £1.84 trillion.
The UK Treasury spent £110 billion on debt interest in 2023 and is experiencing the highest debt interest of any nation in the developed world. At the same time poverty in the UK continues to increase with 13.4 million people experiencing poor health, debt, inadequate housing and general deprivation.
Most concerning is that Wall Street and the London money markets are sitting on a $5 trillion cash pile. Waiting for the ‘right deal’ does nothing to address growing inequality, while the classic and historical way out of dire economic and social circumstances has always been war.
Putin’s stance
As far back as the 1980’s Brzezinski made it clear – it is up to Russia to determine where it stands with the US regarding Eurasia. Prior to President Putin Russia had already decided – it had become subservient to the US.
Gorbachev and his KGB head, Shevardnadze, are seen to this day by the Russian elite as ‘the traitors of Russia.’ Their compliance to US arms control demands is viewed as throwing away a vital advantage. They were followed by Yeltsin who ‘gave away’ national assets to friends and US interests.
With the overthrow of Viktor Yanukovych, President of Ukraine in 2014, Russian speaking Eastern Ukrainians would not accept the Western-orientated direction taken by Kiev. Fighting erupted with the Eastern Ukrainians labelled as separatists.
The Treaty of Minsk (2014) technically resulted in Western powers acting as guarantors of the defence and protection of the Eastern Ukrainians but in reality no such outcome surfaced.
The supply of arms to successive pro-Western-Ukrainian governments lead to the demise of 15,000 Russian speaking Ukrainians.
Putin sent arms but no military intervention, despite being begged to do so by Eastern Ukrainians.
Instead, Russia made protestations of friendship and gestures of appeasement towards the US and European allies. For almost 20 months Putin fronted a diplomatic charm campaign of ‘dear partners,’ and ‘dearest partners.’
Despite heartfelt offers of military, economic and political co-operation against China, which Putin rightly considered as the common enemy, his mannerisms made it clear. Partnership was on the table, but subservience to the US was most definitely not.
The turning point were speeches made prior to February 2022 by NATO’s Jens Stoltenberg encompassing ‘exporting democracy East.’ The implication was for Russia, democracy would be delivered through the military machine of NATO.
No more Mr. Nice Guy
Putin announced on 23rd February 2022 that, on the invitation of the ‘Self-Declared People’s Republic of Donetsk.’ Russia would pursue a ‘special operation’ to defend its Russian Ukrainian ‘counterparts.’
To this day Putin’s stated objectives have remained constant: The ‘special operation’ continues to protect Russians and position Ukraine as a neutral territory, with no NATO or full EU membership.
A point often missed is that Putin has repeatedly stated that Russia and the world need a strong US transactional based capital economy, particularly given Russia operates on the same basis.
However, what was most unpalatable to Biden was Putin’s offer of partnership. Such a move would mean Putin openly developing the former Soviet satellite states Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan according to his own wishes.
Within this geopolitical scenario, the new look Eurasia would be one of transactional capital economies, epitomising the US economic and social model, but with Russian hegemony over the region.
This is clearly unacceptable according to the Brzezinski doctrine, which dictates there can be no regional hegemony, even with an ally.
Despite an overwhelming pro-American sentiment running through the veins of the Kremlin and Russian elite, and despite Putin’s reluctance to enter into a war with the US and NATO, dire conflict was inevitable.
With Brzezinski embedded into the mindset of Washington, there can only ever be one force controlling Eurasia that guarantees global geopolitical dominance – the US.
Capital shapes all
The question arises – ‘why is war the inevitable outcome of a fixation over control of land, no matter who is able to share in its immense riches?’
What about capital – the ultimate counter-geostrategic force?
In the 1980’s Brzezinski failed to fully appreciate the oncoming dominance of capital in world affairs.
At a global level, enabled by the advances in technology, whichever nation comes to shape the nature and ownership of the future global reserve currency will determine the future one-world government.
The emergence of a one-world currency and government is not mere speculation, but a wholeheartedly pursued strategy by the world’s two competing superpowers – the US and its allies, with their transactional capital framework, versus China, pressing forward with its socialised capital philosophy.
Unlike the blockchain impact of centralising capital at the national level, where citizen engagement is largely immaterial, at the geostrategic level the ‘buy in’ from nations over which form of one-world currency will predominate is of tantamount importance.
The choice is either full engagement with the US, or China.
At this point, the US is faltering. The September 2023 G20 meeting voted against the Ukraine-Russia War, but would not go so far as condemning Russia. This was a slap in the face for the US.
The 45th plenary meeting, emergency session of the UN General Assembly on 12th December, 2023, was far more damning. Despite a vote against Israel’s war with Hamas, the 155 majority nations equally condemned the US.
An impossible climb down
Putin has secured the Eastern Ukraine, despite extensive Russian losses. The prospect of him advancing further into the West is negligible.
The effort involved in taking Avdiivka from the under-supplied Ukrainians is testament to this. He has no capacity for further extensive military action and a Russian invasion of Poland, Lithuania or the conscription required to defend Sweden are little more than exaggerated media frenzy.
Even the Guardian has affirmed that Russia “does not pose a serious threat.” However, Putin has displayed the capacity to defend gains made. There is no going back to the original Russian-Ukraine border.
Taken to its natural conclusion this means there will be no united Ukraine. Whatever the Russians do, the eastern Ukrainian separatists will continue to fight for their independence. Should eastern Ukraine and Russia ever be seriously threatened, the result would be nuclear war.
US control of Eurasia is now little more than a pipe dream, as is the Fed’s ambition to form and shape the future global currency.
Despite losing on both fronts, Eurasia slipping East and the Fed less likely to shape the future global reserve currency, the prospects of war on both a global and local scale has increased.
For the US, to even privately contemplate peace negotiations with Putin is tantamount to ditching the Brzezinski doctrine, which would represent a flagrant admission that Eurasia is beyond American control.
The Ukraine’s future
For Volodymyr Zelenskyy, President of Ukraine, even raising the idea of peace is tantamount to defeat.
Approximately 10 million Ukrainians emigrated before the borders were closed. Anyone attempting to cross without appropriate authorisation is now likely to be shot. Men, especially those applying for identity documents, face the prospect of being forced into military service.
Individuals with anything other than a physical disability are shanghaied into the military and, without an identity card, people cannot access bank accounts or arrange for medical treatment.
Ordinary citizens are often caught between their own government, the Russians, the US’s inability to face reality, and unthinking provision of military aid by European Atlanticists and NATO. Sadly, many innocents will continue to perish with no benefit whatsoever to the Ukraine.
A switch in geostrategy
The tragedy of all this is there was never any need to engineer conflict with Russia.
The real necessity was to ensure that Anglo-American transactional capital would be geo-politically dominant.
To realise this end, the alternative geostrategy is to own and control the very nature of money which shapes the very nature of the land.
Instead of sensitive engagement with the rest of the world allowing the Fed control of global finance, the US and its allies are militarily losing by adopting a 19th century land-grab mindset in the 21st century.
The two nations wanting avoid war the most are China and Russia. In essence, they have already won. Russia, as much through finding ways to overcome sanctions, is growing a prosperous economy.
Joe Biden, German Chancellor Olaf Schultz’s, and UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s imposition of further sanctions on Russia as a result of Alexi Navalny’s death, are likely only to further establish Putin as the ‘saviour’ of his nation.
Putin’s success for a further term as President, with 85% of the vote from a 77% turnout, is testament to this. Despite its ‘sham’ nature, the high voter turnout positioned Putin as the only viable guardian of the Russian state. The young desire democracy but want a ‘protected’ Russia even more.
China remains on the side-lines, exercising increasing economic dominance while winning the world over without firing a single shot.
In a desperate need to save face and preserve the transactional economic model, the US and the European Atlanticist will likely continue to engineer conflict on a global scale.
One sign that further war is on the horizon is the increasing talk of conflict and nuclear confrontation in Western press and media. French President Macron’s comment of a Russian win, will have Europe no longer secure. He tempered that with ‘Russia must not win as Europe’s credibility is at stake.’
Under a catch-all approach of ‘Putin is our enemy’ a scenario of first-strike by the West is steadily being built.
A timely change of direction
There is an alternative to the awful situation the Ukraine and wider world is currently experiencing.
Besides technology innovation and military domination, the world is exposed to US values and philosophy daily. Cultural hegemony comes courtesy of Hollywood movies and TV programmes, McDonalds, jeans as a clothing for all, Google and other social platforms. The reach of American corporations and even protocols on drafting academic theses are swamping our societies.
Whatever the personal demerits of former US President Donald Trump, should he regain office in the November US elections and pursue his ‘wealth geostrategy,’ the US and world will likely prosper.
Transactional capital would shape the nature, identity and configuration of future nation states, removing the need for military dominance. A first step would be the sensitive acknowledgement of Russia’s new borders and the repositioning of NATO as a defence force.
With the Fed working at full power to pull the global levers that direct and shape capital, the irony of all times will be that Putin, with the Russian state secured, will become the US' greatest ambassador and as subservient as Gorbachev and Yeltsin were.
The end result would be that US-Anglo debt becomes manageable. An unpopular theory in many circles – yes, and at this moment hard to believe – certainly. And yet even with one year of Trump as President, the seeds for global peace are likely to become starkly evident and the tilt towards global conflict will be reversed.