Tweet
SAAKASHVILI'S CHALLENGE
Vedomosti
March 16, 2004
by Alexander Dugin
The deterioration of the situation around Adzharia, President Mikhail
Saakashvili's determination to reinforce the territorial integrity of
Georgia, the region's importance for Russia's national security - all
this merits some serious thinking in geopolitical terms. It is common
knowledge that Saakashvili's regime was installed in Tbilisi with
help from the United States, and George Soros in particular. What
does the American empire want from Georgia, which is small and
economically weak (even by CIS standards)?
Georgia is a focus point in the Great Game for reshaping the world.
As soon as the Cold War was over, the United States set out to build
a new world order - under its own management, needless to say. The
Caucasus is the region where the force lines of global politics
converge, and control over this region promises influence in the
Mideast, Turkey, Central Asia, and Russia.
This is the existing arrangement of geopolitical forces in the
region. Iran actively cooperates with Armenia, mostly because of the
problem of South Azerbaijan and official Azerbeijan pro-Turkey
stance. After all, Ankara is Tehran's foremost rival in the region.
Meanwhile, Turkey cooperates with Azerbaijan (this is where the mix
of ethnic, anti-Iranian, and anti-Armenian preferences comes into
play). Russia retains its military-strategic and political influence
with Armenia and economic influence with Azerbaijan. Georgia alone
remains a geopolitical element without clearly defined preferences or
foreign policy bearing points.
In fact, Tbilisi controls only a part of the territories that are
nominally Georgian. South Ossetia is undeniably pro-Russian. Abkhazia
is pro-Russian as well, even though Turkey's influence with that area
is steadily growing. Adzharia also looks to Russia (its Islamic
sector looks to Turkey). This is a new geopolitical phenomenon - the
so-called "ex-territorial zone of the Caucasus." This is precisely
what attracts the Americans. Controlling Tbilisi strategically, they
will be able to monitor geopolitical processes in three problematic
(for Washington) countries - Iran, Russia, and Turkey.
What makes these countries problematic for Washington? Iran is
regarded as part of the "axis of evil." Any military operation
against Iran would require a bridgehead, and Georgia is the ideal
choice.
>From the point of view of geopolitics, Russia as the nucleus of the
Euro-Asian continent is the natural adversary of Atlantism.
Recovering, it might become a rallying point for some post-Soviet
states, or even some more distant states, to create a Euro-Asian bloc
which would certainly be an obstacle to the plans for establishing
the American world order on the continent. Once again, Georgia is a
perfect instrument of influence over processes in the CIS and to some
extent even in Russia itself.
Finally, Turkey. Responding to the gradual loss of national
sovereignty (inevitable de facto with the development of the American
globalism) and to Washington's position on the matter of Northern
Cyprus, official Ankara is more and more openly seeking a strategic
partnership with Moscow. Some Turkish strategists even contemplate a
revision of relations with Tehran. National state is everything for
the Turks, and threats to its existence may force Ankara (and
particularly senior officers of the army) to take even the most
unexpected steps. The Americans saw the first indications of it in
Ankara's reaction to the Iraq conflict. Washington was never granted
permission to use Turkish military bases for the US Air Force flying
missions against Saddam Hussein's regime.
Georgia's conflicts with Muslim Abkhazia and Adzharia (the republic
giving preference to Turkey) make Washington view it as a convenient
instrument for putting pressure on its ally, whose loyalty is
becoming more and more questionable.
So the United States wants Georgia in order to control the Caucasus
and therefore to promote its own plans with regard to the Euro-Asian
continent. Official Washington does not want Eduard Shevardnadze the
pragmatist, with his endless hesitation. It wants a passionate
nationalist who will zealously promote America's geopolitical plans
on the regional level. Saakashvili is just the man for the job, and
Georgian society supports his determination to transform Georgia into
a national unitary state.
Georgian society perceived construction of a national state as
something proper and reasonable. In the geopolitical Great Game,
however, "sovereign Georgia" may only be a docile American colony
fighting its neighbors - openly or not - be they small (like
Azerbaijan and Armenia) or large (like Russia, Iran, Turkey).
Whom is Saakashvili aiming to challenge by dragging his people into a
confrontation with Aslan Abashidze, the pro-Russian and separatist
leader of Adzharia? He is challenging Moscow, Tehran, Ankara,
Yerevan, and Baku. In fact, however, Tbilisi is just a facade that
doesn't decide anything. The challenge is being issued from across
the ocean.
How can Russia respond to the "Adzharian challenge"? Only with a
fundamental geopolitical plan for the whole region, not only Georgia
or even the Caucasus as such. Moscow should offer the model of an
international formation with a central triangle
(Moscow-Tehran-Ankara) and additional axes (Moscow-Yerevan,
Moscow-Baku, Baku-Ankara, Yerevan-Tehran). Built properly and
promptly, this system of military-political alliances would lock
Georgia into the center of a formation of five major regional powers
striving for a security framework alternative to whatever Washington
might dish out for them.
Iran ought to safeguard itself against a potential strike from the
north, should the decision to repeat the Iraq scenario be made.
Russia has to regain its positions in the Caucasus and develop
relations of partnership with Tehran and Ankara.
As for Saakashvili's flamboyant pro-Russian bias, it should be
dismissed as insignificant. Even if Saakashvili really means it, it
does not really matter, not in terms of the Great Game being played.
Saakashvili is a hostage to the forces that raised him to the top and
regard him as a technocrat hired to perform a specific geopolitical
duty. By threatening Adzharia with an invasion, Saakashvili is
actually working against Russia's geopolitical interests.
Vedomosti
March 16, 2004
by Alexander Dugin
The deterioration of the situation around Adzharia, President Mikhail
Saakashvili's determination to reinforce the territorial integrity of
Georgia, the region's importance for Russia's national security - all
this merits some serious thinking in geopolitical terms. It is common
knowledge that Saakashvili's regime was installed in Tbilisi with
help from the United States, and George Soros in particular. What
does the American empire want from Georgia, which is small and
economically weak (even by CIS standards)?
Georgia is a focus point in the Great Game for reshaping the world.
As soon as the Cold War was over, the United States set out to build
a new world order - under its own management, needless to say. The
Caucasus is the region where the force lines of global politics
converge, and control over this region promises influence in the
Mideast, Turkey, Central Asia, and Russia.
This is the existing arrangement of geopolitical forces in the
region. Iran actively cooperates with Armenia, mostly because of the
problem of South Azerbaijan and official Azerbeijan pro-Turkey
stance. After all, Ankara is Tehran's foremost rival in the region.
Meanwhile, Turkey cooperates with Azerbaijan (this is where the mix
of ethnic, anti-Iranian, and anti-Armenian preferences comes into
play). Russia retains its military-strategic and political influence
with Armenia and economic influence with Azerbaijan. Georgia alone
remains a geopolitical element without clearly defined preferences or
foreign policy bearing points.
In fact, Tbilisi controls only a part of the territories that are
nominally Georgian. South Ossetia is undeniably pro-Russian. Abkhazia
is pro-Russian as well, even though Turkey's influence with that area
is steadily growing. Adzharia also looks to Russia (its Islamic
sector looks to Turkey). This is a new geopolitical phenomenon - the
so-called "ex-territorial zone of the Caucasus." This is precisely
what attracts the Americans. Controlling Tbilisi strategically, they
will be able to monitor geopolitical processes in three problematic
(for Washington) countries - Iran, Russia, and Turkey.
What makes these countries problematic for Washington? Iran is
regarded as part of the "axis of evil." Any military operation
against Iran would require a bridgehead, and Georgia is the ideal
choice.
>From the point of view of geopolitics, Russia as the nucleus of the
Euro-Asian continent is the natural adversary of Atlantism.
Recovering, it might become a rallying point for some post-Soviet
states, or even some more distant states, to create a Euro-Asian bloc
which would certainly be an obstacle to the plans for establishing
the American world order on the continent. Once again, Georgia is a
perfect instrument of influence over processes in the CIS and to some
extent even in Russia itself.
Finally, Turkey. Responding to the gradual loss of national
sovereignty (inevitable de facto with the development of the American
globalism) and to Washington's position on the matter of Northern
Cyprus, official Ankara is more and more openly seeking a strategic
partnership with Moscow. Some Turkish strategists even contemplate a
revision of relations with Tehran. National state is everything for
the Turks, and threats to its existence may force Ankara (and
particularly senior officers of the army) to take even the most
unexpected steps. The Americans saw the first indications of it in
Ankara's reaction to the Iraq conflict. Washington was never granted
permission to use Turkish military bases for the US Air Force flying
missions against Saddam Hussein's regime.
Georgia's conflicts with Muslim Abkhazia and Adzharia (the republic
giving preference to Turkey) make Washington view it as a convenient
instrument for putting pressure on its ally, whose loyalty is
becoming more and more questionable.
So the United States wants Georgia in order to control the Caucasus
and therefore to promote its own plans with regard to the Euro-Asian
continent. Official Washington does not want Eduard Shevardnadze the
pragmatist, with his endless hesitation. It wants a passionate
nationalist who will zealously promote America's geopolitical plans
on the regional level. Saakashvili is just the man for the job, and
Georgian society supports his determination to transform Georgia into
a national unitary state.
Georgian society perceived construction of a national state as
something proper and reasonable. In the geopolitical Great Game,
however, "sovereign Georgia" may only be a docile American colony
fighting its neighbors - openly or not - be they small (like
Azerbaijan and Armenia) or large (like Russia, Iran, Turkey).
Whom is Saakashvili aiming to challenge by dragging his people into a
confrontation with Aslan Abashidze, the pro-Russian and separatist
leader of Adzharia? He is challenging Moscow, Tehran, Ankara,
Yerevan, and Baku. In fact, however, Tbilisi is just a facade that
doesn't decide anything. The challenge is being issued from across
the ocean.
How can Russia respond to the "Adzharian challenge"? Only with a
fundamental geopolitical plan for the whole region, not only Georgia
or even the Caucasus as such. Moscow should offer the model of an
international formation with a central triangle
(Moscow-Tehran-Ankara) and additional axes (Moscow-Yerevan,
Moscow-Baku, Baku-Ankara, Yerevan-Tehran). Built properly and
promptly, this system of military-political alliances would lock
Georgia into the center of a formation of five major regional powers
striving for a security framework alternative to whatever Washington
might dish out for them.
Iran ought to safeguard itself against a potential strike from the
north, should the decision to repeat the Iraq scenario be made.
Russia has to regain its positions in the Caucasus and develop
relations of partnership with Tehran and Ankara.
As for Saakashvili's flamboyant pro-Russian bias, it should be
dismissed as insignificant. Even if Saakashvili really means it, it
does not really matter, not in terms of the Great Game being played.
Saakashvili is a hostage to the forces that raised him to the top and
regard him as a technocrat hired to perform a specific geopolitical
duty. By threatening Adzharia with an invasion, Saakashvili is
actually working against Russia's geopolitical interests.