LUC
MICHEL’S GEOPOLITICAL DAILY
L'identité eurasienne de la Russie (I)
Luc Michel
Jeudi 14 juin 2018 # RESUME FRANÇAIS :
GEOIDEOLOGIE -
L'IDENTITE EURASIENNE DE LA RUSSIE (I).
LE MINISTRE RUSSE
LAVROV A DIT A LA CONFERENCE SUR LA
SECURITE DE MUNICH "COMME LE TROISIEME
REICH, LES ETATS-UNIS ESSAYENT DE
REJETER LA RUSSIE HORS DE L'EUROPE"
L’actualité
brûlante ne m’a pas encore permis de
traiter la Conférence sur la sécurité de
Munich. Si prolixe sur la Russie en ces
jours de russophobie paranoïaque, les
médias occidentaux n’ont guère parlé du
grand discours du ministre russe Lavrov,
exposant les fondements géoidéologiques
de la Politique étrangère russe. Un
discours dérangeant, parce qu’il dresse
un parallèle historique et idéologique
entre la politique internationale du
IIIe Reich et celle, actuelle, des USA
(1) …
Le 17 février, le
ministre russe des Affaires étrangères
Sergueï Lavrov a prononcé ce discours
lors de la conférence annuelle de Munich
sur la sécurité, résumant tous les
principaux piliers de la politique
étrangère de la Russie. Sans surprise,
Lavrov a choisi d'ouvrir avec un de ses
leitmotive préféré: «End Of History» de
Francis Fukuyama a été renversé.
Le livre de
Fukuyama "La fin de l'histoire et le
dernier homme", publié en 1992, postule
que, avec la fin de la guerre froide, la
démocratie libérale occidentale a
survécu en tant que forme finale du
gouvernement humain (2). Cependant, au
cours des dernières années, Lavrov a
promu la contre-thèse que la fin de
l'histoire de Fukuyama n'a pas réussi à
concrétiser. Lavrov a également souligné
cette affirmation lors de la précédente
conférence de Munich sur la sécurité en
2017. À cette occasion, Lavrov a affirmé
que «l'ordre de l'après-guerre froide»,
c'est-à-dire le libéralisme, «a pris
fin». Rejetant les allégations selon
lesquelles la Russie tente de saper le
soi-disant «ordre mondial libéral», il a
néanmoins souligné que la Russie rejette
«l'ordre mondial libéral», qu'il a
défini comme un modèle qui a dégénéré en
un simple instrument de la croissance
d'un club d'élite de pays et sa
domination sur tout le monde. " Dans son
discours de Munich 2017, Lavrov a
imploré les dirigeants «d'un sens des
responsabilités» de choisir «un ordre
mondial post-occidental» dans lequel
chaque pays développe sa propre
«souveraineté» dans le cadre du droit
international, dans le respect de
l'identité de chaque pays.p>
Cette année, Lavrov
était beaucoup moins conciliant dans son
analyse, car il établissait un parallèle
entre les politiques du Troisième Reich
et l'ordre mondial occidental. Lavrov a
mentionné que lors des Procès de
Nuremberg, les dirigeants du Troisième
Reich ont justifié le Pacte de Munich
(1938) en affirmant que «l'objectif est
d'expulser la Russie de l'Europe.» Selon
Lavrov, «l'Occident dirigé par les
Etats-Unis répète aujourd'hui les mêmes
politiques du Troisième Reich, en
essayant d'isoler la Russie."
Lavrov est ensuite
passé à un autre de ses leitmotifs
préférés: "La Russie n'est pas
l'outsider politique de l'Europe, mais
elle fait partie intégrante du contexte
européen." Ce que je dit depuis 1983 !
(3) Ce concept a été longuement abordé
dans son traité "Russia's Foreign
Policy: Historical Background" le 3 mars
2016. Dans lequel Lavrov, insistant sur
"l'identité eurasienne de la Russie", a
expliqué que "la Russie a joué un rôle
important dans l'histoire européenne et
les politiques européennes
contemporaines." Dans son discours à
Munich, Lavrov a appelé l'UE "Arrêter
d'essayer de nager à contre-courant de
l'histoire" et de renouveler le système
des relations internationales sur une
base "équitable". Il a conclu en
demandant à l'UE de "se joindre aux
travaux de l'Union économique
eurasienne".
# LUC MICHEL’S
GEOPOLITICAL DAILY/
GEOIDEOLOGY - RUSSIA'S EURASIAN IDENTITY
(I): RUSSIAN FM LAVROV SAID MUNICH
SECURITY CONFERENCE ‘LIKE THE THIRD
REICH, THE U.S. TRIES TO PUSH RUSSIA OUT
OF EUROPE’
LUC MICHEL (ЛЮК
МИШЕЛЬ) & EODE/
Luc MICHEL pour
EODE/
Quotidien
géopolitique – Geopolitical Daily/
2018 03 19/
The hot news has not yet allowed me to
deal with the Munich Security
Conference. So far-fetched on Russia in
these days of paranoid Russophobia, the
Western media hardly spoke of the great
speech of Russian Minister Lavrov,
exposing the geo-ideological foundations
of Russian foreign policy. A disturbing
speech, because it draws a historical
and ideological parallel between the
international politics of the Third
Reich and the present one of the USA (1)
...
On February 17, Russian Foreign Minister
Sergey Lavrov delivered this speech at
the annual Munich Security Conference,
summarizing all the main pillars of
Russia's foreign policy. Unsurprisingly,
Lavrov chose to open with one of his
favorite leitmotifs: Francis Fukuyama's
'End Of History' has been overturned.
Fukuyama's book "The End of History and
the Last Man," published in 1992,
postulated that, with the end of the
Cold War, Western liberal democracy has
survived as the final form of human
government (2). However, in recent
years, Lavrov has been promoting the
counter thesis that Fukuyama's End of
History has failed to materialize.
Lavrov stressed this contention at the
previous Munich Security Conference of
2017 as well. On that occasion, Lavrov
claimed that "the post-Cold War order,"
i.e. liberalism, "has come to an end."
Rebutting allegations that Russia is
attempting to undermine the so-called
"liberal world order," he nevertheless
stressed that Russia rejects the
'liberal world order,' which he defined
as a model that had degenerated into
merely serving as "an instrument for
ensuring the growth of an elite club of
countries and its domination over
everyone else." In his 2017Munich
address, Lavrov implored leaders with "a
sense of responsibility" to choose "a
post-Western world order," in which each
country develops its own "sovereignty"
within the framework of international
law, with respect for each country's
identity.
This year, Lavrov was far less
conciliatory in his analysis, as he drew
a parallel between the Third Reich's
policies and the Western world order.
Lavrov mentioned that during the
Nuremberg Trials, the leaders of the
Third Reich justified the Munich Pact
(1938) by claiming “that is aimed to
eject Russia from Europe.” According to
Lavrov, “the West, led by the U.S., is
today repeating the same Third Reich
policies, by trying to isolate Russia.”
Lavrov then drew more parallels with the
Third Reich. He said that the tragedy of
the Munich Agreement highlighted the
main pressure points of that period,
including "belief in one's
exceptionalism", a clear reference to
the American concept of exceptionalism,
"mutual suspicion", a reference to
Western "Russophobia", "reliance on
sanitary cordons and buffer zones", a
reference to NATO's expansion eastward,
as well as "open interference in the
internal affairs of other countries", a
reference to what Moscow's sees as U.S.
meddling in Russia's internal affairs in
the country and in former Soviet
Republics like Ukraine. "This memory is
especially alarming when superimposed on
modern realities," said Lavrov.
Lavrov then moved to another of his
favorite leitmotifs: “Russia is not
Europe's political outsider, but it is
an integral part of the European
context.” What I say since 1983! (3)
This concept was tackled at length in
his treatise "Russia's Foreign Policy:
Historical Background," (published on
March 3, 2016), in which Lavrov, harping
on “Russia's Eurasian identity”,
explained that “Russia has played an
important role in shaping both European
history and contemporary European
policies.” In his speech in Munich,
Lavrov appealed to the EU "to stop
trying to swim against the tide of
history" and to renew the system of
international relations on an
"equitable" basis. He concluded with a
call for the EU “to join the work of the
Eurasian Economic Union.”
# DOCUMENT:
LAVROV'S SPEECH IN MUNICH.
“THE 'END OF HISTORY' THESIS HAS BEEN
OVERTURNED”
Russian FM Sergey Lavrov at the Munich
Security Conference (Source: Mid.ru) :
"Now that international relations have
entered a period of radical change,
which has overturned the thesis about
'the end of history,' we should remember
what happened in the relatively recent
past. As Russian historian Vasily
Klyuchevsky said, 'History (…) punishes
us for not learning its lessons. Eighty
years ago, in 1938, an agreement on the
division of Czechoslovakia was signed in
Munich, which led to the Second World
War. During the Nuremberg Trials after
the war, the leaders of the Third Reich
tried to justify the Munich Pact by
saying that its aim was to push Russia
out of Europe. For example, this is what
Field Marshal Wilhelm Keitel said.
The tragedy of the Munich Agreement
highlighted the main pressure points of
that period, including belief in one's exceptionalism, disunity and mutual
suspicion, reliance on sanitary cordons
and buffer zones, as well as open
interference in the internal affairs of
other countries. This memory is
especially alarming when superimposed on
modern realities, the underhanded
attempts to distort the truth about
World War II and the events preceding
it, as well as the rehabilitation of
Nazis and their accomplices. Some EU
countries have laws equating Nazis and
their accomplices with those who
liberated Europe and allow the
demolition of monuments to those who
defeated Nazism.”
“The experience of WWII and the
subsequent polarization of Europe during
the age of bipolar confrontation should
have shown European nations that there
is no alternative to building a common
European home where people will not be
divided into 'us' and 'them.' The very
integration project of the European
Union is rooted in a desire of the
founding fathers to prevent the revival
of the logic of confrontation, which was
the reason behind many disasters on the
continent.
For many years after the fall of the
Berlin Wall and the reunification of
Germany, in which Russia played a
crucial role, we did our best to build a
system of equal and indivisible security
in the Euro-Atlantic region. We
dramatically decreased our military
capability on our western borders. We
advocated the strengthening of common
European institutions, primarily the
OSCE, and the coordination of an
international framework of treaties on
European security.
Regrettably, our calls for an equal
dialogue and for realizing the principle
of indivisible security fell on deaf
ears.”
"Contrary to the promises made to us in
the 1990s, as documents from the U.S.
National Archives have recently
confirmed again, NATO continues its
eastward expansion. NATO troops and
military infrastructure are accumulating
on our borders. The European theatre of
war is being systematically developed.
The implementation of U.S. missile
defense plans in Europe is undermining
strategic stability. Purposeful
propaganda campaigns are underway to
engender hostility against Russia among
the European public. It has nearly
become politically correct in the
establishment of many countries to say
either bad things or nothing about
Russia.
When people in the West speak about
Russia's growing influence, they mostly
do so in a negative way. The authors of
a report for this conference encountered
this as well. I would like to remind you
that when Russia was weakened and facing
historical trials, our partners said
that they wanted Russia to be strong and
that any actions by Russia's neighbors
outside the region and other countries
are not directed against our interests.
We have been given promises regarding
the EU Eastern Partnership project [a
joint initiative involving the EU, its
Member States and six Eastern European
Partners: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus,
Georgia, the Republic of Moldova and
Ukraine]. We hope they will be fulfilled
and that Brussels will cut short any
attempts to transform this project into
a Russophobic narrative. Looking at the
situation in Europe from the perspective
of a zero-sum game can have extremely
dangerous consequences.”
"One such consequence is the internal
conflict raging in Ukraine, which was
forced to choose between the West and
Russia during the preparation of the
Association Agreement. It is highly
regrettable that the EU, which
subsequently agreed to act as guarantor
for the February 21, 2014 agreement
between the Ukrainian Government and the
opposition, proved unable to ensure its
implementation and actually supported
the anti-constitutional coup. And now
Ukraine, a country with huge potential
and talented people, has been reduced to
a situation where it cannot govern
itself. Russia has a greater interest in
the settlement of the internal Ukrainian
crisis than anyone else. We have the
legal framework for this – the Minsk
Package of Measures, which was drafted
by Russia, Germany, Ukraine and France
with Donetsk and Lugansk and approved by
the UN Security Council. This agreement
must be implemented strictly and in
full. However, Kiev is openly sabotaging
this in the Contact Group and within the
framework of the Normandy format.
Moreover, Kiev officials are talking
about a military scenario. I am sure
that the EU is aware of the dangers of
this U-turn.
Regrettably, fresh attempts are being
made to force the countries that border
Russia and the EU, be they in the CIS or
the Balkans, to choose between the West
and the East. The German newspaper Die
Welt has recently published an item
titled 'The EU or Putin: Who Gets the
Western Balkans?'
[EU oder Putin – wer
bekommt den Westbalkan].
And this is far from
the only example of public
indoctrination in keeping with the 'us
or them' philosophy.”
"The renunciation of collective
Russia-EU cooperation mechanisms, such
as summit meetings, the Permanent
Partnership Council and industry
dialogues, and reliance on pressure has
not made Europe a safer place. On the
contrary, the conflict potential has
grown visibly, and the number of
problems and crises is growing in Europe
and around it.
The developments in the Middle East and
North Africa have shown that the policy
of replacing undesirable governments
across the ocean and forcing alien
development models on other countries
not only creates chaos in vast areas but
boomerangs with very real problems
imported to Europe, primarily a spike in
international terrorism, tidal waves of
illegal migration and all other related
problems.
All this must be taken into account to
understand the genesis of the current
relations between Russia and the
European Union. The Russian authorities
invested hard work and political capital
in developing mutually beneficial
relations between Russia and the EU. But
the goal of a truly strategic
partnership and a reliable and stable
system of relations, which would enhance
the joint competitiveness of Russia and
the EU, has not been attained. But for
this we are not to blame.”
"I believe that the EU has been unable
to find the golden mean in relations
with Russia over the past decades. In
the 1990s, Russia was seen as a disciple
who must be tutored in the Western ways
consistently and contrary to its
protests. The predominant myth now is
the alleged 'omnipotent Russian threat,'
the traces of which they are trying to
find everywhere from Brexit to the
Catalan referendum. Both stereotypes are
profoundly mistaken and point to the
lack of common sense and understanding
of Russia. We note that an increasing
number of people in the EU feel
uncomfortable about the abnormal
situation in our relations. Respected
experts openly admit that diplomatic
paralysis is the price they have to pay
for demonstrations of illusory EU unity.
Russia has not changed its policy
approaches to cooperation with the EU.
We would like to see the EU united on
the basis of respect for the fundamental
interests of its member states. They
must be free to determine how to develop
their economies and foreign economic
relations, for example, whether to meet
their energy needs based on pragmatic,
commercial approaches or under the
influence of political and ideological
considerations.”
"We proceed from the assumption that the
EU can play an active, responsible and,
let me stress it, independent role in
international affairs. I have taken note
of [Chairman of the Munich Security
Conference] Ambassador Wolfgang
Ischinger's interview with the Bild
newspaper, in which the respected
Chairman of the Munich Security
Conference speaks about the need for the
EU's higher foreign policy profile. We
welcome his idea of cooperation between
Russia, the EU, the U.S. and China in
creating a security architecture for the
Middle East. A similar approach could be
applied to the Persian Gulf.
It is in Russia's interests to have a
strong and predictable European Union
for a neighbor, an EU that would be able
to act as a responsible member of
international life in the polycentric
world that is becoming reality right
before our very eyes.
It is time to stop trying to swim
against the tide of history and to start
working together to renew the system of
international relations on an equitable
basis and with reliance on the central
coordinating role of the UN, as
stipulated in the UN Charter. Russia is
open to an equal partnership with the EU
based on mutual respect and a balance of
interests in order to find effective
responses to modern-day challenges. We
are also willing to promote our
relations with the United States and all
other countries on these principles.”
"It is important to make good use of the
potential of Russia-EU cooperation so as
to create a common space of peace, equal
and indivisible security and mutually
beneficial cooperation in the area from
the Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean. At
the strategic level, I would like to
draw your attention to the initiative of
President Vladimir Putin on promoting a
greater Eurasian project that would
combine the efforts of all members of
the integration structures within the
CIS, the SCO and ASEAN. I see no reason
why the EU could not join in this work,
for example, by starting with the
establishment of professional contacts
with the EAEU. I hope this day will come
very soon.”
NOTES :
(1) Luc MICHEL,
L’AMERICANISME EST LE NAZISME DU XXIe
SIECLE !, Editorial de juin 2002 de « LA
CAUSE DES PEUPLES » – N° 16,
http://www.pcn-ncp.com/editos/fr/ed-020600.htm
Excerpt: Jean-Edern Hallier, in his
prophetic book LA CAUSEDES PEUPLES (THE
PEOPLES’CAUSE), which directly inspired
the title and our transnational
Solidarity Association LCDP-TPC,
denounced already four decades ago the
close relationship - of projects,
Darwinian methods and philosophy -
between Americanism and Nazism. Before
him the voices of the National-communist
Lauffenberg, the leader of the Republic
of the Councils of Hamburg (since 1920),
the Ernst Jünger of DER ARBEITER (the
Worker) and Jean Thiriart, the theorist
of modern anti-Americanism, had already
been raised against the Americanization
of the world. Let us listen to Hallier's
strong words: "Of course, Americanism is
neither fascism nor National Socialism.
But he is already much more! Because
American imperialism, operating on a
global scale, has invented laws to the
extent of its power. Between his
plutocracy and puritanical fascism, one
should rather speak of plutofascism! ...
when Hitler compared German and American
expansionism, he did not conceal his
admiration for the US "dynamism" and
"new element of power" on the
international scene, which had developed
on the "virgin lands" of the world.
North America, while he had to work in
old Europe. Zionism spoiled everything
between the two powers that had a good
chance of getting along. But Hitler, in
his blind racism, had not yet been able
to discover that Zionism, vanguard of
imperialism, harbored the same germs of
nationalism and fascism, more sharpened,
better adapted to the new demands of
capitalism than the theories. which he
developed on his side. But the US has
been catching up since."
(2) See Luc MICHEL, AMERICAN IMPERIALISM
- THEORIES : THE PEOPLES'ANSWER, 7
Septembre 2012 , Conference to "Youth
Camp for Green, Peace and Alternative
movements" (Germany, July 2001)
on
http://www.pcn-ncp.com/youthcamp2001.htm
Excerpt: The American victory of 1991,
that is overestimated extensively in the
conservative circles that are
surrounding President Bush, will give
place to a new theorizing of Yankee
imperialism. Bush's near counsellors
immediately give it a new definition: it
is the "New World Order" in the name of
which USA had received the mission "to
pacify" the world and to impose
pseudo-values of
"free trade". The main theoreticians of
the American imperialism at the dawn of
the XXIth century is Francis Fukuyama,
Samuel P. Huntington and Zbigniew
Brzezinski.
Francis Fukuyama publishes in 1992 "The
end of history and the last man", where
he develops the famous thesis that he
had given out in 1989 in the magazine
"The National Interest".
What does mean Fukuyama by " end of
history "? Behind philosophers like
Hegel and Kojève, he considers that
history is the result of antagonisms
between the different ideologies and
social organization shapes, that fight
each other for recognition. However,
with the fall of the Wall, the downfall
of Communism and the victory of the
liberal democracy, history, taken in
this sense, abolishes himself. Proof is
made that the destiny of the humanity,
is the modern liberal democracy,
political ideology of the American
imperialism, that, even if it could be
perfected, offers according to Fukuyama
the better as possible world.
In 1997, with "The confidence and the
power", Francis Fukuyama specifies his
thought and underlines that the majority
of the nations move politically toward
the democracy and economically toward
the market economy. In this new book, he
develops an ideological justification of
the superiority of the American social
model and undertakes to demonstrate that
an relationship exists between "social
virtues and economic prosperity", the
first generating the second.
State-providence must have beaten in
retreat. He asserts that there are
countries more capable than others of
developing themself. He opposes the
family societies, as France, Italy or
China, with a weak degree of confidence,
that implies a strong intervention of
the state, and societies of confidence,
automatically more prosperous, as Japan,
Germany and the United States.
But Fukuyama is especially the
ideologist of the long-term American
society project, that he asserts to be
the ultimate future of the humanity. It
is simply the ultimate achievement of
the "manifest destiny". And it is
especially a nightmare vision of a
society where the Politician and the man
as actor of history disappeared, where
the destiny of men and peoples is
replaced by an unified world, grey and
dirty, where the accomplished
consumerism will be the ultimate
horizon. And will triumph then the last
Man, more anxious to assure his
well-being that to affirm his value by
the brilliant works or by wars.
In a resounding interview to the daily
newspaper "Le Monde" (Paris) of June 17,
1999, Fukuyama specifies his vision of
the "last man", that is incontestably
"the end of history": "The open
character of nature contemporary
sciences permits us to calculate that,
from here to the next two generations,
the biotechnology will give us tools
that will permit us to accomplish what
specialists of social engineering didn't
succeed in making. At this stage, we
will definitely end the human history
because we will abolish the human beings
as it is. A new history will begin ,
beyond of the human".
Here is brutally exposed the project of
ultimate society of the American
oligarchy.
In the same interview, he specifies the
continuity of his thesis otherwise on
"the end of history" with his orwellian
project of society: "When I published
"The end of history", in 1992,he said "I
have been harassed by critics, but I
didn't speak of the same history than my
censors. I meant that with the downfall
of the East block, numerous fundamental
questions as regards to the ideology and
institutions that had underlain history
during decades have been adjusted more
or less, in the developed countries.
Today, the true problems are located at
the ground of the social and religious
structures, and of the culture".
The man will become then a "happy dog"
notes Fukuyama: "A dog is happy to sleep
in the sun all day long, as long as it
is fed, because he is not unsatisfied of
what it is. He doesn't worry to make
other dogs better than it does, or that
its career of dog is remaining stagnant.
If the man reaches a society in which he
will have succeeded in abolishing the
injustice, his life will end up looking
like the one of the dog".
Fukuyama remains mute on those that will
be masters of these happy dogs, and who
will keep them in leash ...
(3) See Luc MICHEL,
“La Russie c’est aussi l’Europe”, in
CONSCIENCE EUROPEENNE, review, N°6,
décembre 1983, Charleroi.
The act of birth of the Neoeurasism …
on
http://www.lucmichel.net/2014/05/29/pcn-timeline-ideologie-1983-84-le-pcn-reinvente-le-national-bolchevisme-moderne/
LUC MICHEL (ЛЮК
МИШЕЛЬ) & EODE
* With the Geopolitician of the
Eurasia-Africa Axis:
Geopolitics - Geoeconomics - Geoidology
-
Neoeurasism - Neopanafricanism (Seen
from Moscow and Malabo):
SPECIAL PAGE Luc MICHEL’s Geopolitical
Daily
https://www.facebook.com/LucMICHELgeopoliticalDaily/
* Luc MICHEL (Люк
МИШЕЛЬ) :
WEBSITE http://www.lucmichel.net/
PAGE OFFICIELLE III
– GEOPOLITIQUE
https://www.facebook.com/Pcn.luc.Michel.3.Geopolitique/
TWITTER
https://twitter.com/LucMichelPCN
* EODE :
EODE-TV
https://vimeo.com/eodetv
WEBSITE
http://www.eode.org/span>
Le sommaire de Luc Michel
Le
dossier Russie
Les dernières mises à jour
|