Plan Medvedev: imitation of atlantism
In 2012, Vladimir Putin again became the President of the Russian Federation. This was accompanied by a number of internal and external events that have a direct bearing on geopolitics. Putin’s return dramatically changed Russia’s geopolitical course, which began to tilt toward Atlanticism during Dmitry Medvedev’s presidential term.
During the presidency of Dmitry Medvedev after the patriotic and Eurasian episode of the August 2008 war with Georgia, the liberation of South Ossetia and Abkhazia from the influence of Saakashvili’s atlantist regime and recognition of their independence, Russia began to gradually change its geopolitical vector. In domestic policy, Medvedev went on rapprochement with liberal groups in power, traditionally, since the 90s, adhering to pro-American orientation. It is significant that the convinced Atlantist Igor Yurgens becomes Medvedev’s adviser, and the Institute of Contemporary Development (INSOR) headed by him becomes the dominant think tank of power. The recommendations and projects emerging from this organization are strongly opposed to Putin’s policy of strengthening Russia’s sovereignty and realism. This turn of the Russian government towards globalization was called “reset”, which was accompanied by a number of symbolic Russian-American actions, during which the Russian authorities declared their loyalty to the globalist principles.
So, the Yaroslavl forum was created, at which the Russian elite closely interacted with globalist experts and politicians of the West. To strengthen liberalism in Russia, the state provided priority support to liberal educational institutions, such as the Higher School of Economics, which conducts an openly anti-sovereign ideology, quite in tune with INSOR projects. To strengthen liberalism in education and science, the Skolkovo center was specially established, conceived as an avant-garde center for the modernization and Westernization of Russian society.
In 2011, Medvedev supports the introduction of a no-fly zone over Libya, which is virtually equivalent to the imposition of the death sentence on its legitimate leader Muammar Gaddafi (1942-2011), who was brutally murdered by Western-backed fundamentalist terrorists. Thus, the passivity of Russia made her an accomplice in the collapse of Libya and the death of Gaddafi. This caused a restrained criticism of Prime Minister Putin, and Medvedev himself at the next stage criticized the West, which, he said, exceeded its authority in Libya, actively assisting the overthrow of Gaddafi. For its part, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton promised “to bomb Libya into the Stone Age,” which, in fact, the Americans and their allies did, in part, directly, partly through the hands of their proxy terrorists of radical Islamic groups.
It is significant that Medvedev was the only President of Russia who visited the headquarters of the CFR, the center of globalization in 2008. Later in Moscow, he hosted in the Kremlin, with the participation of Igor Yurgens, one of the main ideologists of Atlantism, Zbigniew Brzezinski (1928 – 2017), who supported his course and promised to reduce the Atlantic pressure on Russia if Medvedev goes to the second presidential term with his team of liberal reformers and Subsequently, he will replace Putin, who embodies the Eurasian vector, realism and sovereignty for the West, from all posts.
Probably the “Medvedev plan” was necessary for Putin in order to preserve the legitimacy of the transfer of power and at a critical period between the second and third terms to appease Americans and atlantists by instilling in them the hope that their plans for de-sovereignization of Russia could be carried out in a soft way – in The repetition in the face of the liberal Westernizer Medvedev scenario Gorbachev with the prospect of the collapse of Russia.
Putin’s third term: a return to the Empire and the geopolitics of Bolotnaya Square
If the “Medvedev plan” was exactly this, then he certainly succeeded with minimal losses. The liberals, representing the fifth column of Atlanticism within Russia, and the West itself believed in this trick and were preparing again, as in the 1990s, to seize the full power in order to continue dismantling Russian statehood. Therefore, Putin’s return to power was a blow to them: all the plans for an evolutionary scenario of a return to liberalism and a “reset” were swept away, and this was expressed in mass protests by the liberal public at Bolotnaya Square in 2011 (after the announcement of the election results to the Duma, The United Russia party won a majority), and after Putin’s victory in the presidential election in the first round on March 4, 2012.
The entire fifth column was aimed at the second term of Medvedev, and by this her activity was partly euthanized, as well as the attention of American Atlanticist and globalist centers. Putin’s return again made the situation acute, and in a series of his pre-election articles, Putin clearly defined the orientation toward multipolarity, Eurasianism, conservatism, traditional values, strengthening of sovereignty and a policy of realism. Putin’s return completed the “Medvedev plan,” and all the attributes of the Medvedev era were abolished: Vladislav Surkov, who previously headed the internal policy in the presidential administration, was sent to resign, Igor Yurgens and his INSOR lost their positions, the Yaroslavl forum was abolished, scandals broke out around the center Skolkovo, a group of influential liberal Kremlin political strategists (such as Gleb Pavlovsky or Marat Gelman) who openly side with Medvedev’s second term and who attacked Putin were excommunicated t power. At the same time, with the support of the Presidential Administration, patriotic organizations were created, including the Izborsk Club headed by the patriotic Eurasian writer Alexander Prokhanov.
All this caused protest actions by the opposition on Bolotnaya Square, while Putin’s supporters and sovereignty responded with equally mass rallies on Poklonnaya Hill. This division strictly corresponded to geopolitical lines:
• The Swamp area was a pole of Atlanticism and globalism in Russia itself, supervised by the West (in particular, the leaders of the protest movement were regulars of the American Embassy in Moscow, where they received material, information and political support)
• The Poklonnaya Hill symbolized the Eurasian pole of Putin’s supporters, sovereignty and a multipolar world.
Politically, the weight of Eurasians in the society turned out to be more significant than the liberal fifth column, whose influence went down. This situation persisted throughout the third term of Putin, when the Eurasian tendencies of Russian geopolitics became even more obvious. At the same time, the pressure of the Atlanticist West on the part of the United States and Western Europe grew. “Medvedev’s plan,” aimed at the temporary withdrawal of acute confrontation, in general, worked.
The last compromise left by Putin after returning to the Kremlin was the transfer of the post of Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev and the preservation of the liberal lobby in the economic block of the Government.
Independence and Atlanticism
Realizing that Putin’s return again leads the confrontation between Eurasianism and Atlanticism to a new level, the West began to look for a symmetrical response to the successfully executed “Medvedev’s plan.” Since the protest potential of the fifth column in Russia itself did not work, the Atlantist centers developed alternative scenarios. One of them was the destabilization of the political situation in Ukraine, which resulted in unrest on Maidan, during which the Atlantist coalition of liberals and neo-Nazis overthrew the legally elected President of Ukraine Viktor Yanukovich and committed a coup d’etat in the spring of 2014. Since this coup was conceived and carried out by the Atlantists, the countries of the West supported it and provided all necessary assistance to the coalition of liberals and neo-Nazis. The decisive and crucial moment of the confrontation on the Maidan was the shooting of snipers through the crowd, during which the first victims appeared and direct violence and assault began.
President Yanukovych, a weak-willed and hesitant opportunist, trying to balance to the last between the West and Russia, between Atlanticism and Eurasianism, was forced to flee to Russia. The putschists seized power proclaimed racist anti-Russian slogans and the beginning of ethnic cleansing.
Ukraine geopolitically consists of two people. South and East of Ukraine considers itself to be part of the Russian World, adheres to the Eurasian identity, considers part of its history the Russian Empire, the annexed lands of Novorossia, conquered from Turkey, and the USSR. Western territories (primarily Volyn, Galicia, Ivano-Frankivsk region, etc.) consider themselves part of the Eastern European, Polish-Austrian cultural space, while the Great Russians and the USSR are rejected as “occupiers”. Central Ukraine is populated by those who have a mixed identity.
Ukraine, established in 1991 after the collapse of the USSR, united both these people in the same state. The government’s task was to turn this accidental formation into something more stable and lasting, but for this it was necessary to take into account both identities. They vividly manifested themselves in electoral geopolitics, when the South and the East voted for candidates from the Donbass, and the West and Kiev for the Westerners. In such a situation, in order to create a state, it was necessary to offer an ideology that satisfied both parts of the population, both peoples whose world view was sometimes polar opposite (the assessment of the Russian Empire, the USSR, Stalin, Hitler, etc.). In the West of Ukraine there was a special Ukrainian nationalism, in extreme forms – neo-Nazism with a pronounced Russophobic component. In the East, a mentality prevailed, no different from the Russians’ self-awareness.
When the westerners won the Independence and open neo-Nazi Russophobes came to power, the threat of direct genocide loomed over the South and East of Ukraine. This was what the Atlantists expected: the task was to provoke Ukrainians into a civil war (according to the scenario of Iraq or Libya) and draw Russia into it to weaken the positions of Eurasianism.
Exactly it happened. In response to the punitive raids of neo-Nazi groups openly supported by the leadership of the clique that came to power, the population of the South and East of Ukraine began to mobilize, forming self-defense units and preparing to repel the liberal-nationalist dictatorship.
Reunion with the Crimea and the geopolitics of the Russian Spring
At the political level, the response of the South and East of Ukraine in the face of liberal atlantist neo-Nazism resulted in a series of referendums on autonomy and independence that took place in the Crimea, Donetsk, Lugansk, Kharkov, etc. In other cities of Novorossia – for example, in Odessa – protests against the junta resulted in mass demonstrations. The main idea of this half of Ukraine was as follows: only political autonomy can guarantee life and order in these areas in conditions of the seizure of power in the country by a liberal-neo-Nazi group.
The fate of the protest against the coup in different areas has developed in different ways. The referendum in Crimea about its independence and accession to Russia was followed by Moscow’s recognition, and the reunification of Crimea with Russia took place (which, naturally, neither Kiev nor the West recognized). The Declaration of Independence of the Lugansk and Donetsk Republics led to an armed conflict in which neo-Nazi atlantist punitive occupiers occupied part of the territories of these newly formed Republics, exposing the population under their rule to terror, violence and planned genocide. In Odessa, neo-Nazis have burnt alive dozens of people in the House of Trade Unions, and those who jumped out of windows, finished with sticks and cut them in front of everyone. Thus, the terror promised by the neo-Nazis and the “return of Bandera” (the accomplice of the German Nazis and the bloody punisher of the Great Patriotic War) became reality, confirming the solidity of fears of those residents of the South and East of Ukraine who, in order to avoid such a denouement, proclaimed independence and turned to Russia On entering into its composition. The population of the Crimea saved this, and the residents of Lugansk and Donetsk regions received from Russia primarily political and humanitarian support, defending their right to life, freedom and dignity with weapons in their hands.
It is important that the events of 2014 -2017 in Ukraine meant not an ethnic, but a geopolitical conflict: on the one hand there were Eurasians (Crimea, Donbass, Novorossia and Kharkiv region), on the other – Atlantists (represented by the alliance of liberals and neo-Nazis, Russia and oriented to the West).
Putin, after reuniting with the Crimea, brought upon himself a flurry of hatred from those who stood behind Maidan. This was the response of the atlantists to his return and to the failure of expectations associated with Medvedev’s second term and the gradual dismantling of Russia. Reunification with the Crimea allowed Russia to maintain its base in Sevastopol and strengthen its position in the Black Sea. The West imposed sanctions against Russia, Putin and, in particular, against his closest associates. It is symbolic that sanctions were imposed against the leaders of the “International Eurasian Movement”.
At the same time, Putin stopped the formation of independent political entities in Eastern Ukraine and did not take into consideration the requests of the Donetsk and Lugansk Republics to join Russia. Thus, the Eurasian line in the geopolitics of the Russian Spring, as the awakening of the political self-consciousness of the South and East of the former Ukraine, the power in which the Atlantist coalition of liberals and neo-Nazis seized, was realized halfway: the Crimea joined with Russia, strengthening the Eurasian space, Donetsk and Lugansk became self-governing regions , With arms in hand defending their independence from the Atlantist dictatorship, and the uprising in other parts of Novorossia was forcefully crushed by Kiev and punitive groups Neo-Nazis (Right Sector, Azov, Dnepr), etc. Kiev announced in the East of Ukraine the regime of the “Anti-Terrorist Operation” (ATO), reproducing punitive practices of genocide and ethnic cleansing of Bandera and the Nazi occupation. The objects of aggression were all those who questioned extremist slogans and neo-Nazi political formulas.
Nevertheless, during the civil war in Ukraine between Eurasians and atlantists, Russia found itself in isolation from the West and subjected to harsh political, economic, diplomatic and media pressure. Figures of President Putin, his closest associates and Eurasian intellectuals have undergone a real demonization on a global scale.
However, the external pressure of the atlantists and, in particular, the sanctions, only rallied the Russians around the President, and the influence of the fifth column (the liberal opposition) against the background of the growth of patriotic feelings was significantly reduced.
However, the most consistent supporters of the Russian Spring and Eurasian continental geopolitics, in turn, were disappointed by the half-heartedness achieved by Putin: the West’s reaction was extremely tough, and Russia reached only half of the goals that are logical from the geopolitical situation – a significant part of Novorossia still remains under the rule of a neo-Nazi dictatorship Kiev, large territories of the Lugansk and Donetsk Republics are alienated by the punitive forces, and the question of their joining to Russia is frozen. This caused criticism of Putin by radical patriots who reproach him (unlike the liberals) not for joining the Crimea and supporting the newly formed Republics, but for stopping the process of liberating Novorossia and initiating the process of the Minsk negotiations, which are certainly not capable of leading to the desired result.
The Syrian front and the Russian-Shiite alliance
Parallel to the Atlantist coup on the Maidan and the establishment of a pro-Western liberal and simultaneously neo-Nazi dictatorship in Syria, the offensive of the forces of a terrorist organization banned in Russia, the Islamic State, began, which was the beginning of the civil war. In 2015, at the invitation of the legitimate Syrian President Bashar Assad, Russian troops enter the territory of Syria, where the Russian military base was previously located, and take part in the confrontation with the gangs of radical Islam. Behind the Islamists are Wahhabi regime of Saudi Arabia and Qatar, which, in turn, from the geopolitical point of view, are proxy Atlanticism in the Middle East.Although the United States formally criticizing the Islamic State, equating it to terrorist groups, but at the same time use the Islamists to solve their geopolitical goals in the Middle East, as it did in Iraq and Libya.
Therefore, the struggle in Syria between Russia and gang-formations of the radical Islamists is another front of the great war between the continents atlantists and Eurasians.
It is significant that in this case, Syria’s main allies in Russia are the Shiites, as the armed forces of Iran and Shiite military forces in Iraq, as well as units of the Lebanese Shiite Hezbollah. Shia in the Islamic world is the most consistently Eurasian direction, so Russian-Shia alliance is not tactical union based on pragmatic purposes but deep geopolitical Eurasian axis.
It is obvious that the West, formally calling for a fight against LIH, in fact in every way prevents this by insisting on shifting Assad and discredit the actions of Russia and its Shiite allies.
Turkey and Gülen coup
During the Syrian civil war takes place a few bends geopolitically important in Russian-Turkish relations. In the first stage, Erdogan supported the Islamists, taking a tough anti-Assad stance. At the same time the Turks seek to prevent the creation of the northern Syrian Kurdish political education, as the Kurds in Turkey are the most serious threat of separatism.
In the next step, noting that this policy does not give proper results, Erdogan is trying to get close to Russia. But at this point in the autumn of 2015 Atlanticist group in Turkey, associated with both near military structures, deeply integrated into NATO, and with the religious sect of Fethullah Gulen, make provocation and gave the order to shoot down a Russian plane. This leads to the rupture of relations between Russia and Turkey, which puts the two countries to the brink of war. As Atlantists managed to start a civil war in Ukraine, as they sought to unleash a full-fledged military conflict between Russia and Turkey.
At the end of 2015 and beginning of 2016 representatives of the military and Turkey’s political circles realize that this situation is detrimental to Turkey and started looking for contacts with Russia in the context of the Eurasian community interests. At the same time for Erdogan it became clear that the main threat comes from the West, that its policies lead to the collapse of Turkey and its overthrow. In the summer of 2016 Erdogan apologizes Putin for downed aircraft and the situation between the two countries is discharged. At the same time, Erdogan directly addresses the Eurasian strategy. In response to this Atlanticist forces in Turkey on the night of 15 July 16, attempted to carry out a coup d’etat in Turkey, moving them to the streets of loyal troops and bombed the Turkish Parliament in Ankara. Coup can be suppressed, and the Atlanticist line in Turkey, as well as participation in the coup of the CIA become apparent. As well as the need for further rapprochement with Moscow.
So planned Eurasian alliance between Moscow and Ankara.
The phenomenon of Trump
The most important geopolitical factor is the election of the President of the United States, Donald Trump. In his election campaign Trump falls on globalism and proclaims the radical new US policy of realism in international relations and, in fact, to refuse Atlanticist strategy. It was a completely new turn in American geopolitics, which until this century, beginning with Woodrow Wilson, was developed strictly on the Atlanticist scenario. At Trump flurry of hatred and from the CFR, and by the neo-cons, because its program is actually supposed multipolarity and the United States focus on domestic issues, the rejection of interventionism and isolationism specific characteristic of the early stages of American history.
Despite the fierce resistance of the Obama administration, globalist circles and the American and world media Trump managed to become the 45th US President. So American voters, in fact, condemned US imperialism and supported the refusal to continue Atlanticist policy. However, after coming to power, Trump began to pursue a policy that is different from the one that he proclaimed during the election campaign. So he struck the airbase Shayrat in Syria, believing disinformation about the alleged use of chemical weapons the troops of Bashar al-Assad. This unfriendly towards Russia and inconsistent in terms of the promise of non-Atlanticism gesture testified that Trump is not as consistent in the performance of their promises, and that, being in the White House, he came under strong pressure from the classic Atlanticist , retained and their positions, and their influence in his administration.
However, even these excesses can not completely nullify the fact that Americans voted for Trump offers to change the vector of American foreign policy radically. In any case, atlantist US leadership has been a split, and Trump, though already demonstrated inconsistency in its decisions and actions, hardly strengthen the Atlanticist component in American leadership.
Geopolitical history remains open. The Great War continues continents.