In my book ‘Une autre Europe, un autre Monde’, and in other works since its publication, I have noted that the world needs not only a coordinating body that would be akin to a world government, but also, and urgently, a rapid deployment force - to use the NATO terminology - that could respond to natural disasters as well as military attacks anywhere, at short notice. Thus, when Anders Fogh Rasmussen, who just stepped down as NATO Secretary General in a blaze of glory at the biggest ever summit in Wales, announced the creation of such as force albeit without the natural disaster component, my first thought was that the infamous organization had finally done something useful.
This week's ‘Crosstalk’, on RT, discusses NATO’s reasons for depicting Russia as its enemy, affirming that a Rapid Response Force on an enemy’s borders was purely defensive. Alexander Mercouris, an astute political analyst, argued convincingly that NATO’s campaign against Russia is in fact about eventually taking on China. Rather than simply ‘defeating’ Russia, as most Western analysts believe, Washington wants to fold it and its vast resources into a Caucasian empire in order to defeat the much more threatening China, with its 1.3 billion plus inhabitants and roaring economy.
Mercouris’ analysis implies that the struggle is once again between two world views: not ‘capitalism vs communism’ as in the long post-World War II period, but between efforts to build a cooperative world community by the world’s multi-colored majority, joined by Russia, and a prolonged battle for global hegemony by the minority Caucasian world. In this analysis, Russia is the lynchpin: straddling the Eurasian continent, it is turning away from Gorbatchev’s aspirations for a ‘Common European Home’, to assume its Eurasian ‘destiny’ (a heavy word, but appropriate here), that will eventually include Europe when Europe’s leaders gather the courage to free themselves from American tutelage - perhaps as a long-term result of the botched Ukrainian adventure combined with the economic crisis. (Even Germany is balking at poneying up 2% of its GDP for military adventures, not to mention the countries hit by Wall St imposed austerity (to put it telegraphically).
Putin’s Eurasian vision is not a land grab: much more meaningfully, it places Russia firmly on the side of ‘The Rest’ together with China, in opposition to the Caucasian versus ‘The Rest’ worldview represented by NATO. Come to think of it, that aspiration sees Putin-the-judoist overseeing a tectonic shift away from the legacy of Peter the Great, who brought European technology to a Russia that was the victim of its geography: with the Eurasia project Russia assumes its destiny within a multi-colored and multi-cultural continent.
Western politicians and the media claim that: “Russia seeks to recreate the Soviet Union, whereas we want the former Soviet Republics to be independent, democratic countries, freely choosing their governments and alliances”. The reality is that in the twenty-first century, as opposed to the ‘Enlightened’ eighteenth, ‘democratic’ does not mean government of, by and for the people, but acquiescence to rule by a worldwide corporate oligarchy.
With more and more people coming to this realization across the five continents, NATO’s Rapid Response Force will eventually be taken over by a successor to the United Nations. In lieu of the pipe-dream of indefinite hegemony, the Caucasian world minority should be adopting policies that will result in fair representation in a world government whose structure and functioning will be determined by ‘The Rest’.