Alexander Dugin

Geopolitics of the Multipolar World

2012

Chapter 1. Multipolarism as an Open Project

I. Multipolarism and Land Power Geopolitics of the Land in the Global World In the previous part we discussed the subject of globalism, globalization, and mondialism in a view considered to be generally accepted and conventional. However, a geopolitical analysis of this phenomenon has showed that in the modern globalism we only deal with one of the two geopolitical powers, namely, with a thalassocracy, a Sea Power that from now on claims for uniqueness, totality, and normativeness and strives to pretend to be the only possible civilization, sociological and geopolitical condition of the world. Therewith, we have seen that the philosophy of globalism is based upon the internal surety with universalism of exactly the Western-European value system thought to be the summary of all the diverse experience of the human cultures on all stages of their history. And finally, we showed that, in its roots, globalization has an active ideology (mondialism) and power structures that spread and bring this ideology into use. If taking into account that the latter are the most authoritative intellectual US centers (such as CFR and neoconservatives), structures of the US Supreme Military Command and their analysts (Owens, Sibrowsky, Barnett, Garstka), international oligarchs (such as George Soros), a number of international organizations (The Bilderberg Club, Trilateral Commission, etc.), and innumerous amount of analysts, politicians, journalists, scientists, economists, people of culture and art, and IT sector employees spread all over the world, we can understand the reason why this ideology seems to be something that goes without saying for us.

That we sometimes take globalization as an objective process is the result of a huge manipulation with public opinion and the fruit of a total information war. Therefore, the picture of global processes we described is an affirmation of the real state of affairs just in part. In such a description, there is a significant share of a normative and imperative volitional (ideological) wish that everything should be quite so, which means, it is based upon wrenches and, to some extent, striving to represent our wishful thinking as reality. In this part, we will describe an absolutely different point of view on globalization and globalism that is impossible from inside the Sea Power, i.e. out of the environment of the nominal Global World. Such a view is not taken into account either in antiglobalism or in alterglobalism because it refuses from the most fundamental philosophical and ideological grounds of Eurocentrism. Such a view rejects the faith in: universalism of the Western values, that Western societies, in their history, have passed the only possible way all the other countries are expected to pass; progress as an indisputable forwardness of historical and social development; that it is limitless technical, economical, and material development, which is the answer for the most vital needs of all humankind; that people of all cultures, religions, civilizations, and ethnoses are principally the same as the people of the West and they are governed by the same anthropological motives; absolute superiority of capitalism over other sociopolitical formations; absence of any alternative for market economy; that liberal democracy is the only acceptable form of political organization of the society;

 individual freedom and individual identity as the superior value of human being; liberalism as a historically inevitable, higher-priority, and optimal ideology. In other words, we proceed to the position of the Land Power and consider the present moment of the world history from the point of view of Geopolitics-2, or the thalassocratic geopolitics as an episode of the Great Continent War, not as its conclusion. Of course, it is difficult to refuse that the present moment of historical development demonstrates a number of unique features that, if desired, can be interpreted as the ultimate victory of the Sea over the Land, Carthage over Rome and Leviathan over Behemoth. Indeed, never in history the Sea Power was such a serious success and stretched might and influence of its paradigm in such a scale. Of course, Geopolitics-2 acknowledges this fact and the consequences included. But it clearly realizes that globalization can be also interpreted otherwise, namely, as a series of victories in combats and battles, not as the ultimate win in the war. Here, a historical analogy suggests itself: when German troops were approaching to Moscow in 1941, one could think that everything was lost and the end of the USSR was foredoomed. The Nazi propaganda commented the course of the war quiet so: the New Order is created in the occupied territory, the authorities work, economical and political hierarchy is created, and the social life is organized. But the Soviet people kept on violently resisting at all the fronts as well as in the rear of the enemy, while systematically moving to their goal and their victory. Now, there is precisely this moment in the geopolitical stand of the Sea and the Land. Information policy inside the Sea Power is built so as no-one has any doubt that globalism is an accomplished fact and the global society has come about in its essential features, that all the obstacles from now on are of a technical character. But from certain conceptual, philosophical, sociological, and geopolitical positions, all of it can be challenged by suggesting an absolutely

different vision of the situation. All the point is in interpretation. Historical facts make no sense without interpretation. Likewise in geopolitics: any state of affairs in the field of geopolitics only makes sense in one or another interpretation. Globalism is interpreted today almost exclusively in the Atlantist meaning and, thus, the sea sense is put into it. A view from the Lands position doesnt change the state of affairs but it does change its sense. And this, in many cases, is of fundamental importance. Further, we will represent the view on globalization and globalism from the Lands position geopolitical, sociological, philosophical, and strategical. Grounds for Existence of Geopolitics-2 in the Global World How can we substantiate the very possibility of a view on globalization on the part of the Land, assuming that the structure of the global world, as we have shown, presupposes marginalization and fragmentation of the Land? There are several grounds for this. 1. The human spirit (conscience, will, faith) is always capable to formulate its attitude to any ambient phenomenon and even if this phenomenon is presented as invincible, integral, and objective, it is possible to take it in a different way accept or reject, justify or condemn. This is the superior dignity of man and his difference from animal species. And if man rejects and condemns something, he has the right to build strategies to overcome it in any, most difficult and insuperable, situations and conditions. The advance of the global society can be accepted and approved but it can be rejected and condemned as well. In the former case, we float adrift the history, in the latter one we seek a fulcrum to stop this process. History is made by people and the spirit plays the central part here. Hence, there is a theoretical possibility to create a theory radically opposite to the views that are built on the base of the Sea Power and accept basic

paradigms of the Western view on the things, course of history, and logic of changing sociopolitical structures. 2. The geopolitical method allows to identify globalization as a subjective process connected with a success of one of the two global powers. Be the Land ever so marginal and fragmentized, it has serious historical grounds behind itself, traditions, experience, sociological and civilization background. The Lands geopolitics is not built on a void place; this is a tradition that generalizes some fundamental historical, geographical, and strategical trends. Therefore, even on the theoretical level, estimation of globalization from the position of Geopolitics-2 is absolutely relevant. Just as well as there is the subject of globalization in its center (mondialism and its structures), the Land Power can and does have its own subjective embodiment. In spite of a huge scale and massive forms of the historical polemics of civilizations, we, first of all, deal with a stand of minds, ideas, concepts, theories, and only then with that of material things, devices, technologies, finances, weapons, etc. 3. The process of desovereignization of national states has not yet become nonreversible, and the elements of the Westphalian system are still being partly preserved. That means that a whole range of national states, by virtue of certain consideration, can still bank on realization of the land strategy, i.e. they can completely or partially reject globalization and the Sea Powers paradigm. China is an example of it; it balances between globalization and its own land identity, strictly observing that the general balance is kept and that only what consolidates China as a sovereign geopolitical formation is borrowed from the global strategies. The same can be also said about the states the US have equaled to the Axis of Evil -Iran, Cuba, North Korea, Venezuela, Syria, etc. Of course, the threat of a direct intrusion of US troops hangs over these countries like the sword of Damocles (on the model of Iraq or Afghanistan), and they are continuously subject to more politic network attacks from inside. However, at the moment

their sovereignty is preserved what makes them privileged areas for development of the Land Power. It is also possible to refer here a number of hesitant countries, such as India, Turkey and others, which, being significantly involved into the globalization orbit, preserve their original sociological features, getting out of accord with the official precepts of their governing regimes. Such situation is characteristic of many Asian. LatinAmerican and African societies. 4. And, finally, the most general. -- The present state of Heartland. The world dominance, as we know, and thus, reality or evanescence of monopolar globalization depends on it. In 1980-90-s, Heartland fundamentally reduced its influence area. Two geopolitical belts Eastern Europe (whose countries were within the Socialist Block, Warsaw Pact, Comecon, etc.) and the Federative Republics of the USSR consistently withdrew from it. By the mid 1990-s, a bloody testing for a possibility of further breakdown of Russia into national republics had started in Chechnya. This fragmentation of Heartland, down to a mosaic of marionette dependent states in place of Russia, had to become the final accord of construction of the global world and the end of history, after which it would be much more difficult to speak about the Land and Geopolitics-2. Heartland is of central importance in the possibility of strategical consolidation of all Eurasia and, thus, the Land Power. If the processes that took place in Russia in 1990-s had moved in a groove and its disintegration kept on, it would be much more difficult to challenge globalization. But since late 1990-s -- early 2000-s, a turning-point has taken place in Russia, disintegration was stopped; moreover, the federal authorities have restored control over the rebellious Chechnya. Then V. Putin implemented a legal reform of the Federation subjects (excision of the article about sovereignty, governors appointment, etc.) that has consolidated the power vertical all over Russia. The CCI integration processes have started gathering pace. In August 2008, in the course of the

five-day conflict of Russia with Georgia, Russia took its direct control over territories beyond the borders of the Russian Federation (Southern Ossetia, Abkhazia), and acknowledged their independence, in spite of a huge support of Georgia on the part of the US and the NATO countries and pressure of the international public opinion. Generally, since early 2000-s Russia as Heartland has ceased the processes of its self-disintegration, has reinforced its energetics, has normalized the issues of energy supply abroad, has refused from the practice of unilateral reduction of armaments, having preserved its nuclear potential. Whereby, influence of the network of geopolitical agents of Atlantism and Mondialism on the political authority and strategical decision making has qualitatively diminished, consolidation of the sovereignty has been understood as the top-priority issue, and integration of Russia into a number of globalist structures menacing its independence has been ceased. In a word, Heartland keeps on remaining the foundation of Eurasia, its Core -- weakened, suffered very serious losses, but still existing, independent, sovereign, and capable to pursue a policy, if not on a global scale, then on a regional one. In its history, Russia has several times fallen yet lower: the Domain Fragmentation on the turn of the 13th century, The Time of Troubles, and the events of 1917-1918 show us Heartland in a yet more deplorable and weakened condition. But every time, in some period, Russia revived and returned to the orbit of its geopolitical history again. The present state of Russia is difficult to recognize brilliant or even satisfactory from the geopolitical (Eurasian) point of view. Yet in general -- Heartland does exist, it is relatively independent, and therefore, we have both a theoretical and practical base to consolidate and bring to life all the pre-conditions for development of a response to the phenomenon of monopolar globalization on the part of the Land. Such an answer of the Land to the challenge of globalization (as a triumph of the Sea Power) is Multipolarism, as a theory, philosophy, strategy, policy, and practice.

Multipolarism as a Project of the World Order from the Lands Position Multipolarism represents a summary of Geopolitics-2 in actual conditions of the global process evolution. This is an extraordinarily capacious concept that demands a through consideration. Multipolarism is a real antithesis for monopolarity in all its aspects: hard (imperialism, neocons, direct US domination), soft (multilateralism) and critical (alterglobalism, postmodernism, and neo-Marxism) ones. The hard monopolarity version (radical American imperialism) is based upon the idea that the US represents the last citadel of the world order, prosperity, comfort, safety, and development surrounded by a chaos of underdeveloped societies. Multipolarism states the directly opposite: the US is a national state that exists among many others, its values are doubtful (or, at least, relative), its claims are disproportional, its appetites are excessive, methods of conducting its foreign policy are inacceptable, and its technological messianism is disastrous for the culture and ecology of the whole world. In this regard, the multipolar project is a hard antithesis to the US as an instance that methodically builds a unipolar world, and it is aimed to strongly disallow, break up, and prevent this construction. The soft monopolarity version does not only act on behalf of the US, but on behalf of humanity, exclusively understanding it as the West and the societies that agree with universalism of Western values. Soft monopolarity does not claim to press by force, but persuade, not to compel, but explain profits peoples and countries will obtain from entering into globalization. Here the pole is not a single national state (the US), but Western civilization as a whole, as a quintessence of all the humanity. Such, as it is sometimes called, multilateral monopolarity (multilateralism, multilateralization) is rejected by Multipolarism that considers Western culture and Western values to represent merely one axiological composition among many others, one culture among different other cultures, and

cultures and value systems based on some absolutely different principles to have the full right for existence. Consequently, the West in a whole and those sharing its values, have no grounds to insist on universalism of democracy, human rights, market, individualism, individual freedom, secularity, etc. and build a global society on the base of these guidelines. Against alterglobalism and postmodern antiglobalism, Multipolarism advances a thesis that a capitalist phase of development and construction of worldwide global capitalism is not a necessary phase of society development, that it is despotism and an ambition to dictate different societies some kind of single history scenario. In the meantime, confusion of mankind into the single global proletariat is not a way to a better future, but an incidental and absolutely negative aspect of the global capitalism, which does not open any new prospects and only leads to degradation of cultures, societies, and traditions. If peoples do have a chance to organize effective resistance to the global capitalism, it is only where Socialist ideas are combined with elements of a traditional society (archaic, agricultural, ethnical, etc.), as it was in the history of the USSR, China, North Korea, Vietnam and takes place today in some Latin-American countries (e. g., in Bolivia, Venezuela, Cuba, etc.).

Further, Multipolarism is an absolutely different view on the space of land than bipolarity, a bipolar world. Multipolarism represents a normative and imperative view on the present situation in the world on the part of the Land and it qualitatively differs from the model predominated in the Yalta World in the period of the Cold War. The Bipolar World was constructed under the ideological principle, where two ideologies Capitalism and Socialism acted as poles. Socialism as an ideology did not challenge universalism of the West-European culture and represented a sociocultural and political tradition that threw back to the European Enlightenment. In a certain sense, Capitalism and Socialism competed with each other as two versions of Enlightenment, two versions of progress, two versions of universalism, two versions of the West-European sociopolitical idea. Socialism and Marxism entered into a resonance with certain parameters of the Land Power, and therefore they did not win where Marx had supposed, but where he excluded this possibility in an agricultural country with the predominant way of life of a traditional society and imperial organization of the

political field. Another case of an (independent) victory of Socialism China also represented an agricultural, traditional society. Multipolarism does not oppose monopolarity from the position of a single ideology that could claim for the second pole, but it does from the position of many ideologies, a plenty of cultures, world-views and religions that (each for its own reasons) have nothing in common with the Western liberal capitalism. In a situation, when the Sea has a unified ideological aspect (however, ever more going to the sphere of subauditions, not explicit declarations), and the Land itself doesnt, representing itself as several different world-view and civilization ensembles, Multipolarism suggests creating a united front of the Land against the Sea.

Multipolarism is different from both the conservative project of conservation and reinforcement of national states. On the one hand, national states in both colonial and post-colonial period reflect the West-European understanding of a normative political organization (that ignores any religious, social, ethnical, and cultural features of specific societies) in their structures, i.e. the nations themselves

are partially products of globalization. And on the other hand, it is only a minor part of the two hundred fifty-six countries officially itemized in the UN list today that are, if necessary, capable to defend their sovereignty by themselves, without entering into a block or alliance with other countries. It means that not each nominal sovereign state can be considered a pole, as the degree of strategical freedom of the vast majority of the countries acknowledged is negligible. Therefore, reinforcement of the Westphalian system that still mechanically exists today is not an issue of Multipolarism. Being the opposition of monopolarity, Multipolarism does not call to either return to the bipolar world on the base of ideology or to fasten the order of national states, or to merely preserve the status quo. All these strategies will only play in hands of globalization and monopolarity centers, as they have a project, a plan, a goal, and a rational route of movement to future; and all the scenarios enumerated are at best an appeal to a delay of the globalization process, and at worst (restoration of bipolarity on the base of ideology) look like irresponsible fantasy and nostalgia. Multipolarism is a vector of the Lands geopolitics directed to the future. It is based upon a sociological paradigm whose consistency is historically proven in the past and which realistically takes into account the state of affairs existing in the modern world and basic trends and force lines of its probable transformations. But Multipolarism is constructed on this basis as a project, as a plan of the world order we yet only expect to create. 2 Multipolarism and its Theoretical Foundation The absence of the Multipolarism Theory In spite of the fact that the term Multipolarism is quite often used in political and international discussions recently, its meaning is rather diffuse and inconcrete. Different circles and separate analysts and politicians insert their own

sense in it. Well-founded researches and solid scientific monographs devoted to Multipolarism can be counted on fingers1. Even serious articles on this topic are quite rare2. The reason for this is well understood: as the US and Western countries set the parameters of the normative political and ideological discourse in a global scale today, according to these rules, whatever you want can be discussed but the sharpest and most painful questions. Even those considering unipolarity to have been just a moment3 in the 1990-s and a transfer to some new indefinite model to be taking place now are ready to discuss any versions but the multipolar one. Thus, for example, the modern head of CFR Richard Haass tells about NonPolarity meaning such stage of globalization where necessity in presence of a rigid center falls off by itself4. Such wiles are explained by the fact that one of the aims of globalization is, as we have seen, marginalization of the Land Power. And as far as Multipolarism can only be a form of an active strategy of the Land Power in the new conditions, any reference to it is not welcome by the West that sets the trend in the structure of political analysis in the general global context. Still less one should expect that conventional ideologies of the West take up development of the Multipolarism Theory. It would be logical to assume that the Multipolarism Theory will be developed in the countries that explicitly declare orientation upon a multipolar world as the general vector of their foreign policy. The number of such countries includes Russia, China, India, and some others. Besides, the address to Multipolarism can be encountered in texts and documents of some European

Murray D., Brown D. (eds.) Multipolarity in the 21st Century. A New World Order. Abingdon, UK: Routledge, 2010; Ambrosio Th. Challenging America global Preeminence: Russian Quest for Multipolarity. Chippenheim, Wiltshire: Anthony Rose, 2005; Peral L. (ed.) Global Security in a Multi-polar World. Chaillot Paper. Paris: European Institute for Security Studies, 2009; Hiro D. After Empire: The Birth of a Multipolar World. Yale: Nation Books , 2009. 2 Turner Susan. Russia, Chine and the Multipolar World Order: the danger in the undefined// Asian Perspective. 2009. Vol. 33, No. 1. C. 159-184; Higgott Richard Multi-Polarity and Trans-Atlantic Relations: Normative Aspirations and Practical Limits of EU Foreign Policy. www.garnet-eu.org. 2010. [Electronic resource] URL: http://www.garnet-eu.org/fileadmin/documents/working_papers/7610.pdf ( 28.08.2010); Katz M. Primakov Redux. Putins Pursuit of Multipolarism in Asia//Demokratizatsya. 2006. vol.14 4. C.144-152. 3 Krauthammer Ch. The Unipolar Moment// Foreign Affairs. 1990 / 1991 Winter. Vol. 70, No 1. . 23-33. 4 Haass R. The Age of Non-polarity: What will follow US Dominance?//Foreign Affairs.2008. 87 (3). . 44-56.

political actors (e.g., former French minister of Foreign Affairs Hubert Vidrine5). But at the moment, we can as well hardly find something more than materials of several symposiums and conferences with rather vague phrases in this field. One has to state that the topic of Multipolarism is not properly conceptualized also in the countries that proclaim it as their strategical goal, not to mention the absence a distinct and integral theory of Multipolarism. Nevertheless, on the base of the geopolitical method from the position of the Land Power and with due account for the analysis of a phenomenon called globalism, it is quite possible to formulate some absolute principles that must underlie the Multipolarism Theory when the matter comes to its more systemized and expanded development. Multipolarism: Geopolitics and Meta-Ideology Lets blueprint some theoretical sources, on whose base a valuable theory of Multipolarism must be built. It is only geopolitics that can be the base for this theory in the actual conditions. At the moment, no religious, economical, political, social, cultural or economical ideology is capable to pull together the critical mass of the countries and societies that refer to the Land Power in a single planetary front necessary to make a serious and effective antithesis to globalism and the unipolar world. This is the specificity of the historical moment (The Unipolar Moment6): the dominating ideology (the global liberalism/post-liberalism) has no symmetrical opposition on its own level. Hence, it is necessary to directly appeal to geopolitics by taking the principle of the Land, the Land Power, instead of the opposing ideology. It is only possible in the case if the sociological, philosophical, and civilization dimensions of geopolitics are realized to the full extent.
5

Dclaration de M. Hubert Vdrine, ministre des affaires trangres sur la reprise dune dialogue approfondie entre la France et lHinde: les enjeux de la resistance a luniformisation culturelle et aux exces du monde unipolaire. New Delhi -- 1 lesdiscours.vie-publique.fr. 7.02.2000. [Electronic resource] URL: http://lesdiscours.viepublique.fr/pdf/003000733.pdf
6

Krauthammer Ch. The Unipolar Moment. Op.cit.

The Sea Power will serve us as a proof for this statement. We have seen that the very matrix of this civilization does not only occur in the Modem Period, but also in thalassocratic empires of the Antiquity (e.g., in Carthage), in the ancient Athens or in the Republic of Venice. And within the Modern World itself atlantism and liberalism do not as well find complete predominance over the other trends at once. And nevertheless, we can trace the conceptual sequence through a series of social formations: the Sea Power (as a geopolitical category) moves through history taking various forms till it finds its most complete and absolute aspect in the global world where its internal precepts become predominant in a planetary scale. In other words, ideology of the modern mondialism is only a historical form of a more common geopolitical paradigm. But there is a direct relation between this (probably, most absolute) form and the geopolitical matrix. There is no such direct symmetry in case of the Land Power. The Communism ideology just partly (heroism, collectivism, antiliberalism) resonated with geopolitical percepts of the ground society (and this just in the concrete form of the Eurasian USSR and, to a lesser degree, of China), as the other aspects of this ideology (progressism, technology, materialism) fitted badly in the axiological structure of the Land Power. And today, even in theory, Communism cannot perform the mobilizing ideological function it used to perform in the 20th century in a planetary scale. From the ideological point of view the Land is really split into fragments and, in the nearest future, we can hardly expect some new ideology capable to symmetrically withstand the liberal globalism to appear. But the very geopolitical principle of the Land does not lose anything in its paradigmatic structure. It is this principle that must be taken as a foundation for construction of the Multipolarism Theory. This theory must address directly to geopolitics, draw principles, ideas, methods and terms out of it. This will allow to otherwise take both the wide range of existing non-globalist and counter-globalist ideologies, religions, cultures, and social trends. It is absolutely unnecessary to shape them to transform into something unified and systematized. They can well remain local or regional but be integrated into a front of common stand against

globalization and Western Civilizations domination on the meta-ideological level, on the paradigmatic level of Geopolitics-2 and this moment plurality of ideologies is already laid in the very term Multi-polarism (not only within the strategical space, but also in the field of the ideological, cultural, religious, social, and economical one). Multipolarism is nothing but extension of Geopolitics-2 (geopolitics of the Land) into a new environment characterized with the advance of globalism (as atlantism) on a qualitatively new level and in qualitatively new proportions. Multipolarism has no other sense. Geopolitics of the Land and its general vectors projected upon the modern conditions are the axis of the Multipolarism Theory, on which all the other aspects of this theory are threaded. These aspects constitute philosophical, sociological, axiological, economical, and ethical parts of this theory. But all of them are anyway conjugated with the acknowledged in an extendedly sociological way structure of the Land Power and with the direct sense of the very concept of Multipolarism that refers us to the principles of plurality, diversity, nonuniversalism, and variety. 3 Multipolarism and Neo-Eurasianism Neo-Eurasianism as Weltanschauung Neo-Eurasianism is positioned nearest to the theory of Multipolarism. This concept roots in geopolitics and operates par excellence with the formula of Russia-Eurasia (as Heartland) but at the same time develops a wide range of ideological, philosophical, sociological and politological fields, instead of being only limited with geostrategy and application analysis.

What is in the term of Neo-Eurasianism can be illustrated with fragments of the Manifesto of the International Eurasian Movement Eurasian Mission7. Its authors point out five levels in Neo-Eurasianism allowing to interpret it in a different way depending on a concrete context. The first level: Eurasianism is a Weltanschauung. According to the authors of the Manifesto, the term Eurasianism is applied to a certain Weltanschauung, a certain political philosophy that combines in itself tradition, modernity and even elements of postmodern in an original manner. The philosophy of Eurasianism proceeds from priority of values of the traditional society, acknowledges the imperative of technical and social modernization (but without breaking off cultural roots), and strives to adapt its ideal program to the situation of a post-industrial, information society called postmodern. The formal opposition between tradition and modernity is removed in postmodern. However, postmodernism in the atlantist aspect levels them from the position of indifference and exhaustiveness of contents. The Eurasian postmodern, on the contrary, considers the possibility for an alliance of tradition with modernity to be a creative, optimistic energetic impulse that induces imagination and development. In the Eurasianism philosophy, the realities superseded by the period of Enlightenment obtain a legitimate place these are religion, ethnos, empire, cult, legend, etc. In the same time, a technological breakthrough, economical development, social fairness, labour liberation, etc. are taken from the Modern. The oppositions are overcome by merging into a single harmonious and original theory that arouses fresh ideas and new decisions for eternal problems of humankind. () The philosophy of Eurasianism is an open philosophy, it is free from any forms of dogmatism. It can be appended by diversified areas history,

. . .: , 2005.

religion, sociological and ethnological discoveries, geopolitics, economics, regional geography, culturology, various types of strategical and politological researches, etc. Moreover, Eurasianism as a philosophy assumes an original development in each concrete cultural and linguistic context: Eurasianism of the Russians will inevitably differ from Eurasianism of the French or Germans, Eurasianism of the Turks from Eurasianism of the Iranians; Eurasianism of the Arabs from Eurasianism of the Chinese, etc. Whereby, the main force lines of this philosophy will, in a whole, be preserved unalterable.() The following items can be called general reference points of the Eurasianism philosophy: differentialism, pluralism of value systems against obligatory domination of a single ideology (in our case and first of all, of the American liberal democracy); traditionalism against destruction of cultures, beliefs and a world-state, continent-state against both bourgeois rights of nations against omnipotence of the Golden an ethnos as a value and subject of history against rites of the traditional society; national states and the world government; Billion and neo-colonial hegemony of the Rich North; depersonalization of nations and their alienation in artificial sociopolitical constructions; social fairness and solidarity of labour people against exploitation, logic of coarse gain, and humiliation of man by man.8 Neo-Eurasianism as a Planetary Trend

Ibid P.

On the second level: Neo-Eurasianism is a planetary trend. The authors of the Manifesto explain: Eurasianism on the level of a planetary trend is a global, revolutionary, civilization concept that is, by gradually improving, addressed to become a new ideological platform of mutual understanding and cooperation for a vast conglomerate of different forces, states, nations, cultures, and confessions that refuse from the Atlantic globalization. It is worth carefully reading the statements of the most diverse powers all over the world: politicians, philosophers, and intellectuals and we will make sure that Eurasianists constitute the vast majority. Mentality of many nations, societies, confession, and states is, though they may not suspect about it themselves, Eurasianist. If thinking about this multitude of different cultures, religions, confessions, and countries discordant with the end of history we are imposed by atlantism, our courage will grow up and the seriousness of risks of realization of the American 21st century strategical security concept related with a unipolar world establishment will sharply increase. Eurasianism is an aggregate of all natural and artificial, objective and subjective obstacles on the way of unipolar globalization, whereby it is elevated from a mere negation to a positive project, a creative alternative. While these obstacles exist discretely and chaotically, the globalists deal with them separately. But it is worth just integrating, pulling them together in a single, consistent Weltanschauung of a planetary character and the chances for victory of Eurasianism all over the world will be very serious.9 Neo-Eurasianism as an Integration Project On the next level, Neo-Eurasianism is treated as a project of strategical integration of the Eurasian Continent:
9

Ibid.

The concept the Old World usually defining Europe can be considered much wider. This huge multicivilization space populated with nations, states, cultures, ethnoses and confessions connected between each other historically and spatially by the community of dialectical destiny. The Old World is a product of organic development of human history. The Old World is usually set against the New World, i.e. the American continent that was discovered by the Europeans and has become a platform for construction of an artificial civilization where the European projects of the Modern, the period of Enlightenment have taken shape. () In the 20th century Europe realized its original essence and had gradually been moving to integration of all the European states into a single Union capable to provide all this space with sovereignty, independence, security, and freedom. Creation of the European Union was the greatest milestone in the mission of Europes return in history. This was the response of the Old World to the exorbitant demands of the New one. If considering the alliance between the US and Western Europe with US domination to be the Atlantist vector of European development, then the integration of European nations themselves with predomination of the continental countries (France-Germany) can be considered Eurasianism in relation to Europe. It becomes especially illustrative, if taking into account the theories that Europe geopolitically stretches from the Atlantic to the Urals (Ch. de Gaulle) or to Vladivostok. In other words, the interminable spaces of Russia are also valuably included in the field of the Old World subject to integration. () Eurasianism in this context can be defined as a project of strategical, geopolitical, economical integration of the North of the Eurasian Continent realized as the cradle of European history, matrix of nations and cultures closely interlaced between each other.

And since Russia itself (like, by the way, the ancestors of many Europeans as well) is related in a large measure with the Turkish, Mongolian world, with Caucasian nations, through Russia and in a parallel way through Turkey does the integrating Europe as the Old World already acquire the Eurasianism dimension to full extent; and in this case, not only in symbolic sense, but also in geographical one. Here Eurasianism can be synonimically identified with Continentalism.10 These three most general definitions of Neo-Eurasianism demonstrate that here we deal with a preparatory basis for construction of the Multipolarism Theory. This is the ground view on the sharpest challenges of modernity and attempt to give an adjust response to them taking into account geopolitical, civilization, sociological, historical and philosophical regularities.

10

Ibid. P.

Chapter 2. To the Theory of Multipolarism. Ideological Foundations 1 Theoretical Foundations of Multipolarism. Philosophy of Plurality.

GRECE: Pluriversum in Place of Universum The Multipolarism Theory is based upon the philosophy of plurality. This idea was capaciously expressed by French philosopher and geopolitician Alain de Benoist in Manifesto 2000 of the GRECE movement he leads. Alain de Benoist appeals to consider the world as pluriversum in distinction from universum. In Latin, universum means reduction to the single. The neologism pluriversum emphasizes that the goal is not to reduce to the single, not simplify the system, but to preserve plurality and diversity. The authors of Manifesto write: Distinction is established in the very motion of life that thriftily evolves through ever greater and greater sophistication. Plurality and diversity of nations, ethnoses, languages, customs, and religions characterize development of mankind beginning from its origin. There are two attitudes toward this fact. For some, this living cultural distinction and diversity represents a burden whence an intention arises to reduce people at all times and in all places to what is common between them and it sometimes results in the most perverted consequences. And for the others, and this is our case, distinction is a fortune that is necessary to preserve and cultivate. () We believe that system is good, which, as a minimum, is capable to reproduce through itself as complex ensembles as those it absorbs. The genuine fortune of the world consists in distinction of cultures and nations.11 This principle is completely consonant with the Neo-Eurasianism philosophy. Ideal Sources of the Philosophy of Plurality
11

Manifeste de la GRECE. Paris: Labyrinthe, 2001.

The sources of the philosophy of plurality must be simultaneously sought in several philosophical traditions. These are: German Romanticism (Friedrich Schlegel (1772-1829) and August Schlegel (1767-1845) brothers, Friedrich Schelling (1775-1854), Friedrich Hlderlin (1770-1843), Ludwig Tieck (1773-1853), Adam Mller (17719-18), Heinrich von Kleist (1771-1811), Novalis (1772-1801), etc.); etc.); Lebensphilosophie (Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900), Wilhelm Holistic Tradition in Sociology (F. Tennis (1855 - 1936), G. Dilthey (18331911), Henri Bergson (1859-1941), etc.); Simmel (1858-1918), W. Sombart (1863 1941), M. Moss (18721950), G. Durand, etc.); Cultural Anthropology/Ethnosociology (Franz Boas (1858 1942) and his followers Alfred Kroeber (1876 1960), Edward Sapir (1884 1939), Robert Lovy (1883 1957), and also Bronisaw Malinowski (1884 1942), Alfred Radcliffe-Brown (1881-1955), Claude Lvi-Strauss (1908 2009)), Richard Thurnwald (1869-1954), Wilhelm Mllman (1904-1988), etc.); Russian Slavophilia and Religious Philosophy (A. S. Khomyakov (1804-1860), I. V. Kireevsky (1806- 1856), K. N. Leontyev (1831 1891), N. Y. Danilevsky (1822-1885), V. S. Soloviev (1853 1900), etc.) 1964), etc.); Fundamental Ontology (M. Heidegger (1889 1976)); Eurasianism (N. S. Trubetskoy (1890 1938), P. N. Savitsky (1895 1965), G. V. Vernadsky (1877-1973), N. N. Alekseev (1879 Organicism (Alfred Espina (1844-1922), Rene Worms (1869 1926), Paul von Lilienfeld-Toal (18291903), Albert Schffle (1831 - 1903),

 etc.);

Conservative Revolution (O. Spengler (1880 1936), K.

Schmitt (1888 -.1985), E. Niekisch (1889 1967), E. Junger (1895 1998) , Traditionalism (R. Gunon (1886-1951), J. Evola (1989-1974),

M. Eliade (1907-1986), etc.). The European and Russian sources should be added with a whole spectrum of the modern Eastern philosophy: Japanese (Kitaro Nishida (1870 1945), Teitaro Daisetsu Indian (Bal Ganadhar Tilak (18561920), Sri Ramana Chinese (Kang Youwei (1858 - 1927), Liang Chi Chao (1873 Iranian (Muhammad Ikbal (1877 - 1938), Ali Shariati (1933 Suzuki (1870 1966), etc.); Maharishi (1879 1950), Ananda Kumarasvami (1877 -1947), etc.); 1923), Sheng Youding (1908-1989), Liang Shuming (18931988), etc.); 1977), Muhammad Hussein Tabatabai (18921981), Murtaza Mattaheri (1920 1979), Seyid Hossein Nasr, etc.); Arab (Abdel-Rahman Badawi (1917-2002), Hassan Hanafi, Nadir El-Bizri, Hichem Djat, etc.). This enormous field of theories, schools, ideas, and authors that can be expended to infinity in all directions (geographical and historical ones into the depth of time) has the following common property. All of them, notwithstanding whether they are created in the West or East: Civilization, reject its claims for universalism, consider the main line of West-European development to be critically appraise the philosophical value structure of Western

dead-ended in the recent centuries and qualify the present state of Western Civilization as a crisis and the threshold of a catastrophe, do not acknowledge the myth about progress and evolution,

critically appraise technical development and see the supreme refuse to conceive the European rationality as the only possible state the right of diverse cultures to move along their paths in

threat in the liberated technology; form of rationality, any direction they have chosen. In a word, all these intellectual directions are multipolar in their own way by substantiating the right for distinction in very different contexts, aspects, and angles and undermining the claims of the Western liberal discourse for domination, uniqueness, normativeness, and globalism. Just rare authors and schools of the above mentioned directly appealed to geopolitics, Land Power, but all of them, and many other trends in modern philosophy can be referred to the particularly ground ones according to their structures if taking into account what we have told about the sociological dimension of geopolitics. All these schools and authors suggest building the society on the grounds of traditions that are original and different for each ethnos and each culture, each place on earth. Thus, all of them substantiate pluriversum as an antithesis to the single world, one world. Distinction is taken in these philosophies as a synonym of life, wealth (K. Leontyev called this principle florescent complexity12), freedom, and vitality. Not as a threat and burden as universalists represent it. Therefore, these directions appeal to substantiate distinctions between nations and cultures, extend, preserve, and state them again. The difference between one culture or another must not absolutely necessarily result in an automatic conflict between them. Conflicts do periodically occur but in the same way they also occur in the universal world. It is necessary to strive to peace and harmony, to a dialog and sympathy. But in no case one must sacrifice dynamical structures of identity, whatever they are. F. Boas: Equal Rights of Cultures

12

. . . .: , 1992.

In this respect, illustrative is a huge work of cultural anthropologists (of the American Franz Boas school, English Malinowski school, and French Claude Lvi-Strauss school) and ethnosociologists (R. Thurnwald) who, by exploring archaic nations, came to the conclusion that the world of their life, the structure of mythological mentality, social pattern and views on the nature, society, man, history, life, death, mystery, rite, etc. bear a colossal cultural wealth, absolutely comparable, if not repeatedly excelling, with the culture of a modern Western man. F. Boas wrote about it in one of his letters from an early expedition to the Arctic Baffin isles: I often ask myself what advantages our good society possesses over that of the savages and find, the more I see of their customs, that we have no right to look down upon them. . . We have no right to blame them for their forms and superstitions which may seem ridiculous to us. We 'highly educated people' are much worse, relatively speaking 13. If careful and serious anthropologists and ethnologists come to such conclusions after getting acquainted with primitive societies, what can be said about multimillenary cultures of Asia, the Middle East, North Africa or Latin America?! What to say about the millenary Russian culture? All these cultural, social, and religious phenomena from the huge to microscopic ones are of unique value and develop in the natural way. And all of them are threatened by the road-roller of the modern Western civilization imposing primitive codes of its decadent culture in a global scale, appealing to the simplest, most material and primitive reactions that, indeed, are universal and general whereas the complex constructions of culture and spiritual life, on the contrary, distinguish all the societies and make them inimitable, original, and individual. N. Trubetskoy: The Alliance of Nations against Universalism Imposed

13

Cole D. (ed.) Franz Boas' Baffin Island Letter-Diary, 1883-1884/ Stocking George W.Jr. Observers Observed. Essays on Ethnographic Fieldwork. Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press, 1983. C.33.

The philosophy of Eurasianism began with the similar thesis. Prince Nicolay Trubetskoy wrote the book Europe and Mankind14 where, long before globalization (in its modern form), warned that the European universalism bears in itself a deadly threat to all humanity since it negates plurality of cultures. In the early 20th century, N. Trubetskoy appealed for the nations of Earth to stick together for giving a decisive battle to the Romano-Germanic world and its unfounded colonial and imperialist claims. Another Eurasianist, Piotr Savitsky, having caught up the ideas of Trubetskoy, redefined in the article Europe and Eurasia15 that only Russia-Eurasia can be the main support for creation of such a panhuman front directed against the European strategy of attitude to the world. Relevance of the Philosophy of Plurality In the conditions of globalization, these Eurasianist initiatives of the 1920-s of the last century look remarkably relevant. Trubetskoys thesis about the threat of Europe for humankind can be reformulated as a thesis about the threat of globalization and the idea of P. Savitsky of the Russia-Eurasias role in construction of a global Anti-European alliance of nations can be laid in the foundation of the multipolar world strategy. But negation of globalization and struggle with unipolarity is not an end in itself. They arise from a special, unique vision of the world (absolutely different from the liberal, modern-European, and especially Anglo-Saxon world view), which is nowise reactive or living by hatred and rejection, but it is selfsufficient and worth in itself in a harmonious and natural discovering of the potential of each society (great and small) in their own and always original and individual way. So, the philosophy of pluriversum, philosophy of distinction taken as a selfvaluable and positive fundamental life phenomenon must underlie the

14 15

.. . , 1920. .. . : , 1997.

Multipolarism Theory. Contrary to the universalist philosophy of globalism, the Multipolar philosophy of distinction states that genuine values can only exist within cultures that gave them birth, that the multitude of cultures is a fortune of mankind, not its misfortune, and only the most sinister, cultureless, and vicious manifestations are universal in humanity. In other words, the philosophy of Multipolarism does not negate consequences or fall-outs of globalization, but it does negate its roots, bases, and terminal conceptual assumptions. 2 Plurality of Existence Different Unity We saw that the idea of globalization appeals for unity of existence in its philosophical sources (at least, thus by . Axelos, O. Fink, W. Desan, etc.). Seemingly, negating such a thesis may come to a rare mind. But the case is that each culture comprehends and treats this unity in an absolutely different way. In the part about globalization, we have already encountered such phenomenon as ethnocentrum and we have seen that even the tiniest tribe is capable to enclose the world into the area situated not far from the limits of their settlement. And the sun, and the moon, and the stars, and the sky, and the alive, and the dead, and the elements, and the gods, and the ghosts all of them are enclosed in the ethnocentrum as in the primary matrix of globalism. Only by transition to the state of a nation, an ethnos loses this unity of existence, but, then and there, it strikes into chase for it and enters history to restore it. In theologically and philosophically developed cultures, unity of existence acquires yet more exquisite character. In Islam, it is connected with the subject of tauhid, the unity of a believer with Allah through observation of religious prescriptions. The Arab term tauhid means bringing to unity, active unity. In general, the idea of united existence constitutes the central subject of the monotheism theologies. In the Christian tradition, this subject is particularly widely present in Orthodoxy and in a number

of monastic practices, such as Hesychasm where the idea of unity of man and God as restoration of unity of existence is the focus of attention. Etymologically, the term Yahudi is treated by the Jewish tradition as a derivative from the Hebraic word ahad, one, and, therefore, a Yahudi is a bearer of knowledge of Single God, monotheism, i.e. unity of existence. Unity of existence is understood absolutely otherwise by Hindus (as part of Advaita-Vedanta and its philosophy), Buddhists (who put nirvana, cancellation of existence, not unity of existence, before all else), the Chinese (in the two versions of their spiritual tradition Confucian and Taoist), and other developed philosophical cultures. In the Russian religious philosophy (V. Solovyev, P. Florensky, S. Bulgakov) unity of existence is interpreted through a complex and paradoxal theory of All-Unity16. Thus, the comprehension form of unity of existence is widely varied from ethnocentrums up to the huge, by philosophical and theological volumes, religious cultures. Unity of existence is comprehended in a different way and no instance can pretend to be the only one to deliver a normative judgment in respect with what understanding of unity must be considered correct. We approach to this subject by intricate labyrinths of various spiritual cultures and the very journey, the very exploration of this culture (which is either given to us initially by the society, or chosen by us consciously and voluntarily) composes the difficult way of becoming a human. In relation to unity of existence, we start from different positions and the ways are also fundamentally different. If, on a certain advancement level, we comprehend spiritual structures of other cultures and religions, it is quite explicable as people who seek unity are in some way similar. But it only refers to those laying down their lives on the chancel of spirit, philosophy, religion, art, and science. Most people live in their living world whose unity is not individually provided by them, but by the society and its traditions. The attempt to join all the
16

f. Dugin A. Martin Heidegger and the possibilty of the Russian Philosophy. M., 2010.

humankind in a collision with the integrated existence whereby, only in its Western rationally logical and, moreover, liberal-individualist comprehension that constitutes the essence of globalism and mondialism will definitely separate the masses from the unity, from the world in its integrity, submerge it in a vortex of endless fragments, shards, parts not forming any common integer. Thus, modern French philosopher Marcel Conche says that we cannot operate with the word world (le monde) as with an integer anymore. From now on, in place of the world, we are submerged in an extravagant ensemble17. However, even Kostas Axelos, the apologist of mondialism who claimed that by the modern globalization, the world is lost18, has noticed it in recent years. M. Heidegger: Search for the Whole in the Authentic Dasein The philosophy of Multipolarism is constructed so as to provide the way to unity of existence, to the experience of the whole, the experience of a world for various cultures and traditions of different societies, not to pass any final judgments in this respect. Phenomenalogically, on the living world level, the world consists of differences: different ethnoses, different languages, and different societies. Everything that turns out to be uniform everywhere today McDonalds, teenage fashions, brands, market operations, formally democratic procedures, technical devices, network protocols, the international slang in twisted English, automobiles and other serial goods all of them no way approach us to unity of existence and this is an artificial leveling web flung on the societies with absolutely different structure and different understanding of existence. Existence cannot discover itself through technology, comfort, unified goods or fashionable brands. Therefore, unity of existence should be sought wherever but in the global world. Wandering about it will not open us the planetary horizon, but, instead, it will close the interior dimension of our own culture and identity, the profundity of
17

Conche M. Lucrce et l'exprience. Saint-Laurent-Qubec: ditions Fides, 2000. . Conche M. L'alatoire. Paris: PUF, 1999. 18 Mondialisation without the world. Interview with Kostas Axelos www.radicalphilosophy.com, 2005. [Electronic resource] URL: http://www.radicalphilosophy.com/pdf/mondialisation.pdf ( 02.08.2010)

whose structure, according to the Multipolar Philosophy, does provide the way to existence and openness. Philosopher Martin Heidegger introduces the concept of Dasein, hereexistence describing the structure of mans relationship with existence. According to Heidegger, Dasein is the primary reality and mentality, rationality, philosophy, and culture are subsequently superstructed over it. In the Multipolarism Theory, the starting moment is the statement of plurality of Daseins, i.e. the assurance that each society, culture, ethnic or national group has its own particular Dasein19 and, by proceeding from them, ramified cultural, social, political, religious, and philosophical systems are subsequently created. Plurality of Daseins and the research of different living worlds of nations on Earth based upon this principle constitute the essence of the multipolar philosophy. 3 Plural Anthropology

Refusal from the Horizon of Humanity The concept of humanity, as it is understood by the globalists, is crossed out in the multipolar philosophy. This concept is artificial, purely technical and it has no phenomenological or empirical proof. It was born in The Modern Period on the ground of secular humanitarian abstractions and it had a purely ideological meaning for struggling with the Christian religion and its idea of centricity of Gods figure in the world and history. Contrary to the theological thesis, the humanists suggested a thesis that it is not God who creates history, but it is created by humanity. Secularization of the Christian idea of creation of all people from the first man Adam was laid in the foundation of the concept of humanity. Having rejected the idea of creation as a prejudice, the actors of the Enlightenment preserved the idea of humanity as a single phenomenon, but already on the base of
19

Dugin A. Martin Heidegger and the possibilty of the Russian Philosophy. Op. cit.

sociopsychological, later (after Darwin) specific biological and zoological characteristics (Homo Sapiens). Here is clearly seen a trace of the mason ideology, which, in its foundation, has the idea that all religions and spiritual traditions have common structure and common origin, and they coincide with the doctrine of masonry itself, which is really this common model of human religiousness. Differences between religions and cultures are presented as something secondary and as a corrupt (for the masses) paraphrase of the mason theory itself (reserved for the spiritual elite). Therefore, unity of humankind and unity of the world is one of the central objectives of the mason political activity, what explains us stable presence of masonry in all the global and mondialist initiatives, organizations, and societies20. The formula of single humanity in its secular, worldly aspect is, therefore, a false mason concept. E. Husserl, A. Malraux: European Humanity It is also demonstrative that in the 19-20th centuries, the term European Humanity was pretty often used in the European culture (in particular, Edmund Husserl (1859-1938)21 and Henri Malraux (1901 1976)22 constantly applied it). It is not a lapse or an occasional expression. The European culture is based upon a presumption that it is a progressive, foregoing hologram of all the global culture. Consequently, the European society is considered to be an algorithm of a society as such, which implies that all the humanity is merely an expanded concept (whereby, most frequently, from the point of view of incompleteness, unaccomplishment, and backwardness) of European humanity. The horizon of humankind that globalism and its philosophy, presumably, find out is, indeed, the same old European humanity but bloated up to the planetary size, projected on all the other cultures and nations. Therefore, the globalists do not open the world as a whole but remain within the West that turns
20 21

Thual F. Gopolitique de la franc-maonnerie, Paris, Dunod, 1994. Husserl E. La crise de lhumanit europenne et la philosophie. P.:Philosophie, 2008. 22 Malraux A. La Tentation de l'Occident. Paris: Grasset, 1926.

into a planetary West. No collision with the general, no discovery of the whole occurs. What does not look like the West, turns into what does look like the West (with its democracy, market, technology, liberalism, individualism, human rights, networks, etc.) and this is only accepted after that. Thus, globalism is absolutization of the local, not a discovery of the general and whole. And humankind is nothing but an instrumental ideological concept that serves to operate with the formula of humankind = European humanity in all directions. Of course, in practice, this formula does not work as the majority of the world cultures and the vast majority of the Earth population refer to a Non-European type. But for the West and mondialism, this means the only one: they do not refer now but tomorrow they will some willingly but some forcibly. Different Humankinds From the point of view of the Multipolarism Theory, of course, there is European humanity as a society built on the grounds of the Western-European Civilizations axiological systems. But along with it, there are also many other humankinds Indian humankind, Chinese humankind, Russian-Eurasian humankind, Arab, Islamic, African, Pacific, Buddhist, Latin-American humankind, and so forth. Whereby, their boundaries at times overlap each other and there are micro-humankinds up to ethnoses and tribes inside them. Tiny tribes of the Nivkhs, Kets, Yukaghirs, Shors or Setu in Eurasia, Veddah in Ceylon or Pirahan in the Amazon River basin are the same humankinds with a unique language, culture, rites and traditions, with their own rationality, living world, and Dasein. And to accumulate all of them into a common planetary ensemble, one must previously thoroughly study their cultures, enter their essence, understand and get to love them, comprehend their logic whereby, as it is not as we see it from without. In practice, it is almost impossible but it can well be a high and noble goal. It is this goal that the philosophy of Multipolarism makes its mission.

Whereby, not in order to find out what is common among all these humankinds but to enjoy the majestic abundance of their differences. The Multipolarism Theory negates the horizon of humanity considering it to be an imperialist Eurocentric abstraction and it is ready to only deal with this concept in the form of negation, denial of it, disclosure of its bankruptcy and its colonial, and even racist, essence (indeed, in its foundation, this concept presumes by default superiority of the Western societies over all the rest, being a representation of if not biological, then, in any case, of cultural, social, and technological racism). The West and the Rest It remains just to settle the question about in what sense Eurasianist N. Trubetskoy used the term humankind in his program work Europe and humankind23? In this case, Trubetskoy understands humankind as an antithesis to European humanity, as a variety of existing cultures and traditions. Europe for him is intrusive imperialist universalism and all the rest (humankind, in his terminology) are victims of this European global policy (including economical, cultural, educational one, etc.). It is not a single horizon but, in contrary, typically land diversity of cultures united by the fact that they are threatened by erasure, destruction, decomposition, and reformatting in the conditions of the West becoming global. In his book Collision of Civilizations24, American politologist Samuel Huntington, resting upon the works of English historian Arnold Toynbee25 (1889 1975), uses the formula of The West and the Rest. What N. Trubetskoy means to be humankind is exactly the Rest all but the West, whereas the globalists and mondialists, in contrary, when saying humankind, first of all mean the West

23 24

Trubetskoy N.S. Evropa y tchelovetchestvo. Op. cit. Huntington Samuel P. The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of the World Order. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1996. 25 Cf, Toynbee A. Postizheniye istorii.. M., 1991.

and when saying the Rest those who are yet only coming to be this West (a kind of underhumankind, underdeveloped societies). The philosophy of Multipolarism is a philosophy of the Rest who are threatened on the part of the West and who need to consolidate their efforts to repulse this threat. Just after that, it is possible to speak about the way to unity via a very complex process of a dialog between cultures and civilizations or about preserving and reviving the differences. This question is open and the Multipolarism Theory cannot forecast the future that far. If the globalization project collapses, some absolutely different problems and challenges will arise in front of different nations and societies on Earth. Should they be global or not, it is absolutely impossible to predict in advance. But today, all the global problematics has a biased, instrumental and rigidly ideologized character, originates from the Western Core, and is a form of an information war and manipulation with public opinion. Acknowledgment of Human Differences Distinction of human societies is an empirically proven historical law. We only know different societies and each of them is based upon a special anthropology and has a special idea of what is man. There exists no common anthropology. Each culture solves the anthropological problem in its own way. The multipolar philosophy recognizes this as a fact and does not strive to change it. Therefore, it postulates multiple anthropology as its axiom and as something that must be recognized and comprehended but by no means be overcome. Any attempt to hierarchize human societies anyway leads to racism and even if the biological racism is out of fashion today, the cultural, economical, social, and technological racism remains the axis of the Western view on the world. But today, it has changed its forms: from now on, cultures and societies not recognizing the imperative of individualism, freedom, tolerance, secularism, human rights, political democracy, and liberal market economy are considered inferior; they are

considered backward, underdeveloped, archaic and totalitarian and subject (in the extreme case Jugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.) to forced improvement and culturalizion. The Multipolar Philosophy proceeds from an absolutely different approach: each society has the right to set forth its structures and its ideas of man on the foundation of its own historical traditions. It may please or not please the neighboring societies. In borderline-cases, this can provoke conflicts and in others, in contrary, a harmonious combination and creative dialog. At least, we must never judge one society by proceding from the criteria of other societies and still less make an ideological principle from the results of this comparison this is the essence of the philosophy of Multipolarism.
4 From Plurality of Places to Plurality of Times

Philosophy and Anthropology of Place Recognition of the positive sense in differences between societies and cultures is the foundation of the Multipolarism Theory. The world is diversified, and this, firstly, is an entity, and, secondly, a value. Societies, ethnoses, nations, countries, and civilizations situated in different areas of the Earths space express different spatial sences (Raumsinn by F. Ratzel). Thus, there arises an idea of multipolar geography of culutures, a cultural map of the world representing a mosaic of the most diverse societies, which, pretty often, join in some wider ensembles or, in contrary, are separated between themselves by national administrative borders. The Multipolar Theory, first of all, deals with exactly such cultural geography, or anthropography, with the anthropogeoraphical map of the world. Societies, nations, ethnoses, religions, cultures as complex and dynamically developing live organisms localized in space are, in the first place, plotted on this map. Thus, a multipolar map of plurality of human places, a cultural topology of

the world forms itself. It is taken as the general matrix in the Multipolar Theory, the basic algorithm where political borders, economical networks, natural resource distribution areas, and strategic military objects are later placed upon. Society, in its binding to space, is primary and secondary is the rest. Differences between human places determine all the rest including the most technical and artificial forms of the industrial or military organization of space. Thus, the philosophy of space, philosophy of place is constructed. . Hettner called it chorography (or chorology), the doctrine of qualitative space26. The great variety of human places creates a primary structure of the world, and societies co-existing in different sectors of such a world are all equally-ranged and have equal rights and relationships between them develop according to the logic of life development active societies expand, mobilize, move, develop, passive ones contract, withdraw, and close. Any attempt to control this process is consciously racist as it automatically serves the interests of some concrete society in prejudice of the others. Human places pursue the scenarios included in the structure of their cultures and, on its ground, they solve problems that the surrounding world brings forth in its transformations. And all of them do this in their own absolutely original way. The theory of places was developed by famous Japanese philosopher Kitaro Nishida who, taking up studying European philosophy and, in the first place, phenomenology, came to the decision that among with a typically European model of rationality, operation with the logic built upon the principle of identity of an object, there is an alternative rationality (inherent, e.g., to the BuddhistJapanese culture) where places27 figure instead of identities. K. Nishida called it logic of places (basho a place in Japanese). As distinct from identities implying rigid logic constructions yes/no, true/false, the logic of places is based upon the inclusive principle the oppositions can co-exist without rejecting each other, among with each other in a system of a complex construction of
26 27

Hettner A. Die Geographie, ihre Geschichte, ihr Wesen und ihre Methoden. Breslau: Ferdinand Hirt, 1927. Nishida K. Logik des Ortes. Der Anfang der modernen Philosophie in Japan. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1999.

places (). The superior place, according to K. Nishida, is the void or nothing (mu in Japanese) that includes in itself all the other places and appears to be their foundation. The state (culture, society) is also a place (topos) that precedes and replaces nothing but includes in itself all the rest instead. All the other places (within the state/society) are included in it via preserving their uniqueness, differences, peculiarities, and contradictions. Correspondingly, other states/societies, outside Japan, in their turn, are superior places for everything included in them and they obtain their reality, their existence, and their sense out of this. Philosophy of K. Nishida and the basho theory perfectly stay on the common approach to the problem of place, of space in the Multipolar Theory. G. Gurvitch: Time as a Sociological Phenomenon From acknowledgment of the spatial pluralism the Multipolarism Theory28 is exactly built upon, one must proceed to a more politic principle of plurality of times. As the classics of sociological idea (E. Durkheim, M. Moss and, especially, Russian-European sociologist Georges Gurvitch (1896-1965)) showed, time is a social category, and, hence, there is some individual special time in each society, if not several ones simultaneously29. This means that different societies, even coexisting in the same physical time, are in different periods from the point of view of their own history, their own culture. Eternal Return is commonly appropriate for ethnocentrums. Progressive time directed on realization of common destiny and common project (in the present and future) comes to ethnoses that have entered history. Different religious cultures have their own ideas of logic and the goal of history, of messianism, of cycles, and objectives. Modern national states operate with physical time and, in general, separate Western-European models of

28

Matrin Heidegger used to say that the spaciality is Existential of Dasein. Cf. Heidegger M. Sein und Zeit. Tbingen: Niemeyer, 1986. Dugin A. Martin Heidegger and the possibilty of the Russian Philosophy. Op. cit. 29 Gurvitch Georges. The Spectrum of Social Time. Dordrecht: D. Reidel, 1964. Cf. Dugin A. The sociology of the imaginary. The introduction into the structural sociology. M., 2010. Idem. The sociology of Russian Society. M., 2010.

temporality. Postmodern carries with itself one more modification of time post-history, actable recycling of fragments of the past, the ironic time30. Each place on Earth where either society is located has, thus, its social time often combined from different temporalities overlapping each other. Therefore, their historical synchronism (simultaneity) is highly relative: they only refer to panhuman (more precisely, to Western-European physical and calendar time) with one side that entwines into the complex context of local times. The question is not only that some societies have passed a greater way in common logic of history and a lesser one have the others (this is exactly the racist approach). The very structures of time can be different in each society and there are no grounds to consider that all of them move in the same direction. Some, maybe, move right where the Western society does and others can well move in an absolutely different direction in correspondence with the structure of their temporality and its sense but they also may move nowhere at all (as in the case of an ethnocentrum). There are no rational grounds to draw societies from their own time and throw them in the environment of the Western time, modernize them, make them contemporaries of the global moment. For the most presently existing societies, globalization as a natural moment of their own history has not yet come and, possibly, will not come ever. Therefore, forcing them reckon with the present global moment is just unreasonable violence. Plurality of Times as a Norm The philosophy of Multipolarism, for its part, recognizes plurality of times as a fact and as a normative state of affairs. Different societies live in different times and have the full right and grounds for this. These times can flow in different directions, like streamways, they can fuse and branch but they also can, like lakes, stand still. No-one must perform temporal dictation, impose the others a stage or

30

Dugin A. The sociology of the imaginary. The introduction into the structural sociology. M., 2010. Idem. Postphilosophy. M., 2009.

era. The Islamic society counts their history since Hegira. The Christians Anno Domini. The Jewish since the creation of the world. The Hindus, Chinese, and Buddhists also have their own chronological systems. There are some nations on Earth so far who do not know time at all even the cyclic one (some tribes of Australian aborigines), hence, they need no time and nobody dares impose it to them. Thus, the Multipolarism Theory pursues a line to a positive interpretation of difference till the logical limit in all spheres. Therefore, it does not represent just a hastily created catalog of ideas and concepts ad hoc appealed for to instantaneously oppose unipolarity and globalism but it is ready to carry out its own analysis down to the most profound grounds of the human society and up to philosophical apprehension of existence, man, space, time, and the world. The world of the Multipolar Theory is multipolar, too. It is differentiated in every respect and in every projection. It represents an open pluriversum where different social living organisms move in different directions and with different speed while merging, repulsing each other, confronting, and creating unions and alliances. If this living stream of existence of concrete human societies does have any common paradigm, law or algorithm, we can only comprehend it via submerging into this multitudinary, pluralist, and always differentiated environment. The multipolar world (between ethnoses, cultures, nations, countries, societies, and people) by no means limits the horizon of communication but just emphasizes that it is necessary to thoroughly take into account cultural peculiarities of each participant so that this horizon is substantive and sensible. Without this, any exchange can only occur in the most sinister, material, and primitive forms. And approaching to different cultures with a single common pattern is the nearest way to understand nothing at all in them and reduce communication to violence and imposing a strange cultural code for everybody.

Chapter 3. To the Multipolarism Theory. Strategic Grounds 1 Poles and Great Spaces The Idea of a Pole in the Multipolar Prospective From consideration of philosophical grounds of the Multipolarism Theory we proceed to its strategic aspects. Let us start with what is understood as a pole in the strategic sense. First, Multipolarism, as a set-off to unipolarity and unipolar globalization (in its limited, American-Imperialist, and broad, common Western sense), supposes that the map of the future world must be structurized so as there are several centers of power not possessing the absolute dominance in relation to each other and allowing different societies (down to the microlevel) realize free choice of a block to join. These poles must be more than two. This is principal. This position results from the analysis of the actual state of affairs. At the moment, none of the major powers, or even a block of major powers, has sufficient potential to lay a claim on sole strategic opposition to the power of the US and the NATO countries. The bipolar world finished with the disintegration of the USSR, and after the USSR, there are no serious challengers for the status of the second pole. Therefore, French politician Hubert Vidrine suggested to use the term hyper power instead of super power (relating to the US) after 1991 to emphasize their asymmetric dominance whereas, in the stand of the two super powers, a certain symmetry (at least, in the strategic potential) was observed till the end. Neither modern Russia, nor China (as the most appropriate candidates for the status of the second pole) are capable to mobilize the capacities and resources sufficient to compete with the US in the strategic sphere. Russia has problems with economy, demography, and many unsolved social problems and China where, in contrary, everything is alright with these moments, has a lack of natural resources and developed nuclear infrastructure. It is needless to say about any other challengers for the second pole.

The strategic model of the multipolar world results exactly from this. If there is no power now that would be capable to challenge the sole domination of the US in a world scale, it is necessary to create a coalition of several blocks, which, pursuing their own strategic interests in the regional context and even contradicting to each other in some matters, and even being based upon different civilization types and ideologies, could simultaneously organize several poles united with a general strategic idea: blocking the American hegemony. However, in the condition where some countries found themselves today, all of them are not virtually suitable for the role of a pole even in such collective and plural interpretation. The pole of the multipolar world, as well as this world itself, must be composite, i.e., represent a result of strategic integration. In other words, the strategic pole of the multipolar world must be previously created. Theoretically, the multipolar world pole must represent a powerful military, economical, demographic, political, geographical, and civilization formation capable to perform strategic integration of the neighbouring territories, acting as a resulting vector of a wide range of regional interests, and representing them jointly before the face of globalism and unipolarity recognized as a challenge. Whereby, such a pole must certainly be differentiated enough by its internal structure so as to serve as a center of attraction for various, often contradictive, regional powers and political forces. And, at the same time, it must be capable to form a system of strategic partnership with other potential poles of the multipolar world even with those it has local disagreements with. A structural example of what could be a typical form of the multipolar world pole is the European Union. This is a political space united in a civilization, historical, cultural, economical, social, energetic way, etc. Assuming that Europe was the arena of a bloody stand of European powers, their aggressive antagonism, the cruelest World Wars, its territory the European place was gradually integrated and, through a series of complicated and problematic situations, has come to the level of federal statehood today headed by, though symbolical, but the president (Herman Van Rompuy).

Geopolitically, the European identity is twofold, there are present as atlantist (Sea), as continental (Land) features and, correspondingly, centers of forces in it. The atlantist identity of Europe is expressed by the fact that it, in general, supports the unipolar model, but strives to assure distribution of roles within the Core (of the Rich North), so that, by pursuing the global strategy, Washington also takes European interests into account (a multilateral approach multilateralism). The continentalist identity of Europe (represented traditionally, in the first place, by France and Germany and also by other major industrial countries Italy and Spain) well combines with the exactly multipolar approach, aspires to independence from the US and limitation of the American hegemony in a world scale, to transform Europe into a self-consistent geopolitical center of force, to create a sociopolitical system, not so much on the ground of liberalism as on the principles of social democracy (not Anglo-Saxon individualism but European continental sociality and solidarity), to create independent European military forces, and, ultimately, to transform Europe into an independent pole. If permitting the continental identity to overpower the atlantist one in Europe, we, in prospect, obtain an accomplished pole of the multipolar world in the form of the European Union. It is possible to imagine a scenario analogical with the European integration in other areas of the world as well. Integration of the Post-Soviet space around Russia on similar principles is one of the versions of a new pole creation. Moreover, the principal moments here are integration of Russia with Belorussia and the Ukraine in the west and Kazakhstan in the south with creation of a flexible integration field attractive for the neighbouring countries not only those earlier constituting the USSR but also the ones that did not (Bulgaria, Romania, Slovakia, Serbia, Macedonia in the west, Mongolia in the east) around these four nuclear states. Analogical poles can be and are already created in the course of regional integration in other areas as well. China and India already represent almost finished poles by their demographic characteristics. Colossal economical potential of Japan

and some other Pacific dragons (South Korea, Singapore, and Taiwan) allow to suppose their possible coalition that may also, at a certain configuration, claim for the status of a pole. In a more distant prospect, the Arab world, Integrated Latin America and Trans-Saharan Africa can become poles. A separately taken national state cannot be a pole of Multipolarism. In some situations (China, India, and Russia), a national state can become an integration core, in other cases (European Union, Pacific Region, Latin America, the Arab world) it is most likely to be formed around several cores. But on all occasions it is necessary to pass the way of strategic union of rather dissimilar territories to obtain an accomplished pole. If realizing formation of such regional poles in the course of integration processes on the regional level and assuming that they are already two or three (in addition to the US and the area of their priority influence within the two Americas), we obtain a real framework of the multipolar world that will fundamentally limit the American hegemony and put quite an essential obstacle on the way of unipolar globalization. And even if each of these poles taken alone will be far behind the US power, their aggregate potential and coherent diplomatic position will radically change the general structure of the world order. The Idea of a Great Space as an Operative Concept of Multipolarism Philosophy of Multipolarism is such that even in the conditions of regional integration (by creating a pole of the multipolar world) demands considering diversity of local societies as organic and cultural phenomena. Therefore, for constructing the multipolar world order and performing integration processes, it is necessary to have some special conceptual instrumentation, more flexible and differentiated than rigid models of national statehood, though reproduced in the format of several countries. It is not absolutely necessary, and even not advisable, to join some countries to others or create new states on the base of several countries. Such an approach bears on itself a print of European universalism of the

Modern Time and this is what the Multipolar Philosophy strives to withstand. Therefore, it is much more useful to operate with other concepts that will correctly describe integration processes and substantiate them on the strategic level. In this case, the principle of a Great Space31 (developed on the ground of the experience of American integration and profound reconsideration of Karl Haushofers thesis) set up by Karl Schmitt is ideally suitable. The concept of a Great Space plays the central part in the Multipolarism Theory. It emphasizes the strategic scale of integration, establishes its parameters, defines specific goals, and describes the necessary minimum of territories, demographic and economic indicators, the level of energetic endowment, and cultural and historical boundaries of lands subject to integration. However, it intentionally states nothing concrete in relation to the form of the state structure, political system or administrative control of this Great Space being created. Any specification can only make damage. Moreover, different Great Spaces can be politically organized in absolutely different ways. In one case, they can unite in a common statehood, in another completely preserve already existing administrative political forms, in the third one reformat the common area on the ground of some new (e.g., cultural, religious or ethnical) attitudes. Important is not the legal status of the new integrated structure but its strategic composition, its borders, control centers, scale, and swing. A Great Space can become a principle of all the multipolar strategy. The multipolar world must, therefore, be conceived as the order of Great Spaces. Not one global common space but a mosaic from several areas. The concept of a Great Space can be scaled. In its maximum form, it can coincide with the concept of a pole one of the several within a common multipolar system. But this is the most extreme case. As a rule, the realistic view on the balance of powers and interests in our world suggests that there can be just more integration areas than valuable poles but, at the same time, much less than the officially recognized states. A pole of the multipolar world can consist of several
31

Schmitt C. Raum und Grossraum im Volkerrecht// Zeitschrift fur Volkerrecht. 1940. Vol. 24. No. 2.

Great Spaces preserving relative independence in its structure as well as the autonomy of the smaller units states, ethnic and religious groups, etc. will be preserved inside the Great Space itself. The Status of a Civilization and the Principle of Empire If we cast a glance on history, we can take two forms of social integration as a precedent of Great Spaces 1) the cultural, whose expression is civilization, and 2) the political one becoming apparent in the form of an empire. A civilization appears to be a Great Space united with philosophy, culture, the way of thinking, terminological instrumentation based on one or several languages, in some cases, with religion or cult, but it lacks strategic unity and centralized administration. An Empire is, in the first place, exactly unity and centralization from the point of view of political power, and cultural affinity of societies constituting an empire is secondary and derivative. Both historical forms of the Great Space differ with the combination (though in principally different proportions) of local diversity (government forms, ethnical and religious identity organization, etc.) and the single origin common for everyone. Empires could be built on the ground of a civilization (e.g., by Alexander the Great) and disappeared empires used to leave behind a common civilization field (e.g., the Islamic world after the Caliphates disintegration). This demonstrates that a Civilization and an Empire are historically interconvertible phenomena: one can coexist with the other or arise on the place of the other. This extremely important note demonstrates that there exists continuity between a civilization (cultural unity) and an empire (political unity). And this continuity is expressed in terms of space: both a civilization and an empire represent Great spaces in the geopolitical and sociological sense; the societies situated within this space have some similar paradigmtic elements in their structures. If taking into account that it is a society that produces a space (H. Lefebvre) and that its structures reflect and simultaneously constitute this space, this regularity becomes

easily explainable. All historical Great Spaces (both empires and civilizations) were situated in concrete geographical areas with floating boundaries but with the common core and common space structure. Therefore, it is possible to state that once united territories may, sooner or later, be integrated again at a new historical convolution at least until the common structure of a space remains unchanged and, correspondingly, reflects itself in the societies living in and organizing this space (the accommodating environment). A plenty of examples for this can be made. Thus, the steppe zones of Eurasia were united by one or another nomadic nation with periodical constancy, becoming a part of a united steppe empire or several empires. From the Scythians, Sarmatians, Turks, Khazars to the Mongolians and Russians, these territories were periodically aggregated into a single strategic space under different ethnical cores, different ideologies, and social systems. This zone represents the geopolitical Turan where some traces of the common Eurasian culture and civilization that used to unite different ethnoses, tribes, and religions can be discovered so far. This cultural unity obtained its maximum expression in the Mongolian and later in the Russian statehood (Empire). Another example is the modern Europe. Once it represented the space of the Roman Empire that disintegrated into two constituents (the Eastern and Western Empire) first and in the Modern Time, finally split into sovereign national states. However, the European culture and European civilization remained common for different European ethnoses and, in many centuries after the empire disappeared, political unity of Europe has revived in a new quality in the form of the European Union. These examples demonstrate us that a Great Space as the main integration concept of the Multipolarism Theory is extremely productive for operating with so dissimilar phenomena like culture and politics. In a Great Space as an independent category, these phenomena coincide in a sociological matrix that precedes their final formation and appears to be a model of attitude of several societies to a single space comprehended and perceived as single and common.

Therefore, the term civilization can have a political and geopolitical sense and the term empire correspondingly, that of a civilization. So, we obtain a formula: Empire Great Space Civilization Consequently, cultural and political unification of a space have the common root and can flow in each other depending on specific historical circumstances. If we consider the ideas of Samuel Huntington in relation to the collision of civilizations under this visual angle, we will see that they are not groundless in the sense that cultural unity of a civilization can well be added with a strategic component in some situations, what the critics of Huntington did not take into account, having considered that he overestimated the significance of the cultural factor32. Therefore, what is a Civilization today can become an Empire tomorrow as a common matrix Great Space underlies both of them. This convertibility of cultural unity into strategic one must explain all the fundamentalness of the idea of a Great Space and its significance for the multipolar world. The multipolar world must be constructed upon conditions of a natural historical choice of development objectives by the societies and, consequently, upon the ground of their cultural paradigm. Introduction of the concept of a Great Space demonstrates how to transform culture into politics in the cases where this becomes necessary. However, the concept of an Empire shall be conceived technically, in isolation from the historical connotation; as a politological term, it means no more than: a strategic unity with preservation of

32

Tomlinson J. Globalization and Culture. Cambridge: Polity Press, 1999.

loose local autonomies and different parts of the whole with different grades of sociopolitical integration. In this sense, the Empire theoretically combines with federalism but contradicts the idea of a national state that performs complete unification of the population in legal, educational, linguistic, and cultural aspects and also does not operate with collective actors (as against an Empire supposing loose political independence of individual constituents within its limits), but does with individuals. If an Empire after all sounds too definite and a Civilization, in contrary, too vague, the term Great Space is optimal from all points of view and precisely reflects the very essence of the Multipolarism Theory. 2 The Structure of Identity in the Multipolar World

The New Taxonomy of Actors The Multipolarism Theory must introduce its project and what will be considered the main actor of foreign policy and international relations in the multipolar world order. The Westphalian system suggests a univocal answer to this question: national states. In the period of the Cold War, the centers of the ideological blocks (two superpowers) were real actors. In globalism, there remains one actor the Core of the global system or the Global Government. The Multipolarism Theory, also in this case, proposes a plural model of actors by suggesting a new and original multipolar taxonomy. The instances we denoted as poles will possess valuable strategic sovereignty in the multipolar world. These are huge strategic formations, whose number will be certainly limited more than two but much less than potential Great Spaces. It means that each pole must possess sole control over the united military forces and this instance must be under command of the strategic

government of a pole. Only the sharpest questions will be within the cognizance of this higher strategic instance such as war and peace, use or non-use of force, imposing sanctions, etc. Approximately, such function is performed today by the Security Council of the UN, but only in an absolutely different model excessive in its format, not corresponding to the new correlation of forces in the world, and, therefore, ineffective. The Security Council of a pole can also be compared with the authorities of a well-consolidated military block like NATO or CSTO. Strategic decisions of a macroeconomical, energetic, and transportation character affecting all the space coming under the jurisdiction of the pole will also be within the competence of this instance. Centers responsible for integration of Great Spaces will be on the next level. Their structure will be similar with confederative states government structure where all decisions are made on the principle of Subsidiarity that is, the more local is a problem, the more powers for its solution are concentrated in the lower instances of self-administration. Only general questions entirely affecting all the Great space must come under the jurisdiction of the Integration Centers. As the legal status of Great Spaces can essentially vary, the legal form of their governing instances can represent either a supranational organ participated by the heads of states constituting the Great Space (if national states are preserved) or a different form of confederative or federative organization (by closer integration). On a yet lower level, the Multipolarism Theory admits a very loose form of legal subjectness. Here will be located both national states and multiple forms of other social systems that will not need any national state, since all strategic decisions will be made on a higher level. Questions that will fall within cognizance of the instances placed lower than the centers of Great Spaces will mainly be of a social character, i.e. represent the organization process of different social groups in correspondence with their cultural, historical, ethnic, religious, and professional specificity. In a whole, a Great Space will represent an imposition of many social systems of different quality and different format, each of which will be organized in conformity with its natural living and historical parameters. The challenge of the

multipolar approach is to provide maximum differentiation of social units by giving the maximum freedom to communities and societies in developing forms of their self-administration and social organization. Ethnocentrums and nations consolidated with history, and state formations, and religious communities, and new forms of sociality all of this can become possible within the multipolar model of society organization without approval of any obligatory standards. All questions not affecting the most general strategic positions of a pole and the integration process of Great Spaces will be delegated to the maximum possible inferior level, free from any control of the higher instances. Any segments of a society can organize their existence and their space in correspondence with their ideas, forces, possibilities, wishes, traditions, and imagination structure. The diagram of power instances in the multipolar world can be presented, e.g., like this:

Higher strategic control is concentrated on a pole level but affects very small range of issues respecting only the most principal subjects involving all the inhabitants of this Global Region. Underneath are the integration instances of Great Spaces. And further, there follows a complex distinguished with a random arrangement system and with forms overlapping each other in the diagram configuration of smaller actors, among which no political, governmental, legal or status hierarchy is set forth. Each society, on whatever base it is organized, can turn out to be in any form of taxonomy or complete autonomy in relation to some other instances, depending on a specific case. Somewhere religion can be put above ethnicity and statehood; somewhere vice versa; somewhere the same ethnos, religious community or another form of a stable collective will turn out to belong to different state or social forms, etc. There are no normative rules in the multipolar world that would claim for universalism. Every society has its own variant of organization.

Kitaro Nishida: The Logic of Basho and the Question of Identity.

Upon multipolar terms, the issue of identity is solved in organization of the society not in the spirit of European rationality but rather in the spirit of the logic of places (basho) by Kitaro Nishida33 when one identity does not exclude another but imposes itself on another by including everything, even contradictory forms, in itself since all places (. Nishida) are a weird game of the higher identity of non-existence (mu) where man has one challenge to let social culture in himself as a moment of consecration. In this process, only the main rule is observed: collective identity is more important than individual one. Man is determined by what society and, correspondingly, what culture he belongs to. It is

33

Nishida Kitaro. Intelligibility and the Philosophy of nothingness. Honolulu: East-West Center Press, 1958; Idem. An inquiry into the Good. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1990.

not the society that is something derivative from man but man is derivative from the society. And as variations of societies and their taxonomies are huge, both human identity and its structure turn out to be unlimited. Rigid social systems (like ethnocentrums, for example) minimize individual identity, almost reduce it to naught34. In other societies e.g., in nations or in cultures of monotheist religions the meaning of a personality is much higher and it combines with others forms of non-individual identification (but this increased status of individual origin is also nothing but a consequence of social precepts). In national states, individual identity becomes dominant and in a civil society exclusive. But in this case exclusiveness of individual identity is also the result of specific organization of public paradigm, and by no means of an individual himself. To realize oneself as a personality, one must be placed in a social (extra-individual, normative) environment that will make it a precept and a value. The Multipolar Theory recognizes all forms of identity but demonstrates them in a social context and does not suggest any hierarchization. One collective identity is in no way better or worse than another, the same is also true in relation to the individual identity, if we talk about a society that endows a personality with autonomous ontology. Such an approach assumes respectful attitude to all social systems by insisting just on granting them freedom of their organic formation. Rigid or open and flexible identifications only have their sense in a specific social context, in isolation from which they can be neither comprehended nor compared between themselves. According to Kitaro Nishida, public interest is realized via deindividualization of perception of ones own presence35. When man realizes that it is not him who lives but social consciousness lives through him, he becomes himself, discovers his place, his identity. It is not necessary to strive to weal, it is enough to identify oneself with the common (with a community, state or a social group). In this case, it does not matter whether this society is good or bad, fair is
34

Dugin A. The sociology of the imaginary. The introduction into the structural sociology. M., 2010. Idem. The sociology of Russian Society. M., 2010. 35 Nishida Kitaro. An inquiry into the Good. Op. cit.

the ruler or he is, in contrary, a tyrant and despot. All these estimations have neither sense nor autonomous existence: it is just necessary to well serve the collective identity by erasing your me for accomplishing your phenomenon in a human form and then the goal will be achieved. If working well for any collective and truly serving any ruler, the weal will be achieved the collective will become healthy and the ruler will correspond to the situation. This rule is also relevant in respect with the modern Western Society, since, if passing the way of an absolute individual and absolute freedom till the end (as liberalism suggests in theory), you will take to the fundamental ontology, Dasein and tradition (just from the other end)36. The National State and the Multipolar World One of the most important points of the Multipolarism Theory concerns the national state. Sovereignty of this structure had already been challenged in the period of ideological stand of the two blocks (the Cold War) and, in the period of globalization, this subject acquired yet sharper relevance. We saw that globalism theorists either speak about complete exhaustiveness of national states and a necessity of transferring to the Global Government (earlier F. Fukuyama37) or believe that national states have not yet performed their mission till the end and must continue existing for some more historical period so as to better prepare their citizens for integration into The Global Society (later F. Fukuyama38). The Multipolar Theory demonstrates that national states are a Eurocentric, mechanistic and, to some extent, globalist, in its initial stage, phenomenon (the idea of normative individual identity in the form of civicism prepares the ground for the civil society and, correspondingly, for the global society). That all the
36 37

Evola J. Fenomenologia dell'individuo assoluto. Roma: Edizioni Mediterranee, 1974. Fukuyama F. The End of History and the Last Man New York, NY: Free Press, 1992. 38 Fukuyama F. 2004. State-Building: Governance and World Order in the 21st Century. New York: Cornell University Press, 2004. Fukuyama Dugin. Ideas do mean/ Profile, 2007 23(531).

world space is separated today into territories of national states is a direct consequence of colonization, imperialism, and projection of the Western model on all humankind. Therefore, a national state does not bear in itself any self-sufficient value for the Multipolarism Theory. The thesis of national states preservation in the prospect of constructing the multipolar world order is only important in the case, if this pragmatically impedes globalization (not contributes it) and conceals under itself a more complicated and prominent social reality after all, many political units (especially in the Third World) are national states just nominally and they virtually represent various forms of traditional societies with more complex systems of identity. Here, the position of the multipolar world proponents is completely opposite to the globalists: if a national state performs unification of the society and assists atomization of its citizens, i.e., implements real profound modernization and westernization, such national state does not have any importance, being just a sort of globalization instrumentation. Such national state is not worth preserving and it has no sense in the multipolar prospect. But if a national state serves as a front face for another social system a special original culture, civilization, religion, etc., it should be supported and preserved while catering to its forthcoming evolution into a more harmonious structure within the limits of sociological pluralism in the spirit of the Multipolar Theory. The globalists position is directly opposite in all things: they appeal to remove national states serving as a front face for a traditional society (such as China, Russia, Iran, etc.) and, in contrary, reinforce national states with ProWestern regimes South Korea, Georgia or Eastern Europe countries. 3 The Quadripolar World The Quadripolar Map of the Alternative World. An Appeal for Pan-Ideas

It is quite possible to apply all the above-mentioned theoretical considerations in respect with the multipolar world strategic organization to the existing state of affairs and offer as one of the possible versions a model of the future multipolar world order corresponding with all the specified conditions. We call this model quadripolarism or fore-pole world. This structure is based upon several initial sources: Haushofer); politics. By applying the principles of the Multipolar Theory to the analysis of the present moment and proceeding from geopolitical methodologies, we can describe the following picture. The potential multipolar world in its four-pole version (quadripolarism) represents four global zones dividing the globe in the meridian. K. Haushofer's map in case of realization of pan-ideas looked approximately like this. Two American continents are in the first zone. This is the first pole. Its center is in the Northern hemisphere and coincides with the USA. This model reproduces the Monroes doctrine or the US status of a great regional power, a peak it achieved by the end of the 19th century, having liberated itself from the European control and, in contrary, having established control (economic and political) over the majority of the Latin American countries. geopolitical strategy of the CFR and Trilateral Commission in the analysis of the role and place of modern Russia in the global relation to three global regions (the USA, Europe, and the Pacific Zone); new relevance of geopolitics of pan-ideas (Kudenof-Kallergi, K.

Within this area that is under strategic control of the US pole, it is possible to separate two or three Great Spaces. Two in case if uniting the US and Canada that are close in their sociopolitical and cultural structure into one Great Space, and, by the same parameter, draw all Latin America into another Great Space. Three Great Spaces arise in case that we divide the Latin American countries being quite profoundly integrated with the US and under their complete control and those inclined to create their own geopolitical zone resisting the US (where Cuba, Venezuela, Bolivia, and, implicitly, Brazil, Chile, etc., obviously trend). The area of Euro-Africa is in the second zone, on the right in the world map. The pole of this zone is, obviously, European Union, a doubtless political and economical leader within these boundaries and an attraction center for all this meridianal zone. We consider the multipolar scenario, and consequently, believe by default that continental orientation predominates in such Europe, transatlantic relations are weakened, loosened or completely torn and all strategic attention of Europe is given to the South. Three Great Spaces are possible in this zone the European Union itself, the Arab Great Space (mainly Islamic) and Trans-

Saharan (black) Africa. All the three Great Spaces have strongly marked cultural and civilization features, strictly distinct from each other but in no way mutually exclusive. As Multipolarism comprehends integration as a partnership of only higher political and strategic instances, confusion of diverse societies constituting these three spaces between themselves is by no means provided. The processes of intercultural, social, ethnic, economical exchange can develop in natural logic but no universalist recipes must exist here. Societies can live separately without crossing, if unnecessary, and general strategic planning is carried out on the level of plenipotent and competent representatives of all three "Great Spaces. The next zone and this one is crucial in the entire picture is Eurasia. Russia (Heartland) appears to be a pole here. At the same time, there is a range of very important regional centers of power in this zone Turkey (if it chooses Eurasian, not European way of integration, what is quite probable), Iran, India, and Pakistan. Here we deal with several Great Spaces and their interferences. Russian-Eurasian Great Space includes Russian Federation and the CIS countries. Turkey, Iran, Pakistan, and India appear to be Great Spaces by themselves, whereas Afghanistan is in a point, upon which all regional centers of power bear pressure (except for Turkey and India, though the Afghanistan lands occupy a crucial position in relation to India what was systematically conceptualized by constructors of the British Empire long time ago39). It is the very possibility of presence of such a strategically consolidated Eurasian space that all might of atlantism and globalization is directed against. The Trilateral Commission and CFR projects of both World War II period and post-war period and also all geopolitics of The Cold War were directed to one goal: prevent the USSR (Heartland) from drifting together with other regional powers to the South of its borders. Just therefore, the invasion of the Soviet troops in Afghanistan aroused such a sharp reaction of the US. Strategically, the unipolar world and globalization processes are only possible in case if this Eurasian strategic zone does not exist, the access of Russia (Heartland) to warm seas is
39

Snesarev A.E. Afganistan. M, 1921.

blocked, and its integration potential is extremely limited. and in contrary: the multipolar world, organization of the world order on the principles of The Land Power only and exclusively depends on whether Russia succeeds in creating a strategic block with mighty Asiatic powers situated to the South of her borders.

And, finally, the fourth zone is the Pacific Region where two powers China and Japan claim for the role of a pole. This zone can be configured in a different way as civilization influence of India is also great there. China is a Great Space by itself (especially, if taking into account the concept of The Great China where they also refer Taiwan, Singapore, and Hong-Kong40) and Japan possesses all the characteristics for creating a Great Space around itself as a center of geopolitical, economical, technological, and strategic emission. Quadripolarity principally differs from the atlantism unipolarity scenario with the structure of its geostrategic axes. They come along the meridians due from the North to the South; the integration poles are in the Northern Hemisphere and their influence deeply expands into the area of the South and into the Southern
40

Babyan D. Geopolitika Kitaya. Erevan, 2010.

Hemisphere whereas the atlantism model is constructed on the principle of besetting Eurasia (Heartland) from the West (Europe with atlantism identity domination) and from the East (the US allied countries of the Pacific Region in the first place, Japan). The Fourth Political Theory and the Fourth Earths Nomos As the unipolar world and globalism (mondialism) represent an ideology (or meta-ideology) based upon liberalism, the multipolar world must also have certain ideological precepts. However, here arises one difficulty. The old ideologies opposing liberalism (Fascism and Communism) historically collapsed, not merely because they lost but also because they contained a kind of ideological virus in their structures what among with external pressure (of liberalism) did ensure their defeat. In politology, it is accepted to call all versions of liberalism and liberal democracy the first political theory, Communism the second and a range of ideologies anyhow close to the European Fascism or the third way the third political theory. Modern globalization is constructed upon the foundation of the first political theory but elevated to its paradigmatic civilization matrix to a pure expression of The Sea Power. Therefore, globalization assumes transformation of liberalism into a more general structure; from classical ideology or political theory, liberalism (more precisely, neo-liberalism) turns into a planetary meta-ideology that, on the one hand, merges with the atlantism Sea sociological matrix itself and, on the other hand, transfers from the level of ideas on the level of objects, enters the very objects of the surrounding globalizing world. Not so many intellectuals, political and public actors or mass-media as technologies themselves, forms of financial clearing payments, individual electronic numbers, retail chains, fashionable brands or household appliances from now on become bearers of this meta-ideology. It is difficult to invent a better promoter of neoliberal ideology than the MacDonalds fast-food restaurant chain, Windows operating systems, Google browsers, credit

cards, notebooks, and mobile phones. All these objects and technologies emit ideological energy calling for connecting, riding the surf, following the most modern trends, etc. Meta-ideology of liberalism does not persuade, reason or prove its rightness and consistency, it catches in global networks of living practices becoming necessary and, further, installs itself like a computer program does in hardware. Multipolar world must also be settled upon a certain ideological basis or political theory that would conclusively oppose neo-liberalism and represent a meta-ideology reflecting the sociological paradigm of the Land, exactly like neoliberalism does in its todays condition. Being exactly a meta-ideology, the political theory of Multipolarism must be maximally general, flexible, and capable to include the most different at times contradictory systems of ideas. Besides, Multipolarism inherently assumes diversity and distinction taken as positive phenomena and so, this new meta-ideology cannot be dogmatic or rigidly structurized. Its main and general feature will exactly be an opposition of a wide range of original local and regional sociological, cultural, political, and economic possibilities to liberal uniformity and standardization of the globalizing humankind. As the second and the third political theory existing in different historical conditions are unacceptable and ineffective today, one should raise a question about developing the fourth political theory. It is in this direction where developments of Russian sociologists, politologists and philosophers41, and a range of European continentalism-oriented intellectual centers are carried out today42. The fourth political theory in its most general form is based upon: the main principle of freedom for a society to follow in their own historical way in any direction and to create any sociopolitical and sociocultural forms43;

41 42

Dugin A. Tchetvertaya polititcheskaya teoriya. SPb, 2009. Alain de Benoist. Protiv liberalizma. SPb, 2009. 43 Zharinov S. Svoboda kak fundament 4PT/ Tchetvertaya polititcheskaya teoriya. #1, M., 2011.

affirmation of plurality of times among with the linear time and

progress that are local sociological phenomena only acceptable for Western Civilization44; recognition of complete equality of Western and Eastern, modern and archaic, technologically and economically developed and so called backward nations; rejection of all forms (explicit or implicit) of racism (including recognition of the right of societies to create religious political cultural, economical, technological, civilization racism, etc.); systems, as well as secular ones, or not to create any at all; theology and dogmatics (and even mythology) can serve as serious grounds for making political decisions as well as secular logic and rational interests; sense; theory45; recognition of plurality and differences as a superior living value, any attempt upon which (especially in a global scale) must result in sanctions of all political and strategic instances recognizing the fourth political theory and multipolar world order46. If referring to Karl Schmitts theory of The Earth's Nomos, it is possible to notice the following regularity. Alain de Benoist writes about this: Schmitt stated that there have been three nomoses of Earth before today. The First Nomos is the nomos of the Antiquity and Middle Ages where civilizations lived in some isolation from each other. Sometimes there were attempts of imperial joining like, for example, the Roman, German, and Byzantine
44

obligatory binding of sociopolitical and cultural forms to space

and history as to a specific semantic field, beyond which they lose their emphasizing such an instance as Dasein, different for

representatives of different societies, in the basic actor of the fourth political

Dugin A. The sociology of the imaginary. The introduction into the structural sociology. M., 2010. Idem. The sociology of Russian Society. M., 2010. 45 Dugin A. Martin Heidegger and the possibilty of the Russian Philosophy. Op. cit. 46 Dugin A. Tchetvertaya polititcheskaya teoriya. SPb, 2009..

Empires. This nomos disappears with the beginning of the Modern where modern states and nations appear in the period that begins in 1648 with the Westphalian Treaty and ends with two World Wars a nomos of nation-states. The third Earths nomos corresponds with the bipolar regulation during The Cold War when the world was divided between the West and the East; this nomos finished when the Berlin Wall fell and the Soviet Union47 was destroyed and further he says: The question is what will be the new Earths nomos, the fourth one? And here, we approach to the subject of the fourth political theory that must be born. This is precisely The Fourth Earths Nomos that is trying to come into being. I think and deeply hope that this fourth Earths nomos will be a nomos of great continental logic of Eurasia, the Eurasian continent.48 4 Heartland in the 21st century Russia as Heartland The multipolar world and the very possibility of its construction directly depend on the main factor on the position, condition and behaviour of the modern Russian Federation in the nearest years and decades when it will really be decided what The Fourth Earths Nomos should be. This nomos can either be globalist and unipolar, based upon neo-liberalism and network society, or multipolar, connected with The Land and The Fourth Political Theory. All depends on whether Russia wants and can accomplish the mission and the objective her Space Sense (Raumsinn) dictates in this crucial convolution of the global history. This statement is based upon cold and estrange calculus and objective geopolitical data whatever version of this we take (Geopolitics-1, Geopolitics-2,
47
48

Alain de Benoist. Protiv liberalizma. SPb, 2009.

Ibidem.

or Geopolitics-3). Geopolitics operates with the idea of Heartland and constructs all its picture of the world around this geographical axis of history (H. Mackinder). Russia is Heartland. All its history and its importance are expressed in this. Russia makes sense only as Heartland, as The Land Power, as a continent. Therefore, what The Fourth Earths Nomos should be entirely and completely depends precisely from Russia. Interpretation of Heartland in Three Types of Geopolitics This is acknowledged by all schools and trends of geopolitics but propaganda or quasi-geopolitical researches and publications pursuing not scientific but some other aims. But for Geopolitics-1, everything is reduced to the idea of making imperative and desirable partition of Heartland (its marginalization and fragmentation), as a condition of globalization and final securing of unipolarity, irreversible, real, and conclusive. Destiny of globalization depends to a large extent on whether they sufficiently succeed in loosening, splitting and destabilizing Russia, subduing her and her fragments to external control. Since this has not yet happened, the possibility of constructing a multipolar quadripolar world is not removed from the agenda and, consequently, globalization is challenged. Behind all this ostentatious indifference towards modern Russia, the US and the West conceal scarcely disguised horror from admitting that she can turn back in her yet degrading motion and enter a new historical orbit as it was many times in the past. For Geopolitics-3 (coastal zone), Heartland and political destiny of Russia are also of great importance since presence of The Land Power only gives Rimland a possibility to perform strategic orientation choice or combine certain elements (of the Sea and the Land). Otherwise, whatever role of this area comes to naught and it becomes a technical application for the US and, moreover, a kind of strategic colony.

Geopolitics-2 sees the crucial role of Russia with the opposite sign in comparison with Geopolitics-1 as The Land Power and all the trends that are anyhow in resonance with this civilization obtain a chance to develop upon land (not atlantist, not globalist, not unipolar) principles if Russia only succeeds in preserving her strategic potential, territorial integrity and political independence. Only at presence of the fourth Eurasian zone, the multipolar world can come about. In absence of complete Russian control over Heartland and her participation in global reorganization of the political space on the new grounds, be the strategic and economical forces of the European Union or China ever so significant, they sooner or later turn out to be under direct control of the global Core, forced to accept its rules and laws and, thus, dissolved in the global society. And being alone, they can never withstand the US at all. The Place and Role of Russia in the Multipolar World. For all those seriously intended to withstand the American hegemony, globalization, and planetary domination of the West (Atlantism), the following statement must become an axiom: at present, the destiny of the world order is only decided in Russia, by Russia, and via Russia. Russias taking upon itself the role of a natural leader in constructing the multipolar world is a necessary (but by no means sufficient) condition for existence of Multipolarism. Whatever processes go in all other countries and societies, they remain local technical perturbances globalization will cope with sooner or later. The only chance to realize interests of all countries, societies, political, and religious movements that cannot see their future otherwise than in a multipolar world is in Russia and in her policy. Whereby, it is absolutely unimportant how some or other forces treat Russia, her culture, her traditions and her social pattern, her policy, etc. This is of absolutely no importance. The central part of Russia is stipulated by the structure of political geography. It is notable that even German geopolitician Karl Haushofer, at the height of the war against the USSR, continued stating that realization of the land

mission of Germany is only possible via an alliance with the USSR (a continental block), and White Guard P. Savitsky predicted the victory of the Bolsheviks at a Civil War front in 1919 as they turned out to be capable to consolidate Heartlands territories and forced the White to the coastal zone (that the White relied upon the Entente was the last argument for their defeat and for the atlantism identity of this movement). Therefore, also nowadays, not the Russians themselves but foreign geopoliticians of continental orientation (J. Parvulesco49, A. de Benoist50, A. Chauprade51, and many others) predominantly speak about a crucial meaning of Russia for the entire Land Power. Heartlands Objectives Russias objective in such situation is to reorganize Heartland's space so as to provide real sovereignty for herself. Since it is only possible in the context of the multipolar world, the selfish objective acquires a planetary scale. The multipolar world must be built simultaneously in different regions and only through coordination and mutual co-partnership in creating The Fourth Earths Nomos on a multipolar basis; each participant of this process can provide freedom and independence for itself. Sovereignty of Russia directly depends on whether the Continental Europe can achieve independence before the face of the US, and China preserve and reinforce its influence in the Pacific Region. Both Europe and China, and also all the other potential Great Spaces depend to an even greater degree on Russias ability to repulse the challenge of globalization and to create a system of Eurasian continental alliances. Therefore, the strategic objective of upholding their own independence by a society that is absolutely different from other societies causes this society to closely cooperate with potential partners in Multipolarism, no matter how far they are.
49

50
51

Parvulesco Jean. Putin i evraziyskaya Imperiya. SPb, 2006.

Alain de Benoist. Protiv liberalizma. SPb, 2009.

Chaudrad A. Rossia prepyatstviye dlya USA//Russkoye vremya, 2010. # 2.

Russia cannot provide its strategic interests and its security alone. Therefore, she has to pursue active policy in a world scale. But as Russia is Heartland and it has nuclear weapons, huge reserves of natural resources, enormous territories, a centuries-long tradition of upholding her independence, and (what is not inessential) consciousness of her own historical mission (appearing in different forms in different stages from Orthodox-Christian to Communist), she exactly becomes the key to the realization of the multipolar scenario also in case of other countries, not satisfied with unipolarity and globalism (China, European Union, etc.).

Chapter 4. Practical Steps to Construct the Multipolar World: Basic Orientations. Multipolar Axes.
1 Reorganization of the Heartland

Goals Having described the structure of the Multipolar World in the most general terms, we can transfer to a more aimed geopolitical analysis of specific directions to construct it. Let us consider the basic vectors of geopolitical activity that will qualitatively reinforce the aggregate potential of the Heartland to be or not to be of the multipolar world depends on. The main principle of this activity is strategic reorganization of the space surrounding Russia from all directions so that it: allows Russia to have the direct access to vital geographical objects (ports, warm seas, resources, crucial strategic positions); provides absence of the US military bases and direct political influence; prevents integration in NATO; contributes to further integration on the Eurasian ground; favors development of multivarious social systems different from the globalism standard; reinforces the positions of the powers and blocks oriented in the multipolar, continental, and distanced way in relation to globalization. To construct the multipolar world, the Heartland must consolidate and accumulate resources, mobilize social structures, and transfer to a phase of increased geopolitical activity demanding some intensive political work. A kind of geopolitical mobilization is necessary and for this reconsideration of instruments, resources, and potential advantages that do not draw attention in periods of inertial development. Russia must make a geopolitical leap, spurt that would sharply raise her into a new quality. Whereby, it is necessary to use the advantages that can be obtained in the course of integration processes as widely as

possible. One thing is considering Russia itself and the neighbouring countries as national states pursuing their own vested interests (what dictates a competitive, emulative approach if not rivalry) and the other is estimating the neighbours potential as a part of a single strategic space that is necessary to create. In this case, an absolutely different account is necessary and an absolutely different vision of possibilities develops. Geopolitical Consciousness of the Elite The beginning of the Multipolar World construction must be modification of consciousness of the Russian political elite, opening the continental and planetary geopolitical horizon for them, engrafting responsibility for destiny of the social, political, economical and historical space entrusted to them. As well as globalism and construction of the unipolar world are based upon systematic up-bringing of several generations of the American, European, and global elite in the atlantist spirit (via select clubs, expert organizations, intellectual corporations, specialized educational institutions, etc.) that includes in itself, among other things, an obligatory minimum in the filed of geopolitics and sociology creation of the Multipolar World and reorganization of the Heartland must begin with geopolitical awakening and up-bringing of the Russian elite, their active preparation for the response to the present and future challenges they will surely meet. In this field, a minimum of geopolitical and sociological knowledge is also strongly necessary and the most important thing is the wide horizon of strategic and historical ideation embracing the overall picture of transformations happening with Russia and the rest of the world during the last centuries. The elite of Russia must realize themselves as the elite of the Heartland, reason with Eurasian, not only national scales and clearly comprehend inapplicability of the atlantist and globalist scenario for Russia. Only such elite can perform necessary geopolitical mobilization and effectively pursue active restructuring policy of all the Eurasian space in order to build the multipolar world and in the interest of Russias security.

 2 Western Strategy of the Heartland: Overview of Objectives and Priorities

Heartland and the US Now let us consider the general parameters of how revival of the Heartland must evolve by principal directions in the course of the Multipolar World construction. Let us start with the Western direction. The first and the most fundamental moment is a model of building Russias relationships with the US. In the present conditions, it is an extremely difficult and delicate subject. From the point of view of the classical geopolitics and also exceeding from the radical opposition of the globalist (unipolar) and multipolar scenarios, all the US strategy is directed against the Heartland: to its containment, envelopment, weakening, fragmentation, and marginalization. This strategy does not absolutely depend on a specific American administration and personal views of one or another responsible American politician. The US cannot help reasoning and acting like this since this constitutes the constant vector of their planetary strategy (beginning from Woodrow Wilson) that has given convincing results and led the US close to the global domination. There cannot be such reasons or arguments that could cause the US to refuse from the global hegemony and from constructing the global world, especially as many Americans believe that these objectives have almost been achieved. Demanding from the US to take up some other position but the rigidly and consistently hostile one in relation to the Heartland is just irresponsible and stupid. Everything the US strives to in the Eurasian Continent zone is directly opposite to the strategic interests of the Heartland and construction of the Multipolar World. This opposition in the view upon the organization of Eurasias political space is an absolute axiom non-admitting either exclusions or nuances. The US wants to see Eurasia and the balance of power there to be such that it

maximally corresponds with unipolarity and globalization. The Heartland maintains the directly opposite point of view. The Russian authorities cannot help understanding it and President of Russia Vladimir Putin repeatedly declared exactly this, sharply negative, estimation of the unipolar world and American hegemony (in particular, in the so called Munich Speech52). But at that moment, the asymmetry existing between the US as the global hyperpower and the Russian Federation as a mighty but just merely regional power do not allow to form the geopolitical stand between the Sea and the Land, globalization and Multipolarism into an explicit and direct confrontation. The Soviet Union a lot more excelling the modern Russia in its strategic capabilities did not pass the bipolar tension. The less is capable to pass it, even theoretically, the modern Russia (alone). Therefore, Russia has to constantly act in correspondence with this asymmetry by avoiding direct confrontation, obscuring her position behind diplomatic ambiguities while ringing out the structure of the US pressure by the trial and error method in search for breaches and weak points, trying to fend off localized strikes in the territories of vital interests of Russia in her Near Abroad and the East Europe and also latently trying to construct drafts of multipolar alliances. The American and Russian interests are knowingly opposite in all but this is not profitable and uneasy to recognize (though for different reasons) for neither party. Russia is strategically interested in non-presence of the US or NATO in the Post-Soviet space. The US are interested in the directly opposite. Russia wants to have direct partner relationships with her Western neighbours in the East Europe (former Soviet block countries). The US sees an area of its preferential influence in them (a sanitary cordon preventing Moscow from rapprochement with the European Union). Russia wants to create an integration model with the Ukraine and Belarus. The US support The Orange Revolution in Kiev, whose leaders do
52

.. . -- kremlin.ru. 2007. [Electronic resource] URL: http://archive.kremlin.ru/appears/2007/02/10/1737_type63374type63376type63377type63381type82634_118097.sht ml ( 20.09.2010.)

their best for isolating the Ukraine from Russia and discrediting President of Belarus A. G. Lukashenko on the world level in the first place, for his independent policy and distinct orientation to a union with Russia. Russia reinforces contacts with the major powers of the Continental Europe (Germany, France, Italy), in the first place, in the field of energetic cooperation. The US in every way sabotages these contacts via its influence upon the East Europe countries and certain political circles in the European Union (Euro-Atlantism) by impeding the energetic projects, it constantly challenges the pipeline routes and even tries to secure, in a legal way, the possibility for a military intervention in case of disputable energetic situations with supplies obviously meaning, in the first place, supplies from Russia. In such situation of geopolitical tension continuation periodically breaking the surface, it is difficult to build constructive Russian-American policy in virtue of absence of whatever grounds for it. The effectiveness of the Russian-American relationships is measured by the reverse method from the both sides. The success of Russia in relationships with the US is measured with how well Moscow, ultimately, has succeeded in reinforcing the Heartland. The US success is treated in this country in an exactly opposite way it depends on how well the US has succeeded in weakening the Heartland. The Heartland and Europe An absolutely different model exists in relation to the European Union. In the expanded version of the Heartland theory H. Mackinder had formed by 1919, in addition to Russia, there refers the territory of Germany and the Middle Europe. There exists a profound continental tradition, continental identity in Europe that has the most diverse cultural, social, and political expressions. This is clearly seen in the policy of such countries as France and Germany, in a lesser degree in Italy and Spain. Development of strategic partnership with this European Core is of higher priority importance for Russia as Multipolarism can be formed exactly on

this basis. At the moment of the unilateral and not approved by the UN Security Council invasion of the coalition countries (the US and Great Britain) in Iraq in 2001, the draft of a Russian-European continental alliance become evident in the form of the Paris-Berlin-Moscow axis53 when the three presidents of these countries (J. Chirac, G. Schrder, and V. Putin) conjointly condemned the actions of Washington and London thus expressing consolidated interests of the Heartland in its extended structure (Russia + Continental Europe). This almost provoked panic in the US that realized very well what such an alliance can end with for the American global hegemony in case of its intensifying and continuation54 and took up contributing to its fastest demolition by all means. The European Union also has another constituent personified in Britain and also in the countries of The New Europe (former Soviet block countries), whose political authorities are, as a rule, rigidly oriented in the Anti-Russian and ProAmerican way. The strategy of this sector of the European politics is not independent and it completely depends on Washington. In the spirit of classical Anglo-Saxon geopolitics, the US are interested today in creating a sanitary cordon from the East European countries that would be under direct strategic protectorate of the Anglo-Saxons to divide the expanded version of the Heartland (Russia plus Central Europe) into two parts like a wedge. Mackinder saw the way to global domination quite so. Who rules the East Europe (emphasis added A.D.) commands the Heartland, who rules the Heartland commands The WorldIsland; who rules The World-Island controls the world55. Nothing changes today, either. The sanitary cordon of Anti-Russian East European national states weakly realizing the responsibility for their own European continental identity has been built and it serves the same old goal. These countries are NATO-integrated

53

Grossouvre Henri de. Paris, Berlin, Moscow: Prospects for Eurasian Cooperation // World Affairs. 2004. Vol 8 No1. JanMar. 54 Hulsman J. Cherry-Picking: Preventing the Emergence of a PermanentFranco-German-Russian Alliance. -www.heritage.org. 2003. [Electronic resource] URL: http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2003/08/CherryPicking-Preventing-the-Emergence-of-a-Permanent-Franco-German-Russian-Alliance ( 03.09.2010). 55 Mackinder H. Democratic Ideals and Reality: A Study in the Politics of Reconstruction. Washington, D.C.: National Defense University Press, 1996. C. 106.

and it is planned to dislocate some elements of the US ABM system directed, evidently, against Russia in the territory of some of them. Naturally, Russias relationships with these Euro-Atlantist countries will not develop easily as their political regimes are oriented in an Anti-Russian way and, besides, they are not independent and instrumentally used by the US. The Greater East Europe Project Whereby, in relation to the East Europe, Russia can also propose a constructive project that can be tentatively called The Greater East Europe. In theory, it must be constructed upon historical, cultural, ethnic, and religious peculiarities of the East-European societies. All through the history of Western Europe, its Slavic ethnoses and Orthodox societies were at the periphery; they were deprived of attention and slightly influenced the development of the common social, cultural, and political paradigm. The Catholics considered The Orthodox to be Eastern Schismatics (Dissenters and Heretics) and the Slavs were often treated as second-class people. All of it is sequences of typical Eurocentrism and estimation of the culture level of a society by the degree of its similarity with the Western European society. But the Slavs and the Orthodox cultures essentially did and do differ from the Roman-Germans and Catholic-Protestant societies. If Western Europe historically interpreted this difference in favor of superiority of the Roman-German culture over the Slavic one and of Catholicism over Orthodoxy, it is possible to act otherwise within the limits of the multipolar approach and affirm the distinctiveness of the East-European countries and nations as independent and self-valuable sociological and cultural phenomena. The project of The Greater East Europe can include both the Slavic circle (the Polish, Bulgarians, Slovaks, Czechs, Serbs, Croats, Slovenians, Macedonians, Bosnian and Serbian Moslems, and also minor ethnoses such as Lusatian Serbs) and the Orthodox one (the Bulgarians, Serbs, Macedonians but at the same time the Romanians and Greeks). The only East-European nation that does not fall

under the definition Slavic or Orthodox is the Hungarians. But on the other hand, in this case their Eurasian, steppe origin is present that is common with the other Finno-Ugric nations, the vast majority of which lives in the Heartland territory and has a strongly marked Eurasian cultural character. The Greater Eastern Europe could become an independent Great Space within the limits of the united Europe. But in this case, these countries and societies would cease to carry out the function of a sanitary cordon and serve as pawns in the atlantist geopolitical game and they would find a decent place in the common ensemble of the multipolar world. From the Heartlands point of view, this would be the optimum alternative. The Heartland and the Western CIS Countries Let us consider the Heartlands relationships with the CIS countries situated to the West of the Russian Federation territory. The lands of the present Ukraine and Belarus were initially an integral part, moreover, the nuclear, central one of the Kievan Rus and both the Russian statehood and historical development of all the Heartlands space by the Eastern Slavs begins in these very territories. After liberation from the Mongolians, the Muscovite Great Dukes and later Tsars considered strategic integrity restoration of the former lands of the Kievan Rus under the single authority of an Orthodox Slav Statehood to be the basic vector of their foreign policy. Innumerous wars against Lithuania, Livonian Order, and later (in the Saint-Petersburg period) against Ottoman Empire were dictated by this very objective restoration of the single political space. Russian political and public actors saw the union of the Greater-Russians, Minor-Russians, and White-Russians as fulfillment of the historical course by Moscow. It is the Heartlands zone where the Ukraine and Belarus essentially belong, and, consequently, the integration of the three Eastern-Slavic societies and states into a single, well-consolidated strategic structure is a very important historical objective. From the strategic point of view, this integration is absolutely necessary so that Heartland becomes an

independent geostrategic power in a regional and then also in a world scale. Atlantist geopoliticians from H. Mackinder to Z. Brzezinski clearly realized it. H. Mackinder actively worked at creation of The Independent Ukraine in the years of the Civil War and Z. Brzezinski did already in our time, in the late 80-s early 90-s. Whereby, Brzezinski absolutely justly notes that the possibility of a geopolitical revival of Russia as an independent player of the Great Geopolitics directly depends on her relationships with the Ukraine. Without the Ukraine, Russia is not sufficient in either space and strategic or in demographic or political sense. It is exactly why the West (and the US specifically) actively sponsored The Orange Revolution in the Ukraine in order to establish such a regime there that, notwithstanding all the vital interests of the Ukrainians, would sever the ties with Russia and integrate into the NATO military-strategic pact at a quickened pace. In 2004-2009, after the successful performance of The Orange Revolution, the events evolved in exactly this scenario. After Victor Yanukovichs coming to power in 2009, the situation has slightly improved and stabilized and this gives a chance for the Heartland again. In relation to the integration with the Ukraine and Belarus, Russia must act in an extremely delicate way so as not to repeat the mistakes of both the Tsarist Imperialism and the Soviet Period in this process when the integration processes went with huge expenses. In this regard, the philosophy of Multipolarism that positively evaluates all the differences in culture, ethnicity, socialist, and history can play a huge role. If this philosophy will be mastered by the Russian political elites, the dialog with the Ukrainians and Belarusians will develop in an absolutely different scenario than today. Multipolar integration is not absorption, a merger or, moreover, Russification. Russia does not appear here as a national state with its selfish interests and ambitions but as a Core of a new, pluralistic and polycentric formation where centralization will only concern the most principal issues (war, peace, partnership with external blocks, transportation system, macroenergetics, etc.) and all the other matters will be considered on the national levels. It is

absolutely evident that Multipolarism strongly excludes the possibility of enering the NATO-pact for the Ukraine or Belarus. Moldova is a special area, whose territory also partially constituted the Kievan Rus and was mastered by the Slave tribes of the Ulichi and Tivertsi among with other nations in the first place, by the descendants of the ancient Thracians, the Moldavians. Ethnically, the Moldavians are akin to the Romanians and they are confessionally Orthodox. They represent, from the geopolitical point of view, a typical limitrophe society where both purely Eurasian features and traits of some East-European cultures are clearly distinct. The existence of some hypothetic Greater Eastern Europe would completely adjust the problem of Moldova and make its integration with Romania just a technical issue. But while Romania is a NATO member and it is a part of the sanitary cordon built against the Heartland by the atlantist strategists, such integration will be impossible since it disturbs Russias strategic interests and goes against the basic development vector of Multipolarism. Basic Objectives of the Heartland in the Western Direction The Western segment directions in constructing the Multipolar World we have counted do not assume a sequence but they must evolve in a parallel way as they refer to different levels, and these levels themselves are interconnected between each other. Thus, Russias relationships with the US are directly influenced by Russias relationships with Western Europe, Eastern Europe, and the CIS countries and vice versa. This is a single geopolitical system simultaneously concerning all the constituents and predetermining the general structure of the foreign policy. Russia can colligate the Western vector of the Heartland in constructing the multipolar world in the following way: outplay the US in the European space without coming into a direct confrontation;

 contribute to crystallization of the continental identity of the European Union; promote the Greater East Europe Project; prevent the NATO from further advance towards the east and creating a sanitary cordon between Russia and Europe; integrate Russia, Ukraine, and Belorussia into a single strategic space; neutralize integration of Moldova and Romania (while the latter is a NATO member).

3 The Southern Strategy of The Heartland: Overview of Goals and Priorities Eurasian Middle East and the Role of Turkey Let us consider the southern direction of the Russian strategy. It is also possible to blueprint here some unconditional guides specifically directed to the construction of Multipolarism. Like in the previous case, the issue of the effective stand against the US strategy in this region will be crucial here. The American strategy declared the space of the whole world to be the area of their national interests and therefore the US has instrumentation strategies for redistribution of the regional balance of power for their own benefit in each point of the political space on Earth. Let us put aside the situation in the North-African Region as not directly concerning the strategic interests of the Heartland. At the modern stage, the processes evolving in the Middle East and down to the Pacific region begin to seriously concern Russia. We will separate the subjects of geopolitics of the South and that of the East in the nominal Pakistan line. From Egypt and Syria to Pakistan it is nominally the South. From India to the Pacific Ocean area (Japan) it is the East.

For the Middle East, the US has its own Great Project The Greater Middle East Project56. It specifies democratization and modernization of the Middle East societies and modification of the national states structure in the region (probable disintegration of Iraq, appearance of the new state Kurdistan, possible partition of Turkey, etc.). In a whole, the general sense of the project is to reinforce military presence of the US and NATO in the region, weaken the positions of the Islamic regimes and countries with strongly developed Arab nationalism (Syria), and contribute to profound introduction of the globalism pattern in the traditional religious structure of the societies in this region. The Heartland is interested in the directly opposite scenario, namely: in preservation of the traditional societies and their natural development; in the support of the Arab countries in their aspiration to build societies on the grounds of the unique ethnic and religious culture; in reduction of the number or complete absence of the American military bases all over the Middle East; in development of bilateral relations with all the regional powers in this area in the first place, with Turkey, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Syria, etc. Turkeys withdrawal from NATO would be optimum for Russia, which would allow to sharply intensify the strategic partnership with this, Eurasian in its identity, country, whose proportions between the traditional society and modernity well remind the Russian society. In the recent years, authoritative and influential Turkish politicians have been speaking ever louder about the possibility of Turkeys withdrawal from NATO for example, general Tuncer Kilin57, former Head of the National Security Council of the Turkish Republic and many others. During the recent decades, Turkey has sharply changed the manner of its

56

Achcar G. Greater Middle East: the US Plan www. mondediplo.co. 2004. [Electronic resource] URL: http://mondediplo.com/2004/04/04world ( 03.09.2010); Greater Middle East Project - en.emep.org. 2009. [Electronic resource] URL: http://en.emep.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=53%3A-the-greater-middle-eastproject&catid=36%3Aarticles&Itemid=55 ( 03.09.2010);
57

Kilinc T. Turkey Should Leave the NATO -- www.turkishweekly.net. 2007. [Electronic resource] URL: http://www.turkishweekly.net/news/45366/tuncer-kilinc-%F4c%DDturkey-should-leave-the-nato-.html.

geopolitical behaviour by turning from a safe atlantism bastion into an independent regional power capable to pursue independent policy even when it diverges with or even contradicts the US and NATO interests. Therefore, today it is well possible to talk about creating Moscow-Ankara axis, which was absolutely improbable fifteen-twenty years ago58. Moscow-Teheran Axis Farther to the East, there is situated the main element of the Eurasian sector multipolar model this is the continental Iran, the country with multimillenary history, unique spiritual culture, and crucial geographical location. Moscow-Teheran axis is the main line in constructing what yet K. Haushofer called the Eurasian pan-idea. Iran is the very strategic space that automatically solves the challenge of turning into a global world power for the Heartland. If integration with the Ukraine is a necessary condition for this, the strategic partnership with Iran is the sufficient one. It is absolutely evident that at the moment Russia has neither wish nor possibility to independently annex these territories where she never historically succeeded even in more advantageous conditions (all the Russian-Persian wars gave Russia merely a partial preponderance and contributed to reorganization of the South Caucasus and Dagestan territories in her favor). Besides, the Russian and Iranian societies are different and represent cultures far away distant from each other. Therefore, Moscow-Teheran axis must represent a partnership based upon the rational strategic calculus and geopolitical pragmatism in the name of realization of the multipolar world order model the only one that would suit both the modern Iran and the modern Russia. Iran, like any coastal area of the Eurasian continent, theoretically possesses double identity: it can make the choice in favor of atlantism or in favor of Eurasianism. The uniqueness of our situation is that, at the moment, the political
58

Dugin A. Moska-Ankara aksiaynin. Istambul:Kaynak, 2007

authorities of Iran, in the first place, the nationalistically and eschatologically disposed Shiite priesthood, are at extremely anti-atlantist positions, positively negate American hegemony, and rigidly stand against globalization. By acting more radically and consistently than Russia in this way, Iran has logically become the US number 1 enemy. In this situation, Iran has no possibility to further insist on such position without reliance upon a firm military technical force: Irans own potential will be obviously insufficient in case of a confrontation with the US. Therefore, the very historical moment unites Russia and Iran into a common strategic space. Moscow-Teheran axis solves all the principal problems for the two countries: it gives Russia the access to the warm seas and gives Iran a warrantor of the nuclear security. The land essence of Russia as the Heartland and the land (Eurasian, as soon as it is anti-atlantist) choice of the modern Iran put both powers in the same position in relation to the US strategy all over the Central Asiatic region. Both Russia and Iran are vitally interested in absence of the Americans in the vicinity of their borders and in disruption of the balance of power redistribution in this zone in favor of the American interests. The US have already developed the plan of The Greater Central Asia59, whose sense is reduced to splitting this area, turning it into the Eurasian Balkans (Z. Brzezinski60) and displacing the Iranian and Russian influence from there. This plan represents creation of a sanitary cordon this time, at the southern borders of Russia, what is addressed to separate Russia from Iran like the West sanitary cordon is drafted to separate Russia from the continental (and continentalist) Europe. This sanitary cordon must consist of the Great Silk Road countries Armenia, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Afghanistan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, and Kazakhstan which are planned to be put under the American influence. The first chord of this scenario is placement of some military
59

Starr F. A Greater Central Asia Partnership for Afghanistan and Its Neighbors www. www.stimson.org. 2005. [Electronic resource] URL: http://www.turkishweekly.net/article/319/the-greater-central-asia-partnership-initiativeand-its-impacts-on-eurasian-security.html ( 03.09.2010); Purta Frat. The Greater Central Asia Partnership Initiative and its Impacts on Eurasian Security -- -- www.turkishweekly.net. 2009. [Electronic resource] URL: http://www.turkishweekly.net/article/319/the-greater-central-asia-partnership-initiative-and-its-impacts-oneurasian-security.html. 60 Brzezinski Z. The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives. New York: Basic Books, 1997.

bases in the Central Asia and deployment of the American military presence in Afghanistan (under the pretence of fighting the Taliban and pursuing Bin Laden). Russia and Irans challenge is to wreck this project and to reorganize the Central Asian political space so as to remove the American military presence form there, overrun the Asian sanitary cordon, and conjointly construct the geopolitical architecture of the Caspian Sea Region and Afghanistan. Russia and Irans strategic interests completely coincide here: What is beneficial for Russia is beneficial for Iran and vice versa. Damage from the National Selfishness in the Russian-Iranian Relationships and Instrumental Globalist Myths But this becomes clear only in case if we observe this region geopolitically and with respect to the imperative of specifically constructing Multipolarism. If, otherwise, considering the Russian Federation and the Islamic Republic of Iran as two national states with selfish and mercantile aims, the picture will become less evident. In this case, a field for diverse play upon differences between the Iranian and Russian societies will be created for the purpose of political manipulations. So, for the Russian public opinion, the globalist centers have prepared the instrumental myth about aggressive Islamic fundamentalism of the Iranian political system and that Russia can get a straight blow on the part of the Iranian religious bigots at some moment also including the military one. This thesis is baseless for several reasons: the real strategic interests of Iran, if they ever overrun its national borders, are only in the Western direction. Iran treats the Shii segment of the society in Iraq (and this is the majority) in the most serious way as well as Syria, the Lebanese Hezbollah, and the Palestinian resistance (especially its Shii faction Jihad-ul Islami). Russian Moslems are all essentially Sunni (but the representatives of the little religious Azerbaijani expat community), Iran is absolutely not interested in and does not make any ideological propaganda in Russia and in the Islamic CIS countries. Whereby, the Iranian authorities perfectly

realize that it is only Russia that is capable to really prevent harsh forms of the American invasion. And finally, Iran and Russia have no even deferred territorial disputes at the moment. The similar myths in respect with Russia (with reciting episodes from the history of the Tsarist imperialism and Soviet ideological propaganda) are launched in the Iranian society with the same goals to prevent, as far as possible, creating the main framework of the entire potential quadripolar structure. It would be strange to expect from the globalists and atlantist geopoliticians that they will coldly observe how the Russian-Iranian strategic partnership deathful for the US global hegemony is created before their eyes. The Afghani Problem and the Role of Pakistan If the Caspian Sea Region is, in the first place, a question of the RussianIranian relationships, to reformat Afghanistan, it is necessary to engage Pakistan. This country was traditionally oriented in the tideway of the atlantist strategy in the region and, moreover, it was in general artificially created by the British by their departure from the West India to create additional problems for the regional centers of power. But in the recent years, the Pakistani society has essentially changed and the previous straightforward Pro-Anglo-Saxon orientation is challenged in increasing frequency especially in view of discrepancy of the globalist standards of the modern and postmodernist global society with the traditional and archaic society of Pakistan. Iran traditionally had strained relationships with Afghanistan, what manifested itself in the fact that Iran and Pakistan invariably supported the parties warring between themselves in the internal Afghan conflict: Iran did the Shii, Tajiks, Uzbeks, and the forces of the Northern Alliance, whereas Pakistan did the Pashtuns and their radical coterie, the Taliban. In these conditions, Russia has got a chance to play an important part in structuring the new Afghanistan via a new convolution of the Russian-Pakistani relationships development and, again, the multipolar horizon taken into account

dictates ourselves in what direction and on what ground we should develop the relationships between Moscow and Islamabad. It is necessary to move in the direction of the entire Central Asian territory liberation from the American presence and, by using the conflicts of the Taliban with the NATO forces, constantly emphasize the special position of Russia in the Afghan issue, and not irrevocably support the aggressor that, presumably, deters the Taliban who could, otherwise, represent a threat for the strategic interests of Russia. This is, by the way, also an ordinary myth launched by the atlantists and globalists. The US never does anything just like that and in favor of Russia yet. If they entered a conflict with the Taliban, there are some serious strategic, military and economical grounds for this. And the most apparent reason is the necessity to legitimize the American military presence in the region. It is Afghanistan controlled by the US and NATO armed power, which is the frame for the Asian sanitary cordon directed against Russia and Iran. This is the exact and only geopolitical sense of the Afghan war. As Pakistan can essentially influence the Taliban, Russia should begin to gradually prepare the new model of relationships with the Pashtun majority of Afghanistan so that Russia does not have to pay for the crimes she did not commit after the inevitable and desirable departure of the American troops from this country. Central Asian Geopolitical Lozenge The entire space of the Middle (or Central) Asia geopolitically represents a lozenge, on whose two northern and southern corners one can place Moscow and Teheran (Russia and Iran).

Moscow

Central Asia

Teheran

Scheme no.Geopolitical Diagram of the Central Asia [map with beams from Teheran upwards to the countries and from Moscow downwards to the same countries]

Between them, there are situated (from the West to the East) Southern Caucasus (Armenia, Georgia, Azerbaijan), Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, and Kyrgyzstan. Several politically and economically consolidated states with regional ambitions (Armenia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, and Turkmenistan) and several more fragile and dependent formations (Georgia, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan) are situated in this area. Afghanistan occupied by the US and NATO troops represents an absolutely different phenomenon. In the Multipolar World prospect, Russia and Irans frame conditions (satisfying their strategic interests) for the strategic model to be built from those countries completely coincide. Tolerant is all but The Greater Central Asia or The Great Silk Road project realization. For example, both Russia and Iran positively dislike Pro-American orientation of the modern Georgia and deployment of the American military bases on its territory. In this sense, Georgia opposes itself to the entire regional model and acts as a bastion of atlantism, globalization, and unipolar world. And the picture is more complicated in the divisive issues where the US have no evident geopolitical interests (e.g., in the Karabakh issue) and neither Iran nor Russia have univocal favourites there. By safeguarding neutrality for the reasons of the domestic policy, Iran helped more Armenia as well as Russia. But both Iran and Russia have, nevertheless, preserved smooth relationships with Azerbaijan. This structure has been changing a little in the recent years in virtue of the Turkish policy transformation ever more and more going out of the US control. And consequently, Turkish influence in Azerbaijan ceases to have the unambiguously atlantist character. At the same time, a part of the Armenian elites ever closer cooperates with the US and the globalist instances, which does not as well pass without a trace for the Russian-Armenian and IranianArmenian relationships. But all these modifications do not exceed yet the level of fluctuations without changing the principal correlation of forces. Such situation

will remain until some resolute shifts in the Karabakh issue take place in whatever direction. In relation to Kazakhstan, Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan, Russia needs to intensify the integration processes in the filed of creating the custom union. At the same time, it is desirable to return Uzbekistan that first entered the EurAsEC and then left it into the integration filed; prevent disintegration of Kyrgyzstan shaken by internal contradictions (not without external forces participation); establish labour contacts with the new authorities of Turkmenistan. Basic Objectives for the Heartland in the Southern Direction The Southern vector of creating the background for the rise of the multipolar world by the Heartland, in general, consists of the following objectives: to outplay the US in the Central Asian space without coming into a direct confrontation with them; to prevent the US from accomplishing The Greater Middle East project; to create a powerful strategic structure in the Moscow-Teheran axis up to military political integration and placement of mutual military objects in the territory of both countries; to try maximally approach to Turkey in its new geopolitical course for independence from the American and globalist influence; to wreck The Greater Central Asia project and reorganize the Caspian Sea Region on the Land (Eurasian, multipolar) grounds by considering the Caspian Sea as The Internal Lake of the continental powers; to impede creating Asian sanitary cordon between Russia and Iran; to integrate Russia, Kazakhstan, and Tajikistan into a single economical and custom space; to develop a new format of relationships with Pakistan in view of its policy transformation;

 to offer new architecture for Afghanistan and contribute to its liberation from the American and NATO occupation. 4 Eastern Strategy of the Heartland: General Overview of Objectives and Priorities Moscow-New Delhi Axis Let us move east. Here we can see India as an independent Great Space, which was the main base to secure the British domination in Asia in The Great Game period. In that period, it was principal for The Sea Power to preserve control over India and prevent the very possibility that any other powers in the first place, the Russian Empire can infringe the undistributed control of the British in this region. The Afghan epics of the British were also connected with it when they continually tried to take their control over the complex structure of the guideless Afghan society just so as to block the Russians from a possible expedition to India61. Such a prospect was theoretically already studied since the period of Emperor Paul I who virtually began (organized and, a bit naively, planned) a Cossacks expedition to India (in league with the French) what, possibly, became the exact cause of his murder (in the organization of which, as historians demonstrate, English ambassador in Russia Lord Whitwoth took part62). At present, India pursues a policy of strategic neutrality but its society, culture, religion, and value system have nothing in common with the globalist project or the West-European way of life. By their structure, the Hindu society is absolutely ground, based upon some constants quite slightly changing during millenniums. In its parameters (demography, the level of modern economical development, integrating culture), India represents an accomplished Great Space that can be organically included into the Multipolar Structure. The Russian-Indian relationships after Indias liberation from the British were traditionally very warm.

61 62

Snesarev. Afganistan. Op. cit. Eidelman N. Gran vekov. M., 2004.

At the same time, the Indian rulers constantly stress adherence to the Multipolar Model of the world order. Whereby, the Indian society itself demonstrates an example of Multipolarism where a variety of ethnoses, cults, local cultures, and religious and philosophical trends perfectly agree with each other with all their interior differences and even contradictions. India is, certainly, a civilization that has acquired on the pragmatic grounds the status of a national state upon completion of the colonization period in the 20th century. With these circumstances favourable for the multipolar project that make Moscow - New Delhi axis to be one more supporting construction of the space aspect of the Eurasian pan-idea, there exists a number of circumstances complicating this process. In virtue of historical inertia, India continues to preserve close ties with the Anglo-Saxon world that was able to essentially influence the Indian society during the colonial rule period and project their formal sociological precepts and patterns on it (in particular, the English language). India is closely integrated with the US and NATO countries in the military technical field and the atlantist strategists extremely treasure this cooperation as it fits well into the Eurasias coastal area control strategy. Whereby, the very mentality of the Indian society rejects the logic of rigid alternatives or/or, and for the Hindu mentality it is difficult to realize the necessity of irreversible choice between the Sea and the Land, between globalization and preservation of their civilization identity. But on the regional level in relationships with its proximate neighbours and in the first place, with China and Pakistan Indian geopolitical reasoning works much more adequately and one should use this for integrating India into the Multipolar Structure of the new Eurasian strategic architecture. The natural place of India is in the Eurasian space where it could play a strategic role comparable with Iran. But Moscow New Delhi axis construction format must be absolutely different, taking into account the specificity of the Indian regional strategy and culture. In case of Iran and India, there must be applied different paradigms of strategic integration.

Geopolitical Structure of China The subject of China represents a very important question. In the present world, China develops its economy so successfully by finding optimum proportions between preservation of the political power of the reformed Communist Party, the principles of liberal economy, and mobilization use of the Chinese cultural commonness (in some cases, in the form of Chinese nationalism), that many assign it to be a part of an independent world pole in a global scale and augur the future of a new hegemon. In its economical potential, China falls under the five states of the world with the largest GDP. Along with the US, Germany, and Japan, the country has formed a kind of club of the leading world trade powers. The Chinese themselves call China Zhongguo that is literally The Central Country. China is a complex geopolitical unit where the following major constituents can be distinguished: the continental China poor agricultural regions weakly irrigated during the year, predominantly populated by native ethnoses united with the concept of Han; the coastal areas in the East representing centers of economical and trade development of the country and access points to the global market; buffer zones populated by combined people (Manchuria. Inner Mongolia, Xinjiang, and Tibet); neighbouring states islands with native Chinese population (Taiwan) The problem of the Chinese geopolitics is as follows: China lacks home demand to develop its economy (poverty of the continental China). Access to the international market via development of the Pacific Ocean coastal area sharply increases the life level but creates social disproportions between The Coast and The Continent and also contributes to reinforcement of the external control via economical relations and investments what threatens the security of the country. In the early 20th century, this disproportion resulted in a collapse of the Chinese statehood, establishment of the external control on the part of the Great Britain

and, finally, occupation of the coastal areas by Japan. Mao Zedong (1893-1976) chose a different way to centralize and completely close the country. This made China independent but sentenced to poverty. At the end of the 1980-s Deng Xiaoping (1904-1997) began the next reform convolution, whose sense was in a balance between open development of the coastal area with attracting foreign investments there and preservation of strict political control over the entire territory of China in the hands of the Communist Party with a view to preserve the unity of the country. This very formula defines the geopolitical function of the modern China. Chinas identity is dualistic: there is continental China and there is Coastal China. The Continental China is oriented to itself and its social and cultural paradigm preservation; the Coastal China ever more integrates in the global market and, correspondingly, in the Global Society (i.e., gradually takes the features of a Sea Power). These geopolitical contradictions are smoothed by the Chinese Communist Party that has to act in Deng Xiaopings paradigm transparency provides economical growth, strict ideological and political centralism backed by the poor continental agricultural regions supports relative isolation of China from the outside world. China strives to take what reinforces it and exfoliate and reject what loosens and destroys it from atlantism and globalization. Meanwhile, Beijing succeeds in supporting this balance and this raises it to the world leaders. But it is difficult to say to what extent one can combine the inconsistent: globalization of one segment of the society and preservation of the other segment in conditions of the traditional order. It is the solution of this extremely complex equation that will predetermine Chinas destiny in the future and, correspondingly, the algorithm of its behaviour. In any case, today China strongly insists on the Multipolar World Order and opposes the unipolar approach on the part of the US and the West countries in most international collisions. The only serious threat for security of the present China originates from the US the American Navy in the Pacific Ocean can at any moment establish a blockade along the entire Chinese coast and thus momentarily

tear down the Chinese economy completely dependent from the external markets. The tension around Taiwan is connected with this as Taiwan is a powerful, thriftily developing state with Chinese population but representing a purely atlantist society integrated in the global liberal context. In the model of the Multipolar World Order, China is assigned with a role of a pole in the Pacific Region. Such a role will be a kind of compromise between the global market, in whose conditions China exists and develops today while supplying a huge share of industrial goods there, and complete closedness. This, in a whole, corresponds with the Chinese strategy striving to maximally reinforce the states economical and technological potential before the moment of inevitable collision with the US comes. The Role of China in the Multipolar World Model In relationships between Russia and China, there are a number of issues that can prevent consolidation of efforts to construct the Multipolar Structure. These are demographic expansion of the Chinese to weakly populated territories of Siberia what threatens with radical modification for the very social structure of the Russian society and bears in itself a direct threat for her security. In this issue, strict control of the Chinese authorities over migration flows in the north direction must be a necessary condition of balanced partnership. The second issue is Chinas influence in Kazakhstan, the close ally of Russia and the Eurasian-wise oriented power, rich with natural resources, huge territories but rather weakly populated. Chinas movement to Kazakhstan can also become a stumbling block. Both these trends infringe an important principle of Multipolarism: space organization along the North South axis and in no way vice versa. The direction where China has all grounds to develop is the Pacific Ocean Region situated to the south of China. The more ponderable will be Chinese strategic presence in this area, the firmer will be the Multipolar Structure.

Reinforcement of Chinas presence in the Pacific Ocean directly collides with the strategic plans of the American global hegemony as, from the position of the atlantist strategy, ensuring control over the world oceans is a key to the entire strategic picture of the world as the US see it. The US naval forces in the Pacific Ocean and their strategic military base placement in its different parts and also in the Indian Ocean, on the island of San Diego, allowing to control the sea space of the entire region will become the main problem for the Pacific Ocean space reorganization by the model of the Multipolar World Order. Liberation of this area from the US military bases can be considered an objective of common planetary importance. Geopolitics of Japan and Its Possible Participation in the Multipolar Project China is not the only pole in this part of Earth. Japan is an asymmetric regional power, however, comparable in its economic parameters. Being absolutely ground and traditional society, after 1945, according to the results of Word War II, Japan turned out to be under American occupation, whose strategic consequences preserve their influence until today. Japan is not independent in its foreign policy, American military bases are located in its territory and its military political importance is insignificant relative to its economic potential. From the theoretical point of view, the only organic way of development for Japan would be including it into the Multipolar Project what assumes: establishment of partner relationships with Russia (with which the peace treaty has not been concluded so far such situation is artificially supported by the US fearing rapprochement of Russia and Japan); restoration of its military technical might as a sovereign power; active participation in the strategic space reorganization in the Pacific Ocean, becoming the second, along with China, pole of the entire Pacific Ocean Space.

For Russia, Japan would be an optimum partner in the Far East as demographically, unlike China, it does not represent any problem; it vitally needs natural resources (what would allow Russia backed by Japan to technologically and socially equip Siberia at a growing rate) and possesses colossal economical power, especially in the field of high technologies, what is strategically important for Russian economy. But so that such a partnership becomes possible, Japan needs to take a decisive step for liberating itself from the American influence. Otherwise (as it takes place in the present situation), the US will consider Japan to be a simple instrument of the American policy addressed to restrain China and potential movement of Russia to the Pacific Ocean. Z. Brzezinski absolutely fairly reasons about it in his book The Grand Chessboard63 where he describes the optimum US strategy in the Pacific Ocean Region. Thus, he supports trade and economical rapprochement with China (since China is thus involved into The Global Society) but insists on forming a military strategic block against it. With Japan, Z. Brzezinski, in contrary, suggests to enhance military strategic partnership against China and Russia (actually, the point is not partnership but more active use of the Japanese territory for the US military strategic objects deployment), and strictly compete in the economical field as Japanese business is capable to make the US economical domination relative in a world scale. The Multipolar World Order logically estimates the situation in the directly opposite way: the Chinese liberal economy is not a self-value and it merely reinforces Chinas dependence from the West and military power, especially in its naval segment, in contrary, is as, in prospect, it creates background for liberation of the Pacific and Indian Oceans from the American presence, Japan, in contrary, is interesting first of all as an economical might competing with the West economies and having mastered the rules of the global market (there is hope that Japan can use it in its own interests at a certain moment) but it is less attractive as a partner of the Multipolar World, being a passive instrument of the American strategy. In all

63

Brzezinski Z. The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives. New York: Basic Books, 1997

cases, optimum would be a scenario of Japans liberation from the American control and its exit on an independent geopolitical orbit. In this case, it is difficult to imagine a better candidate for constructing the new model of the strategic balance in the Pacific Ocean. At present, with respect to the existing state of affairs, it is possible to reserve the place of a pole of the Pacific Ocean Zone for two powers China and Japan. Both have serious grounds for the role of a leader or one of two leaders, essentially excelling all the other countries of the Far East Region. North Korea as an Example of a Land State Geopolitical Autonomy One must give prominence to the factor of North Korea, the country that does not accede to pressure of the West and continues to keep loyalty to its very specific sociopolitical patterns (Juche) notwithstanding all attempts to knock down, discredit, and demonize it. North Korea is an example of courageous and effective resistance to globalization and unipolarity on the part of a rather small nation and its huge importance is in this. The nuclear North Korea preserving social and ethnic originality and also real independence with the modest life level and a whole range of democracy restrictions (comprehended in the liberal, bourgeois sense) dramatically contrasts with South Korea, the country precipitately losing its cultural identity (for example most inhabitants of South Korea belong to Protestant sects), not capable to make a step in its foreign policy without looking back at the US but with more or less trouble-free (materially but not psychologically) population. With the example of the two parts of a historically and ethnically integrated nation, there breaks out a moral drama of choice between independence and comfort, dignity and welfare, pride and prosperity. The North Korean pole illustrates with itself the Land Values, the South Korean one the Sea Values. Rome and Carthage, Athens and Sparta, Behemoth and Leviathan in the context of the modern Far East.

Main Objectives of the Heartland in the East Direction The Eastern (Far East, Asiatic) vector of the Heartland can be reduced to the following main objectives: to guarantee strategic security of Russia on the Pacific Coast and in the Far East; integrate territories of Siberia into the common social, economical, technological and strategic context of Russia (with respect to the catastrophic state of affairs in demography of the Russian population); develop partnership with India including the military technical field (Moscow-New Delhi axis); form balanced relationships with China by supporting its multipolar policy and encouraging its aspiration to the status of a mighty naval power in every way but preventing negative consequences from demographic expansion of the Chinese population in the northern direction and Chinese influence intrusion in Kazakhstan; in every way contribute to reduction of the American naval presence in the Pacific Ocean Region, to liquidation of their naval bases and other strategic objects; to encourage Japans liberation from under the American influence and establishment of an independent regional force, which will allow to adjust the closest strategic partnership in Moscow-Tokyo axis; support regional powers of the Far East defending their independence from atlantism and globalization processes (North Korea, Vietnam, and Laos).

 5 Geopolitics of the Arctic The Importance of the Arctic In relation to the Northern vector, the Heartland faces the problem of the Arctic Area reorganization. The space adjoining the North Pole and the North Ice Ocean essentially increases their importance in the course of development of aerial navigation and particularly rocket production and also in virtue of upcoming deficit of natural resources on the world level. The shortest trajectory between Eurasia and America goes across the Arctic and its shelf abounds with yet weakly explored natural resources (as it is initially estimated, up to 25 per cent of all unexplored resources of oil and gas in the world are deposited there). In such situation, each span of the Arctic land or drawing sea borders acquire special geopolitical value. Today, countries advancing claims for control over the Arctic space are the US, Canada, Norway, Denmark, and Russia. The US, Canada, Norway, and Denmark are NATO members, i.e., representatives of the Atlantic Block. At the moment, the process of obtaining independence by Greenland gains momentum (at present, it is an autonomy within Denmark) but the new country under the EskimoInuits leadership (who are less than 60,000 in the huge space of Greenland) can hardly once, in the foreseeable future, become an independent force. Meanwhile, there are American naval bases in the territory of Greenland (Kanaq). Therefore from the geopolitical point of view, balance of power in the Arctic is determined by Russia (Heartland) and the US (along with the other NATO countries). Realizing the importance of Arctic resources, many other countries that have no direct access to the Arctic develop construction of their own icebreaker fleet (like, for example, China) what demonstrates huge significance of this area for those strategically reasoning about the future. Strategic Security of Russia from the North

In recent years Russia has begun to give increased attention to the Arctic by closely attending the legal issues, performing symbolic Arctic expeditions and reequipping military technical objects situated in this area in an accelerated way. All of it can well be considered constructive steps to ensure the Multipolar Structure of the world. If the Heartland territories are invulnerable for a possible air strike from the territory of the North-American continent and they will also possess an extensive and legitimate share of Arctic natural resources, this will qualitatively increase the probability of establishing the Multipolar Model. Therefore, all powers anyway interested in Multipolarism must theoretically support Arctic claims of Russia that, in this case, does not act just like one of national states caring about her own practical interests (resources, energetics, economy, security) but as a geopolitical force creating a balanced and harmonious multipolar world order.

Chapter 5. Institutionalization of Multipolarism 1 Transformation of the Modern International Law Structure The Levels of the International Law System Let us consider now the fine question of Multipolarism institutionalization. Multipolarism, as well as unipolarity and globalization (mondialism), represents a volitional conceptual project that, necessarily, precedes legal execution and therefore cannot have legal character by itself. This project is a source of international law, more precisely, of its transformation from the existing forms to the new ones. Either Monroe doctrine or Woodrow Wilsons conception, or the Great Space theory by K. Haushofer and K. Schmitt had no legal status, but, being brought (completely or partially) into life, they predetermined the world balance of power in the international politics and, consequently, became juridical forms in certain periods. The international law system always has several levels: general principles shared by a critical number of participants of interests of the main players in the global policy; a power status quo existing for the moment; a legal status quo existing for the moment; future prospects laid by the main players. the international process capable to defend these principles by force;

All these points are in the condition of persistent dynamic transformation and they influence each other. This defines the basic structure of the international law: there are some relatively constant moments (where opposite impulses are in equilibrium) and variable moments in it (where some players accumulate enough potential to change the general rules). Transitional State of the Modern System of International Law

At present, the basic structure of the international law represents the following: The Westphalian system considering national states recognized by the world community (represented by the UN) to be sovereign (i.e., their national governments have the right to pursue a policy independent from external forces within their borders) The Second Earths Nomos by K. Schmitt; inertial remnants of the Yalta system, the bipolar world, which is confirmed in the membership of the UN Security Council where nuclear powers possess votes The Third Earths Nomos by K. Schmitt; influence of the unipolar moment that manifests itself in unilateral declarations and actions of the US and its partners in the Atlantist Coalition concerning what can be considered the area of the US national interests (the entire territory of planet Earth has been declared such an area so called Rumsfeld doctrine, whose formulation in relation to preventive strikes was a little, but only in the form, softened by Barack Obama); globalization principles gradually taking shape of transnational institutions (e.g., such as the International Strasbourg Court) and systems of obligatory legal requirements democracy, human rights, free market, etc. so called universal values. It is easy to distinguish the general transformation vector in this structure. The weight and importance of unipolarity and globalization increase, the system of national states and inertia of the bipolar world weaken. Whereby, very great shifts are noticed in accelerated dismantling of the Yalta system and bipolarity remnants elimination. But, at the same time, the unprecedented case of unilateral invasion of the US and Great Britain military forces in Iraq in 2001, its occupation, elimination of its legally elected President following with creation of a marionette government and beginning of the national statehood disintegration and all of it under a farfetched pretext of Saddam Husseins possession of chemical weapons, proofs of

which have never been presented, and also the invasion in Afghanistan and bombardments of Serbia demonstrate that the importance of national sovereignty of individual states becomes ever more and more relative and its power and legal background gradually weakens. After all, none of the countries protesting against the invasion in Iraq either in Europe (France, Germany) or in Eurasia (Russia), or in Asia (China) could stop it by political means and they did not dare adduce a force argument, thus recognizing in fact the sward law for violating the principle of sovereignty and creating a precedent that, sooner or later, can obtain a legal status. A transition from the second and third Earths nomos to the fourth one takes place in the international law system. And at the moment, they are globalism and unipolarity, and nowise the Multipolar World, that pretend to become this fourth Earths nomos. The Legal Status of Multipolarism Therefore, the issue of the legal status of Multipolarism is most relevant today in the global policy. It reflects the course of the battle for the structure of The Fourth Earths Nomos that can be either unipolar and globalist or multipolar. Two projects of the future architecture intersect between themselves the Sea Project (globalization) and the Land Project (Multipolarism). Gradual institutionalization of unipolarity and globalism against the background of preservation of certain elements of previous legal models (the second and third nomos) is present. Certain US circles already suggest more distinct formulation of this legal model when they say about advisability to create The League of Democracies instead of the UN (representing paradigms of the previous international legal relationships)64. The League of Democracies is
Present ambassador of the US in NATO, professional spy N. Daalder and theorist of international relationships Ann Baefski are considered the authors of the idea to create The League of Democracies, as well as the participants of The Prinston Project (G. P. Schultz and Antony
64

Lake). It was voiced in public by the US Republican Party candidate J. McCain. McCain John. League of

thought to be a union of states headed by the US and it will consist of the countries completely ready to obey the US strategy and to implement requirements of atlantism and liberal democracy in a global scale. The League of Democracies will only be recognized a legal and legitimate model of the international law and those remaining overboard will be classified as rogue states already in the legal way, i.e., through deprivation of rights. Formalization of the multipolar project and its formalization in the legal field are not so distinct yet. And, nevertheless, certain actions for institutionalization of Multipolarism are performed. And we shall consider them now.

Multipolarism in the Russian Doctrine of National Security 1997 Russian-Chinese Multipolarism Declaration By far, that the term Multipolarism does not only figure in speeches of high-ranking political actors but also in a number of official documents is not an insignificant fact. Thus, this can be considered the first step to institutionalization of this concept and its legal formulation. Perhaps, for the first time, the formula Multipolar World was applied in the mutual Russian-Chinese declaration signed in Moscow on April 23, 1997. It was prepared by current Ambassadors of China and Russia in the UN Sergey Lavrov and Wang Xuexian and signed by the RF President Yeltsin and Head of CPC Jiang Zemin65. It was stated there that the bipolar world gone to the past

Democracies (op-ed) //Financial Times. 2008. March 19. See also Kagan Robert. The Case for a League of Democracies// Financial Times. 2008. May 13. The League of Democracies project relations with the globalism and mondialism concepts by George Soros are analized in the article by Cliff Kincaid. Kincaid Cliff. McCain, Soros, and the New Global Order -- www.aim.org. 2008. [Electronic resource]URL: http://www.aim.org/aimcolumn/mccain-soros-and-the-new-global-order/ (reference date 20.09.2010.)
65

See the text on site http://www.fas.org/news/russia/1997/a52--153en.htm (reference date 20.09.2010.)

must give place to the multipolar one66. In that period, nobody gave great importance to this formula but the fact deserves attention. The Strategy of National Security of the Russian Federation until the Year of 2020 Already at our time, we find an appeal for the Multipolar World in the the Concept of National Security of the Russian Federation in force, formulated in the document The Strategy of National Security of the Russian Federation until the Year of 2020 approved by decree of the President of the Russian Federation on 12 May, 2009, No. 53767. Multipolarism is mentioned in the very beginning in point 1: 1. Russia has overcome the consequences of the systematic political and socioeconomical crisis of the late 20th century it has stopped a drop in the living standards of the Russian citizens, has withstood the avalanche of nationalism, separatism, and international terrorism, has prevented constitutional order discredit, has preserved her sovereignty and territorial integrity, has restored the capabilities to develop her competitive power and defend her national interests as a critical subject of the multipolar (emphasis added A. D.) international relationships taking their shape.68 Point 25 of the same document says: 25. National interests of the Russian Federation over a long period include: development of democracy and civil society and increase in competitive power of the national economy; maintenance of inviolability of the constitutional order, territorial integrity, and sovereignty of the Russian Federation;

66 67

Ibid. Strategiya nacionalnoy bezopasnosti Rossiyskoy Federatsii do 2020 goda. www.scrf.gov.ru. 2009. [Electronic resource]URL: http://www.scrf.gov.ru/documents/99.html. 68 Ibid.

transformation of the Russian Federation into a global power, whose activity is directed to the support of strategic stability and mutually beneficial partnership relations in the conditions of the Multipolar World (emphasis added A. D.).69 There is also a reference to Multipolarism in point 24 of this document: 24. To guarantee the national security, the Russian Federation, among with achievement of basic priorities of her national security, concentrates her efforts and resources upon the following priorities of persistent development: () strategic stability and equitable strategic partnership reinforced on the grounds of active participation of Russia in development of the Multipolar Model of the world order (emphasis added A. D.).70 Criticism of the Unipolar World by V. V. Putin and the Eurasian Theses The term Multipolarism has transferred in this document, effective for today, from the previous texts similar to it. In particular, soon after the Presidential elections, on January 10, 2000, V. V. Putin enacts a decree no. 24 About the Concept of National Security of the Russian Federation71 where, in the first part Russia in the World Community, a course to Multipolarism is directly declared: The state in the world is characterized with dynamic transformation of the system of international relationships. Two mutually exclusive trends have prevailed upon completion of the bipolar confrontation period. The first trend manifests itself in reinforcement of economic and political positions of a significant number of states and their integration unions, in perfection of mechanisms of multilateral control of international processes. Whereby, economical, political, scientific and technical, ecological and information factors play an ever greater part. Russia will contribute to formation of

69 70

Ibid. Ibid. 71 O kontseptsii nacionalnoy bezopasnosti Rossiyskoy federatsii. -- www.businesspravo.ru. 2001. [Electronic resource] URL: http://www.businesspravo.ru/Docum/DocumShow_DocumID_11586.html

ideology of the Multipolar World established on this ground (emphasis added A. D.).72 So that there remain no illusions in relation to what opposes the multipolar world, the course on construction of which is manifestly declared in this text, the following paragraph directly condemns the unipolar system of the world order: The second trend manifests itself through attempts to create the structure of international relationships, which is based upon domination of the developed Western countries in the international community with the US leadership and designed for unilateral, first of all military power, solutions of crucial problems of the global policy by evading the fundamental requirements of the international law.73 This approach is explicitly condemned. Vladimir Putin gave more explicated criticism of the unipolar world order in his famous Munich Speech after seven years in 200774, thus demonstrating that resolution of the Russian authorities to oppose the American hegemony and its policy of double standards is a conscious and long-term strategy. V. Putin, in particular, said: Nearly the entire system of law of one state, first of all, of course, of the United States, outsteps its national borders in all fields: in economy and in politics, and in the human sphere and it is imposed to other states75. And he finished this speech with extremely important words: Russia is a country with more than millenary history and, in practice, she has always used a privilege to pursue independent foreign policy. We are not going to change this tradition today as well76. The same idea by sense was also formulated in the Concept of National Security in the Year of 2000, in the first point of which we see a direct appeal for

72 73

Ibid. Ibid. 74 Putin V.V. Vystupleniye I diskussiya na Munchenskoy konferencii ppo voprosam politiki bezopasnosti. -kremlin.ru. 2007. [Electronic resource] URL: http://archive.kremlin.ru/appears/2007/02/10/1737_type63374type63376type63377type63381type82634_118097.sht ml (reference date 20.09.2010.) 75 Ibid. 76 Ibid.

geopolitics, Eurasianism and topics of the Heartland like in Putins words in Munich: Russia is one of the largest countries in the world with centuries-long history and rich cultural traditions. In spite of the complicated international climate and difficulties of the internal character, she objectively continues to play an important part in the global processes in virtue of significant economical, scientific and technical and military potential, and unique strategic position in the Eurasian Continent77. Disregard of the Multipolarism Subject in the Russian Expert Society It is worth noticing that either the first document signed by V. V. Putin in 2000 or The Strategy of National Security in force approved by President D. A. Medvedev were absolutely not discussed in the Russian society either in the circle of experts or in large audiences, and the discussion of the Munich Speech was construed just emotionally and casually. Moreover, one can notice stable reluctance of the Russian elite, and in the first place the RF MFA, to seriously define the idea of Multipolarism and make at least any steps for its specification and construction of a workable plan. Possibly, the reason for this is that any more or less substantial interpretation of Multipolarism will inevitably result in necessity to explicitly formulate a number of positions that, by objective reasons, will certainly dissatisfy the US. Any serious conceptualization of Multipolarism leads us to a sharply set dilemma: either the unipolar or multipolar world. And this supposes a distinct and clear choice. Since the US is constructing the unipolar global world (alone, like neo-conservatives or proponents of The League of Democracies suggest or along with the junior partners as it is suggested by apologists of the multilateral approach and, in particular, by President Obamas administration) and it is not going to turn from this way, an articulate declaration oriented to Multipolarism means a direct
77

Ibidem.

challenge for the US. And neither the Russian society nor the governing elite are ready for such a turn of events. This is it that creates certain discordance. A course on Multipolarism has been distinctly recorded in basic documents defining the military political strategy of Russia in the international field and, at the same time, proneness to conflict of such an approach included in the geopolitical sense of such situation is cautiously retouched in public debates and Russian mass-media. And nevertheless, we deal with an important fact: the course on Multipolarism is laid in the basic strategic documents of Russia and, hence, it has a certain legal status in the national legislation and, consequently, we deal with the first stage of its institutionalization. 3 International Organizations Capable to Become the Basis for the Multipolar World Order in the Legal Field The UN in the Modern Period: a Geopolitical Analysis From the point of view of Multipolarism, it is also possible to look at The United Nations Organization in the form as it exists in the current geopolitical conditions. The UN represents the total of the preceding period of globalization connected with the Westphalian system and, partly, with the bipolar world. In the UN, we deal with a paradigm of the international law corresponding with the second and the third Earths nomos by K. Schmitt whereas today, in a whole, we are gradually passing to the fourth Earths nomos (either unipolar or multipolar). That is exactly why the most radical proponents of unipolarity and globalization ever more frequently voice criticism of the UN and even appeal for dissolution of this organization. In place of the UN, the representatives of rigid America-centric unipolarity suggest to create The League of Democracies78 headed by the US, and the

78

Present ambassador of the US in NATO, professional spy N. Daalder and theorist of international relationships Ann Baefski are considered the authors of the idea to create The League of Democracies

mondialists the global government. These are two directions for legal execution of the new correlation of forces in the world. In such situation, the UN becomes a conservative institution, restraining the tendencies of globalization development. Though initially the UN itself (like The League of Nations, which was its predecessor between the First and the Second World Wars) was invented as an instrument of globalism, its format has become obsolete with respect to the collapse of the bipolar world and the exit of the Socialist Camp and the USSR from the global arena and it brakes institutionalization and legalization of a different picture of the world. In such situation, if globalization processes go under the atlantism scenario, reforming (beginning from the Security Council structure modification what is referred to already today) and then dissolution of the UN will be inevitable. However, transitional conditions of the present moment allow supporters of the Multipolar World to use the UN as well. Before the face of unipolar and global trends activation, the UN that does not represent an institution of Multipolarism in the pure form can perform temporarily and pragmatically a defensive function by mechanically opposing these trends and via its very structure. The US perfectly realizes it when exposing the UN to ever more strong criticism, deriding its inability and incapability, rebuking it for wasting resources appropriated for its allowance79, etc. The supporters of the Multipolar World Order can well use the UN like a screen in such situation to organize more effective institutions of Multipolarism. Taking the UN as a form of the outgoing world order that survives in the shadow of its gradual decay as yet and prolonging this graduation as long as possible, one can try to lay the foundation of the new legal institutions within the old limits. If following this line consciously and consistently (as the Russian Federation is exactly doing today, having promoted her activity in the UN since 2007 and
79

For example, Republican Senator Jesse Helms. See Senator Jesse Helms Rebukes the U.N. Newswatch.2000. [Electronic resource] URL: http://www.garymcleod.org/helms.htm (reference date 20.09.2010.). The assignment of Senator John Bolton, who explicitly demanded to dismiss the UN before, the US representative in the UN by George Bush Junior is also demonstrative. See Gill Kathy. John Bolton, UN Nominee. www.about.com. 2005. [Electronic resource] URL: http://uspolitics.about.com/od/politicalcommentary/a/ed_bolton.htm (reference date 20.09.2010).

increased her share in financing this organization), it is possible to achieve the following results: to prolong resistance to the process of unipolar globalization and thus gain time for preparing properly multipolar structures and institutions (the most probable); to transform the UN into the Multipolar Structure as such at the moment of the final crisis in relationships with the US and the US transition to establishment of The League of Democracies (less probable, as this will be actively opposed by the atlantist forces that will obviously not leave such an institution for their strategic enemies without striking a blow). The BRICs: Geopolitics of The Second World Foundation of the BRIC informal club created on the basis of four countries Brazil, Russia, India, and China, is an example of the first approximation to development of the Multipolar International Structure80. It consists of four states: three Eurasian powers (Russia, India, and China) and one Latin American Brazil, with strongly marked Land Power affiliation. All of them represent a Great Space, being indisputable leaders in their regions. The BRICs express by themselves the form of geopolitical consciousness of the powers that, on the one hand, have huge achievements in economical, military and technical, and resource fields, but at the same time essentially cede the countries of the West while substantially exceeding all the other Non-Western countries. The three powers posses nuclear weapons (Russia, China, and India), and Brazil, according to some sources, is close to this81. China and India altogether number more than two billion of population. Russia possesses huge territories and natural resources, and also preserves rather high military and technical potential. The Brazilian economy has been developing at an accelerated pace, thus turning the country into a regional leader and the core of the entire Latin America. If
80 81

BRICs and beyond. Goldman Sachs Global Economics Group. NY, 2007. Rule G. Brazil sozdaet atomnuyu bombu? www.inosmi.ru. 2010. [Electronic resource] URL: http://www.inosmi.ru/latamerica/20100508/159790133.html.

putting together the strategic potentials of all these countries, jointly, it will be comparable in many parameters with the strategic potential of the West countries and in some aspects even excel it82. Whereby, all the four countries are in the condition of active modernization and they absorb in a different algorithm technological possibilities that the global world and economy make available. In the unipolar structure, the BRIC countries are conceived strictly severally, as intermediate belts between The Core and The Global Periphery. Such an approach must gradually integrate the elites of these countries into the global elite and, as for the masses interfuse them with the other inferior social strata from neighbouring societies, including those from the less developed countries, via migration flows, and, thus, make them lose their cultural and civilization identity. The circumstance that globalization processes evolve in the BRIC countries as well gives ground for globalists to believe that these countries will gradually fit into the common system of unipolarity. But from the point of view of Multipolarism, the BRICs functions can be absolutely different. If these four countries can develop a common strategy, formulate consolidated approaches to basic challenges of the modernity and develop a joint geopolitical model, we will obtain a finished powerful international institution of the Multipolar World, possessing colossal technical, diplomatic, demographic, and military resources. The BRICs can be conceived as the potential Second World83. In certain parameters, it will be different from both The First World (The Core, the West) and The Third World (the global periphery). If not approaching this just from quantitative positions (resources, economy, population, technology, etc.), but with respect to qualitative peculiarity of the societies of these countries, i.e., from the position of culture and civilization, it is possible to see the BRICs as something absolutely new and original.
82 83

BRICs and beyond. Op. cit. Khanna Parag. Der Kampf um die zweite Welt Imperien und Einfluss in der neuen Weltordnung. Berlin: Berlin Verlag, 2008.

In the unipolar prospect, The Second World (the BRICs) is subject to division in two segments the elites, integrating into The First World, and the masses, drooping in The Third World and interfusing with it. It occurs in this way in the course of inertial development of the events. But if the BRICs do not conceive their historical function as a mere period in establishment of the global world system (I. Wallerstein), but as a new paradigm that will develop a different strategy and preserve proportions between the elites and the masses within the limits of a common civilization project, then The Second World can become a serious alternative for The First, and an indication of the way (and salvation) for The Third one. In this case, the format of a simple club of four countries that have many common features at the present moment of development can organically overgrow into the ground of a powerful global organization capable to dictate the other participants of the world process their demands in the ultimative form (if necessary), not merely report a private opinion about approval or disapproval of one or another action of the US and its partners (like it occurs now). Let us imagine such a situation. The US is going to start a military operation in Iraq. France and Germany do not approve of such a step. And the four nuclear countries Brazil, Russia, India, and China strictly say: no, you wont do this! Severity of the ultimatum will be confirmed by their aggregate geopolitical potential. The US can bring irreparable loss for each of these countries severally in the military, economical, and political fields. But it is excluded for all the four countries. In the same way, it is also possible to solve the other issues, opinions on which polarly diverge among the supporters of the unipolar and multipolar world Serbia, Afghanistan, Georgia, Tibet, Xinjiang, Taiwan, Kashmir, and also a number of local problems in Latin America. Of course, the US will attempt not to create situations that assume interest for the BRIC countries to develop a common position by each of the countries simultaneously. It is where all the stake is placed on, since the relations can be arranged with each of the countries of The Second World severally. But the sense of Multipolarism is exactly in developing the rules

of the international order that would not correspond with a special situation where a separate, maybe large, power obtains the desirable, but they would with a general principle when the US and its allies could never initiate a sharp conflict in its sole discretion without reckoning with anyone, any more. The US invasion in Iraq did not deeply concern either China or Russia, or India, or Brazil. The invasion in Afghanistan was instantaneously (at least, it seemed to be) beneficial for Russia, and partly India (blocking of a seat ground of a belligerent radical Islam). But a series of similar steps on the US part will sooner or later make a principal from such a behaviour pattern and lay it in the foundation of a legal model as we see in The League of Democracies project. Therefore, it is necessary to severely stop the US in such cases in advance and for principal reasons, not because something is situationally beneficial or unbeneficial for one or another country of The Second World. It is here where the law of divide and rule (divide et impera in Latin) manifests itself. If The Second World is consolidated by a common multipolar philosophy, strategy, and geopolitics, it will be inaccessible for unipolar intrigues and it can move in the direct way to its institutionalization and attribution of a legal character to the multipolar rules. Today, the BRICs as an organization are in the very beginning of a great way and nobody can promise that this way will be easy. However, the existing form of a club of four great powers already represents a form, a prototype of an international structure that could gradually become the institutional core of the Multipolar World. Shanghai Cooperation Organization and Its Geopolitical Functions Another structure that has attributes of a multipolar institution is the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO)84. It is designed as a form of permanent consultations of a number of large powers of the Eurasian Continent with regard to regional problems and challenges concerning each of them. The very idea of the
84

The organization site on internet: http://www.sectsco.org/RU/ (reference date 05.10.2010).

SCO testifies to the multipolar approach as it is based upon suppositions that local problems must be solved by the countries and societies that have direct relation to them. Whereby, the global instances are left aside. Russia, China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan participate in the SCO on a permanent basis; these countries actually established this organization in 2001 after Uzbekistan made a decision to join the Shanghai Five, formed by Russia, China, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, and Kyrgyzstan in the period from 1996 till 1997 in the course of signing a number of agreements on military cooperation between these countries. With formal equality of all the SCO participants, disparity of their potentials is evident: China and Russia are in the foundation of this organization and the other countries from among the former Middle Asia union republics represent a buffer region where Russian strategic presence is traditionally strong and Chinese one gradually surges. The SCO was actually created to coordinate these processes and take into account the positions of the Middle Asia countries and also solve technical issues (fight against terrorism, drug trafficking, separatism, organized crime, etc.). Russia and China unambiguously express their orientation to the Multipolar World, what also completely corresponds with the positions of the other SCO participants; therefore, this organization can be considered one of the multipolar institutions. It is demonstrative that India, Iran, Pakistan, and Mongolia take part there as observer countries, that is, nearly all the large states that have direct relation to the Central Asian Region take part in the SCO. If again referring to the strategic aspects of the multipolar theory, we will see a potential in the SCO to form a valuable coalition of the Heartland, i.e., the fourth pole, which is crucial to construct the quadripolar architecture. Russia, Iran, India, and Pakistan are main centers in the zone of the Eurasian pan-idea. And China, in return, is a support for Multipolarism and a neighbouring power, on which the construction of the Multipolar World depends in many ways. That is, in the SCO, if assuming that observer countries participate there on a permanent basis, we deal with a very

powerful instrument of global policy, functionally comparable with the BRICs (the more so, as three of the four BRIC countries are present in the SCO) but having a tie in the Eurasian Continent. Even preliminary consultations on private issues in such a composition already turn this organization into an independent world power. And, in happy circumstances, holding joint military exercises (as it yearly takes place beginning from 2007) can well become the basis for a military-strategic partnership and maybe even for The Eurasian Alliance symmetrical to the North Atlantic Alliance (NATO). In the SCO, we have one more example of gradual legal formalization of Multipolarism. And that the SCO official declarations constantly deny that this organization has a political or strategic character merely demonstrates that its leaders have been trying to maximally postpone the moment of a direct confrontation with globalism and the unipolar world. It is in the same logic as the denial to explain the geopolitical and strategic sense of Multipolarism (which was discussed previously). Integration of the Post-Soviet Space Organization Now, let us consider some closer integration structures directly concerning the Heartland. There belong: The Eurasian Economic Community, shortly, EurAsEC (Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan)85; The Collective Security Treaty Organization, shortly, CSTO (Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Armenia)86; The Custom Union (Russia, Kazakhstan, and Belarus)87; The United Economic Space (Russia, Kazakhstan, Belarus, The Ukraine); The Union State of Russia and Belorussia88.
85 86

The organization site on internet: http://www.evrazes.com/ (reference date 05.10.2010). The organization site on internet: http://www.dkb.gov.ru/ (reference date 05.10.2010). 87 The organization site on internet: http://www.tsouz.ru/AboutETS/Pages/default.aspx (reference date 05.10.2010).

All these organizations make their mission new integration of the Heartland in the new conditions and they are, anyhow, oriented, in the first place, to Russia and to recreation of a common Great Space around her. Such an aim and political geography of the participants demonstrates that these organizations are oriented to create the Multipolar World and, specifically, create a valuable pole of the fourth zone (the Eurasian pan-idea). From the geopolitical point of view, all of them are purely Eurasian by their properties. Whereby, one must notice that the Eurasian philosophy of integration has been developed rather weakly and fragmentarily yet. The only thing that is beyond exception: integration processes within the limits of these institutions are not based on either direct territorial expansion of Russia (as it was in the period of the Russian Empire) or, what is evident, on the Communist ideology (as it was in the Soviet period). Therefore, it is logical to assume that this time the philosophy of the Post-Soviet space integration will be directly Multipolar and Eurasian, i.e., based upon account of cultural, ethnic and historical originality of each society entering again the single historical Great Space recreated in a new historical convolution of the Heartland. Certain steps in this direction are made by the political authorities of Kazakhstan, whose President, Nurslutan Nazarbaev, clearly confesses Eurasian views89. It is him who was the initiator of creating most integration structures and, in the MSU, in 1994, he voiced a yet more mould-breaking project to create The Eurasian Union as a direct analogue of the European Union and even suggested the project of its Constitution. However, the other participants of these structures, including Russia itself, do not display great interest to this subject, what is again (as we have already seen many times), probably, explained by reluctance to strain the relationships with the US in advance. At the same time, the US perfectly realizes that all the integration processes in the Post-Soviet space inevitably result in reinforcement of the Heartland and, consequently, they represent a threat for the American military hegemony. These

88 89

The organization site on internet: http://www.soyuz.by/ (reference date 05.10.2010). Dugin A. Evraziyskaya missiya Nursultana Nazarbaeva, M., 2004.

fears find their expression in official documents of the American authorities, such as Wolfowitz Plan insisting that the main objective of the American security strategy is to prevent any block capable to pursue an independent policy without regard to the US interests in Eurasia from appearing in the territory of the region90. Therefore the US has developed a system of alternative organization of the PostSoviet space. Its sense was such as: to isolate the CIS countries from Russia; conciliate them with the US and European Union; start the process of their integration into the NATO; construct an Anti-Russian coalition in the CIS space; substitute political regimes of the CIS countries friendly or, at least, neutral to Russia with Anti-Russian, pro-western, and globalist ones; deploy American military objects in Pro-American countries. With this purpose, the US and, in particular, the fund of mondialist J. Soros actively provoked colour revolutions in the Ukraine, Georgia, and Moldova (some attempts were made in Belarus, Armenia, and Kyrgyzstan). And the countries that turned out to be in the influence area of atlantism created their own Anti-Russian coalitions such as the GUAM91 (Georgia, the Ukraine, Azerbaijan, and Moldova) or the ephemeral Democratic Choice Commonwealth (declared by Yuschenko and Saakashwili in 2005 The Ukraine, Georgia, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Moldova, Slovenia, Macedonia, and Romania). Thus, the entire Post-Soviet space was divided into the Eurasian (integration) and atlantist (disintegration) zones. Both zones were included in legal and institution processes addressed to fix the structure of this space in the juridical form either in the unipolar (atlantist, globalist) or in multipolar (Eurasian) aspect. Therefore, in spite of the fact that integration processes in the Post-Soviet space
90

Prevent the Reemergence of a New Rival. National Security Archive. www.gwu.edu 2008. [Electronic resource] URL: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nukevault/ebb245/index.htm (reference date 20.09.2010). See also 1992 Draft Defense Planning Guidance. -- www.rightweb.irc 2008. [Electronic resource] URL: http://www.rightweb.irconline.org/profile/1992_Draft_Defense_Planning_Guidance (reference date 20.09.2010).
91

The organization site on internet: http://guam-organization.org/ (reference date 05.10.2010).

and their institutional formalization have a local character, they have a global scale by their importance after all, this is referred to accomplishment of a necessary condition for the Multipolar World: recreation of the political space of the Heartland in a volume necessary to become a valuable pole in the quadripolar structure. All integration structures of the Post-Soviet space have a different character. EurAsEC represents an economical structure addressed to unite the economies of the countries that constitute it. The CSTO is a military political union. The Custom Union is a really functioning mechanism only launched by 2010 that integrates the territories of Russia, Kazakhstan and Belarus into a single area with completely identical system of economical legislation (within the limits of the Custom Union, all transactions, transportation rates, etc. are made so as if they were within a united state). The Union State of Russia and Belarus is an initiative approved by the political authorities of both countries and ratified by the parliaments to create a single supranational statehood with the common control system, common parliament, etc. The Union exists legally but its practical realization faces a whole range of difficulties. The United Economic Space is an initiative of economical integration declared in 2003 by the presidents of four countries (Russia, Kazakhstan, Belarus, and the Ukraine). It differs from the EurAsEC and the Custom Union with presence of the Ukraine, for which a special format was suggested, as it was going to enter the WTO at that time and did enter in 2008. Integration with the Ukraine went with great difficulty and it is not an occasion that this country became a member of the Anti-Russian block GUAM. When President Kuchma came to careful rapprochement with Moscow in 2003, pro-western forces (supported by the US) performed The Orange Revolution, whose aim was, in particular, to scuttle entering of the Ukraine into the UES.

Thus, institutionalization of integration initiatives in the Post-Soviet space, as we can see, does not have a local, but a global character, as its success sharply increases the chances to create the Multipolar System and its failure, in contrary, reinforces the positions of the proponents of the American hegemony and globalism.

Chapter 6. The Multipolar World and the Postmodern 1 Multipolarism as a Vision of the Future and the Land Postmodern Multipolarism as an Innovative Mould-Breaking Concept The Multipolar Theory represents a unique direction that cannot be qualified simply in terms of progress/conservatism, old/new, development/ stagnation, etc. The unipolar view on history and, correspondingly, the globalist prospect imagine the historical process as linear motion from the worse to the better, from the underdeveloped to the developed, etc. In this case, globalization is seen as a horizon of universal future and everything that impedes globalization as inertia of the past, atavism or striving to preserve the status quo at all costs. In virtue of such a percept, globalism and The Sea Power are also trying to interpret Multipolarism, interpreted exclusively as a conservative position opposing the inevitable change. If globalization is the Postmodern (the global society), Multipolarism appears to be resistance to the Postmodern (containing elements of the Modern and even Pre-Modern). But, indeed, it is possible to consider the things under a different visual angle and set aside the dogmatics of the linear progress92 (or monotonous process93). The idea of time as a sociological category the philosophy of Multipolarism is based on helps interpret the general paradigm of Multipolarism in an absolutely different coordinate system. Multipolarism in comparison with unipolarity and globalism is not just an appeal to the old or a call for preserving everything as it is. Multipolarism does not insist either on preserving national states (the Westphalian World) or on restoring the bipolar model (the Yalta World), or on freezing that transitional state, where today the international life remains. Multipolarism is a look into the future (such as

92 93

Alain de Benoist. Protiv liberalizma. SPb, 2009. Dugin A. Protiv modernizacii// Odnako, 2010. 10 (26).

has never been yet), a project of organization and the world order on absolutely new principles and elements, a serious revision of the axioms modernity rests upon in ideological, philosophical, and sociological senses. Multipolarism, as well as unipolarity and globalization, is oriented to construct what has never been before, to creative strain of free spirit, philosophical search and striving to construct a better, more absolute, fair, harmonious, and happy society. But the character of this of society, its principles and values, and also methods to construct its foundation are seen just radically different (than among the globalists). Multipolarism sees the future to be multiple, variative, differentiated, dissimilar, preserving a wide palette of self-identification choice (collective and individual) and also undertones of limitrophe societies with interference of different identification matrices. This is a model of flourishing complexity of the world, where a multitude of places combines with a multitude of times, where multiscale collective and individual actors engage in a dialog, finding out and, at times, transforming their identity in the course of such a dialog. The West culture, philosophy, policy, economy, and technology are seen in this future world to be just one of the local phenomena, in no way excelling the culture, philosophy, policy, economy and technology of the Asiatic societies and even archaic tribes. All we deal with in the form of different ethnoses, peoples, nations and civilizations are equitable variations of human societies (Menschliche Gesellschaft94), some are disenchanted (M. Weber) and materially developed, others are poor and plain, though, enchanted (M. Eliade), sacred, living in harmony and equilibrium with the ambient existence. Multipolarism accepts both, any choice one or another society makes, but any choice becomes sensible only in tie in space and a historical moment and, hence, it remains local. The most Western culture, perceived as something local, can admire and arouse delight, but a claim for universalism and separation from the historical context turn it into a simulacrum, into a Quasi-West, into a cartoon and kitsch. Thus, to some extent, it

94

Thurnwald R. Die menschliche Gesellschaft in ihren ethno-soziologischen Grundlagen, 5 B. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1931-1934.

happened to the American culture, where it is easy to recognize Europe, but this Europe is hypertrophic, sterilized, deprived of internal harmony and proportions, charm and tradition Europe as a universalist project, not organic, though complex, paradoxical, dramatic, tragic, and contradictory historical and space phenomenon. Multipolarism as the Postmodern If we refer to the past, we will easily find out that the Multipolar World, the international order based upon the principle of Multipolarism, never existed. Multipolarism is, therefore, exactly a project, plan, and strategy of the future, not a mere inertia or sluggish resistance to globalization. Multipolarism observes the future, but sees it in a radically different way than the proponents of unipolarity, universalism, and globalization do and it strives to bring its vision into life. These considerations demonstrate that, in a certain sense, Multipolarism is also the Postmodern (not the Modern or Premodern), but only different from the Postmodern being globalist and unipolar. And in this special sense, the Multipolar Philosophy agrees that the present world order, and also that of yesterday (national or bipolar), is imperfect and it demands radical alteration. The Multipolar World is not an assertion of the second and third Earths nomos, by K. Schmitt, but a battle for the fourth nomos, which must come in place of the present and the past. As well, Multipolarism is not rejection of the Postmodern, but establishment of a radically different Postmodern than the version suggested by the globalists and proponents of the unipolar world; different in relation to the neo-liberal dominating versio, and in relation to critical antiglobalist and alterglobalist position, being based upon the same universalism as neo-liberalism, but only with the reverse sign. The Multipolar Postmodern, therefore, represents something different from either the Modern, or from the Pre-Modern, or from neo-liberal globalism, or from the unipolar America-centric imperialism, and from the leftist antiglobalism and alterglobalism. Therefore, in case of formalization of Multipolarism into a

systemized ideology, the conversation drifts exactly to The Fourth Political Theory. The Multipolar Idea recognizes that national states do not correspond with challenges of history and, moreover, they are merely a preparatory stage of globalization. And, therefore, it supports integration processes in specific regions, insisting so that their borders consider civilization peculiarities of the societies historically developed in these territories. This is a well postmodern feature. The Multipolar Idea takes it that the significance of new non-state actors must increase in the international policy. But these actors must be, first of all, original historically developed organic societies (such as ethnoses) having a tie in the space one must listen to much better than before. This is also a postmodern feature. The Multipolar Idea refuses from the universal Great Narratives (stories), European logocentrism, rigid power hierarchies, and assumable normative patriarchate. Instead of this, it approves the value of local, multivarious, and asymmetric identities, reflecting the spirit of each specific culture, whatever it is and whatever alien and execrable it seems to the rest. And this is also a postmodern feature. The Multipolar Idea rejects the mechanistic approach to reality, Descartes division into the subject and the object by affirming integrity, holism, and integral approach to the world organic and balanced, based rather upon the geometry of the nature (B. Mandelbrot) than on the geometry of the machine. This yields ecologism of the Multipolar World, refusal from the subjugation of Nature concept (F. Bacon) and transition to a dialog with the nature. This is so much the more a postmodern feature. The Multipolar Postmodern against the Unipolar (Globalist/Antiglobalist) Postmodern

But when the conversation drifts to the measure of things in the future world, serious contradictions begin between the Multipolar Theory and Postmodernism. Liberal and Neo-Marxist Postmodernism operate with basic concepts of the individual and the linear progress, conceived in the prospect of liberation of the individual and, on the last stage, in the prospect of liberation from the individual and transition to the post-man, a cyborg, mutant, rhizome, clone. Moreover, it is the principle of individuality that they consider universal. Here, the Multipolar Idea sharply diverges with the main line of Postmodernism and posits the society95, collective personality, collective consciousness (E. Durkheim), collective unconscious (K. G. Jung) in the center of things. The Society is a matrix of existence; it creates individuals, people, languages, cultures, economies, political systems, time, and space. But there is not just one society, societies are many. And they are incommensurable with each other. An individual has become the measure of things in such an absolute and accomplished form just in one type of the society (West European). And in the other societies, he has not. And he will not become because they are structured in an absolutely different way. And one must acknowledge an inalienable right for each society to be such as it wants to be, to create reality by their own samples, assigning an individual and man the superior value or without assigning any. The same concerns the progress. Since time is a social phenomenon96, it is structured in a different way in each society. It bears in itself an increase in the role of an individual in history in some societies and it does not in others. Therefore, predestination in relation to individualism and post-humanity in the scale of all the Earths societies is none. This is, probably, the fate of the West as it is connected with the logic of its history. But this has collateral relation to other societies and nations and, if even present in their culture, it is, as a rule, in the form of externally enforced colonial percepts, alien paradigms for the local societies themselves. But

95 96

Dugin A. The sociology of the imaginary. The introduction into the structural sociology. M., 2010 Ibid.

it is the colonial imperialist universalism of the West that is the main opponent for the Multipolar Idea. By using the terms of geopolitics, it can be said that Multipolarism is the land, continental, tellurocratic version of the Postmodern, whereas globalism (as well as antiglobalism) is its sea, thalassocratic version. 2 Multipolarism and Globalization Theories Multipolarism against the Global Policy From the position of Multipolarism, let us consider now the basic theories of globalization and relate them between each other. The World Polity Theory J. Meyer, J. Boli, etc., presuming creation of an integrated global state, with the support of individual citizens, is maximally opposite to Multipolarism and represents its formal antithesis. Just as well as the theses of the end of history (rapid or gradual) by F. Fukuyama and all the other rigidly globalist unipolar projects describe the future completely contradicting the Multipolar one as being desirable and probable. In this case, between Multipolarism and the theory of globalization there exists a relation of plus and minus, black and white, etc., i.e., a radical ultimative antagonism: either/or. Either The World Polity or Multipolarism. Multipolarism and the Global Culture (in Defense of Localization) The case is more difficult with the World Culture Theory R. Robertson, and also with the transformationists concepts (E. Giddens, etc.). Critical appraisals of globalization in the spirit of S. Huntington can as well be referred here. In these theories, they analyze the balance of two trends universalization (pure globalism) and localization (R. Robertson), or the new appearance of civilization contours (S. Huntington). If the attitude of the Multipolar Theory to

universalization is unambiguously antagonistic, a number of phenomena, manifesting themselves just in the course of globalization as its secondary effect, can, in contrary, be appraised positively. Weakening of the sociopolitical context of national states, in the theories of this sense, is demonstrated from two sides: partially, their functions are transferred to the global instances and, partially, they turn out to be in the hands of some new, local actors. On the other hand, also because of fragility and looseness of national states, a civilization and religion factor assumes ever more importance. It is this set of phenomena, accompanying globalization on fact and being consequences of weakening of previous world order models (state and ideological), that deserve positive attention and become elements of the Multipolar Theory. Secondary effects of globalization return societies to a specific space, cultural and, occasionally, religious context. This means reinforcement of the role of the ethnic identity, an increase in the importance of the confessional factor, and increased attention to local communities and problems. If summarizing these phenomena, they can be well realized as strategic positions of the Multipolar World Order that must be fixed, fastened, and supported. Within glocalization described by Robertson, Multipolarism is interested in localization, being completely solidary with it. Robertson himself believes that the processes of glocalization are not predetermined and they can sway to one side or another. Accepting this analysis, the supporters of the Multipolar World must consciously apply efforts so that the processes sway to the local side and overweigh the global one. Multipolar Conclusions from the Analysis of the Global System Theory The World-System Theory by I. Wallerstein is interesting for the Multipolar Theory with the fact of adequately describing the economical, political, and sociological algorithm of globalization. The World System, by Wallerstein, represents the global capitalist elite, grouping around The Core, even if its

representatives come from the periphery countries. The world proletariat that gradually transits from the national identity to the class (international) one, personifies the periphery not just geographically, but also socially. National states are not more than sites where one and the same mechanical process takes place enrichment of oligarchs and their integration in the supranational (global) Core and pauperization of the masses, gradually interfusing with the working class of other nations in the course of migration processes. From the point of view of the Multipolar Theory, this, correct in a whole, analysis does not consider the cultural and civilization factor (this disregard inherent for Marxism as a whole, being first of all puzzled with disclosure of economical mechanics of the society organization), and also geopolitics. In the present world, between The Core and the Periphery there is situated The Second World, i.e., regional integration formations (Great Spaces). Under I. Wallersteins logic, their existence changes nothing in the general structure of the world system and they merely represent a step in the direction of complete globalization integration of the elites in The Core, and internationalization of the masses goes in them yet more rapidly than in the context of national states. But under the logic of the Multipolar Theory, presence of The Second World radically changes it all. Between the elites and masses of integration structures within the limits of The Second World there can arise another model of relationships than the liberal or Marxist analysis forecast. S. Huntington called it modernization without westernization97. The essence of this phenomenon is that, obtaining Western education and mastering Western technologies, the elites of the periphery countries often act in the following way: they do not integrate in the global elite, but return in their society, confirm socialization and collective identity in it, and put the mastered skills in service for their countries, not following the West and even opposing it. The factor of cultural identity (often religion),

97

Huntington Samuel P. The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of the World Order. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1996.

civilization affiliation turns out to be stronger than the universalist algorithm laid in the very modernization technology and the medium that begot it. Definitely, the process of societies stratification and elite westernization described by Wallerstein does take place, but there also goes a different process of modernization without westernization. Modernization without westernization and also regional integration without global integration represent a tendency I. Wallerstein himself ignores, but it is his analysis that allows to see and clearly describe it. For the Multipolar Theory, this becomes a very important element and program thesis. As for the global horizon all the societies have to deal with now according to most theories of globalization, the Multipolar Theory can propose the following principles. The true completeness and integrity of the world is grasped in the local, not in the global experience, but such that is distinct from the ordinary experience, that is oriented otherwise. Heidegger called it authentic existing of Dasein98. Grasping the world as a whole can be only possible through modification of existence, not through accumulation of ever new and new data, expressions, meetings, conversations, information, and knowledge. By Heidegger, man is spurred on study of new places and landscapes by the escape from genuine existence, personified in the figure of das Man, i.e., impersonal, average, uniform basis, substituting with itself a genuine experience of existence and dissolving the concentration of conscience in curiosity and gossip (as in two forms of nonauthentic existing)99. The simpler communications in the global world are, the more they are senseless. The more saturated the information flows are, the less people are capable to reason and decode its meaning. Therefore, globalization does not at all contribute to acquiring experience of the whole world, but, in contrary, misleads from it by dispersing the attention in an infinite series of senseless shards,

98 99

Dugin A. Martin Heidegger and philosopgiya drugogo nachala. M., 2010. Heidegger called globalism with the term Planeter Idiotism having in mind the original Greek meaning of the word that implies a polis inhabitant deprived of civil identity, i.e., of affiliation to a phyle, caste, trade, cult, etc. See Dugin A. Martin Heidegger and philosopgiya drugogo nachala. Op. cit.

parts, not being attributes of some whole, i.e., parts as themselves. The global horizon is not reached in globalization it is comprehended in a profound existential experience of a place. Therefore, different societies do not collide with the global horizon, but with the challenge of globalism as an ideology and practice striking at everyone and this challenge is, indeed, felt everywhere. The Multipolar Theory recognizes universalism of this challenge, but takes it that it must be repulsed as universally as a catastrophe, disaster or tragedy. The horizon of globalism is conceived as something that must be defeated, overcome, abolished. Each society will do it in their own way but the Multipolar Theory suggests generalizing, consolidating, and coordinating all the forms of the negative response to the globalization challenge. As global as the challenge of globalization must be its rejection, But the structure of this rejection, so as to be full-fledged, independent, and prospective, must be multipolar and suggest a clear and distinct project of what should be put in place of globalization, instead of it. 3 A Poison into a Cure Saddling the Tiger of Globalization: the Multipolar Network Construction of the Multipolar World demands developing a special attitude to all basic aspects of globalization process. We have seen that, though Multipolarism opposes unipolarity and globalization, the question is not just about rejection of all transformations of the modernity, but about selecting the multipolar heading for these transformations, influence them and direct to the pattern seen as desirable and optimal. Therefore, Multipolarism in certain situations is not so much meant to frontally oppose globalization as to recapture the initiative, let the processes go along a new trajectory and turn a poison into a cure (to saddle the tiger100, by an expression of the Chinese tradition). Such strategy repeats the logic
100

Evola J. Cavalcare la tigre. R, 2001.

of modernization without westernization, but on a more generalized and systemized level. Some separate societies irradicated in the regional culture borrow Western technologies so as to reinforce themselves and repulse the pressure of the West at certain conditions. Multipolarism suggests comprehending such a strategy as a system that can serve as a general algorithm for the most different societies. Let us give some examples of such a reinterpretation of separate globalism aspects in the multipolar aspect. Let us take the network and network space phenomenon. By itself, this phenomenon is not neutral, but representing the result of a series of gradual transformations in sociological understanding of space in the context of The Sea Power on the way of ever greater information medium dilution from the sea through the air to the infosphere. Along with it, the network represents a structure perceiving presence of relations between the system elements not in the organic, but in the mechanic way. The network can be constructed between separate individual elements, initially by no means connected with each other and having no common collective identity. And, finally, in the network phenomenon there is laid a prospect to overcome the human and a lead to the post-human, if emphasizing the very functioning of self-organizing systems where centrality of man becomes ever more and more relative (N. Luhmann, M. Castells, etc.). From this point of view, the network represents a reality that is cardinally Sea, atlantist and globalist. But in the classical geopolitics, we can see that the stand of the Land and Sea is connected not so much with presence in one or another element as with sociological, cultural, philosophical, and only then strategic conclusions different societies make from a contact with the Sea. K. Schmitt emphasizes101 that, in spite of creating a global Empire based upon navigation, the Spanish society continued preserving their strictly land identity, what also manifested itself, particularly, in the social organization of the colonies and in difference between the destiny of Latin America and the Anglo-Saxon America. Presence of developed navigation

101

Schmitt . Die planetarische Spannung zwischen Ost und West (1959)/Schmittiana III von prof. Piet Tommissen. Brussel, 1991.

does not necessarily make a power a sea one in the geopolitical sense of this term. Moreover, the objective of the Land Power and, in particular, of the Heartland, is to obtain the access to the seas, break the bank control blockade on the part of the thalassocracy and begin to compete with it in its own element. Just the same is the situation with the network space. The Multipolar camp needs to master the structure of the network processes, their technologies, learn the rules and regularities of the network behaviour, gain a possibility to realize its objectives and goals in this new element. The network space opens new possibilities for smaller actors: after all, sites of a huge planetary level TNC, a great power or an individual minimally mastering programming skills are in no way different from each other and, in a certain sense, they appear to be in similar conditions. The same is fair for the social networks and blogs. Globalization banks that code diffusion into a multitude of network participants will one way or another install them in a context, whose basic parameters will be controlled by owners of physical servers, domain name registrars, providers, and hardware monopolists. But in the antiglobalist theories by Negri and Hardt, we have seen how the leftanarchist theorists suggest turning this circumstance for their interests while preparing a rebellion of multitudes, called for to overthrow the control of the empire102. Something analogical can also be suggested in the Multipolar prospect. But the question is not about chaotic sabotage with multitudes of requirements established by the globalists, but about constructing virtual network civilizations, tied to a specific historical and geographical place and possessing a common cultural code. A virtual civilization can be considered a projection of a civilization as such in the network medium, assuming consolidating there exactly those lines of force and identification percepts that are dominants in a corresponding cultural medium. This is already used by different religious, ethnical and political forces of nowise globalist, and even antiglobalist, direction, coordinating their activities with the help of different instrumentations of the Internet Network and also propagating their views and ideas.
102

Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri, Empire, Harvard University Press, 2000..

National domains and development of network communications in local language systems are another form. With effective operation in this medium, this can contribute to reinforcement of the youths cultural identity, naturally ponderable to new technologies. The example of the Chinese Internet where legally and physically limited is the access to a certain kind of sites that can, in the opinion of some Chinese governmental experts, damage security of the Chinese society in the political, social or moral field, demonstrates that, in some cases, purely restricting measures also exercise some positive effect for reinforcement of Multipolarism. The global network can turn into a multipolar one, that is, into an aggregate of crossing but independent virtual continents. Thus, instead of the network, there will appear networks, each being a virtual expression of a specific qualitative space. All together these continents can be integrated in a common multipolar network, differentiated and moderated on the ground of the multipolar network paradigm. Eventually, the content of what is in the network is neither more nor less than a reflection of human imagination structures
103

. If realizing these

structures in a multipolar way, i.e., as those just making sense in a specific qualitative historical space, it is not difficult to imagine what the Internet (or its future analogue) could be in the Multipolar World. And on a practical level, already at present conditions, a network can be considered a means of consolidating active social groups, personalities, and societies under the aegis of promoting Multipolarism, i.e. gradual multipolar network construction. Network Wars of the Multipolar World Network wars are one more phenomenon of the globalization period. One should also be armed with methodology of network wars both in common theoretical and application aspect by constructing the Multipolar World. In this
103

Dugin A. The sociology of the imaginary. The introduction into the structural sociology. M., 2010.

sense, Networkcentric Principle adaptation by reorganization of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation represents an absolutely justified decision, addressed to reinforce the Heartland positions and increase performance of the army that is one of the main elements in the multipolar configuration. The Networkcentric Principle of warfare has some technical and principal aspects. Equipment of separate units of the Russian Army with network attributes (tracking devices, operative two-way communication, interactive technical means, etc.) is a self-evident side of the issue, demanding no special geopolitical grounds. Much more important is considering another, more common aspect of network wars. A network war, as it appears from its theorists transactions, is waged constantly and in all directions against enemies, allies, and neutral forces. Just in the same way, network operations must be evolved in all directions and on the part of the center (or some centers) for the Multipolar World construction. If we assume that the actor pursuing a network war is not a state, but an instance targeting creation of the Multipolar World (like the US network war targets to establish the unipolar world), we will see that waging this war by different poles (e.g., Russia, China, India, Iran, etc.) will create interference and resonances, multiply reinforcing the effectiveness of network strategies. By constructing the Multipolar World, each pole is interested in reinforcing the other poles, but in weakening the hyperpowers global hegemony. Thus, a network war of the Multipolar World can represent a spontaneous effort convergence structure and so be extremely effective. Reinforcement of China is beneficial for Russia. Security of Iran is beneficial for India. Independence of Pakistan from the US will positively redound upon the situation in Afghanistan and Central Asia, etc. By directing network, information, and image flows, charged in the multipolar way, in all directions, a network war can become extremely effective since, being directed to ensuring the interests of one actor of the Multipolar World order, it will automatically work for the interests of another. In this case, coordination must only be on the most superior level on the level of countries representatives in the multipolar club (as a rule, these are

heads of states) where the common multipolar paradigm will exactly be coordinated. And network war processes will bring the common strategy into life. The second important moment of the Networkcentric War theory is in emphasizing increased sensibility to initial conditions. From what point a possible conflict starts, what position the countries participating it take up, and in what information medium this occurs can turn out to be decisive for its result. Therefore, higher priority attention should be paid to preparing the medium the local and global one. If correlation of forces, computation of consequences of various steps in the information field, and also preliminary preparation to image assurance are made correctly, this can make a conflict situation impossible by persuading a potential opponent in hopelessness of resistance or armed escalation. This concerns traditional warfare as well as information wars where the fight is waged for influence upon the public opinion. Therefore, countries, declaring their orientation for Multipolarism, can and must actively use theories and practices of networkcentric operations for their interests. Theorists of network wars fairly consider them to be a crucial strategic instrument of waging a war at the Postmodern conditions. Multipolarism undertakes the challenge of the Postmodern and begins a battle for the Postmodern. Networkcentric operations represent one of the most important territories to wage this battle. Multipolarism and the Dialectics of Chaos Another example where a strategy of turning a poison into a cure can be traced is the chaos phenomenon. Chaos ever more frequently figures in modern geopolitical texts104 as well as in globalization theories. Proponents of the rigid unipolar approach (such as S. Mann105) suggest manipulating chaos in favor of The Core (i.e., the US). Antiglobalists and postmodernists welcome chaos in
104
105

Ramonet I. Go-politique du chaos. Paris: Galile, 1997; Idem. Guerres du xxie sicle - Peurs et menaces nouvelles. Paris: Galile, 2002.
Mann St. R. Chaos Theory and Strategic Thought//Parameters. 1992. Autumn. 55.

literal sense as anarchy and disorder. Other authors try to see buds of order in the chaotic reality, etc. The Multipolar Approach treats the problem of chaos as follows. First, the mythological concept of chaos as a condition opposing order is a product of predominantly Greek (i.e., European) culture. This opposition is initially based upon exclusiveness of order and, subsequently, as philosophy develops and order is identified with rationality, chaos has entirely turned into a purely negative concept, a synonym of irrationality, darkness, and inanity. But it is also possible to approach this problem in another way, in a less exclusivist sense. And then, chaos will discover itself to us as an instance not opposing order, but preceding its strained logical expression. Chaos is not nonsense, but a matrix from where sense is begotten106. In Western European culture chaos is unambiguous evil, but in other cultures not at all. Multipolarism rejects to consider Western European culture to be universal, and hence, chaos itself does lose its unambiguous negative image as well as order correlated with it does its positive image. Multipolarism does not reason in terms of chaos or order, but it every time demands explanations what chaos and what order, and what sense of one or another term is in a specific culture. We approximately know how chaos and order are comprehended by Western culture. But how does, for example, the Chinese one comprehend it? Indeed, the idea of Tao crucial for the Chinese philosophy (The Way) is described in many texts in terms that strikingly remind descriptions of chaos. Therefore, the multipolar approach states that understanding chaos and order must be tied to a civilization and this one can not at all be just Western civilization. Firstly, globalists often understand as chaos in the geopolitical sense what does not go into their perceptions of ordered sociopolitical and economic structures and what counters establishment of the global and universal, in their opinion, values. In this case, everything valuable for constructing the Multipolar World, insisting on other forms of identity and, consequently, bearing in itself seeds of the
106

Dugin A. Martin Heidegger and the possibilty of the Russian Philosophy. Op. cit.

Multipolar Order falls within the class of chaos. In this case, chaos is a support for constructi the Multipolar World and its vivific origin. And finally, chaos as pure disorder or weakly organized spontaneous processes taking place in a society can also be considered from the position of Multipolarism. Whether a chaotic situation (conflict, disturbance, collision, etc.) arises in a natural or artificial way, it is necessary to learn to control it, i.e., master the art of chaos moderation. As against ordered structures, chaotic processes do not lend themselves to straightforward logic, but it does not mean they do not have it at all. Chaos does have logic, but it is more complex and comprehensive than the algorithms of non-chaotic processes. At the same time, it lends itself to scientific research and it is actively studied by modern physicists and mathematicians. From the point of view of application geopolitics, it can well become one of the effective instruments by constructing the Multipolar World.

Global Revolutionary Alliance

(Manifesto)
(program, principles, strategy)

Dissatisfied all over the world, unite!

Part 1. Situation of the end. 1. We live at the end of the historical cycle. All processes that constitute the sense of history, came to a logical impasse. The end of capitalism. Development of capitalism has reached its natural limit. There is only one thing left for the world economic system to collapse into the abyss. Based on a progressive increase of purely financial institutions, first banks, and then more complex and sophisticated stock structures, the system of modern capitalism completely divorced from reality, from the balance of supply and demand, from production and consumption ratio, from connection with a real life. All the wealth of the world got in the hands of the worlds financial oligarchy by complicated manipulations with building financial pyramids. This oligarchy devalued not only the labor, but also the capital connected to the market fundamental, secured a financial rent, and all other economic forces got in bondage to this impersonal transnational ultraliberal elite. Regardless of how we feel about capitalism, it is clear now, that it is not just going through another crisis, but stands on the verge of total collapse of entire system. No matter how global oligarchy tries to conceal the ongoing collapse from masses of the worlds population, more and more people begin to suspect that this is inevitable, and that the global financial crisis, caused by the collapse of U.S. mortgage market and major banks is only beginning of a global catastrophe. This catastrophe can be delayed, but it cannot be prevented or avoided. The world economy, in the form in which it operates now is doomed.

The end of resources. In the current demographic situation, taking

into account the steady growth of world population (especially in Third World countries), humanity has come close to exhaust of natural resources, necessary not just to maintain current consumption levels, but for simple survival at minimal level. Growth limits are reached, and global hunger, deprivation, epidemics, death are on the agenda. This planet can no longer maintain the living of such number of people. Hence, we face the imminent demographic catastrophe. The more are born today, the more will have to be exterminated tomorrow. This dilemma has no solution. But to pretend that it doesnt exist is to prepare the worst scenario of world massacre for resources and extermination of much of mankind by own hands. The end of society. Under the influence of Western and American standards fragmentation of societies into atomic units, non-linked with each other by any bonds is in full swing. Cosmopolitanism and new nomadism become most common style of life, especially for the younger generation. This provokes unprecedented migration flows, which destroy those societies, whose members are removed from the scene, as well as those ones, where migrants fall. Cultural, national, social and religious ties become broken, codes become cracked, organic contacts collapse. We live in a world f lonely crowds, atomic sputtering society, which is no longer something solid. Cosmopolitan loneliness becomes the norm, and explodes the cultural identity of people from inside. In the place of societies comes nomadism and the web, that dissolve organic historical collectives. At the same time disappear culture, language, morality, tradition, values and family. The end of individual. Division of individual into its components becomes the dominant trend. Human personality scatters across the network, nicknames and separate impulses, turning into a game set of disorganized elements. One loses his integrity, he is given more freedoms, but at the cost of someone, who can take advantage of those. Postmodern culture compulsively moves people to virtual worlds of flat screens, removes them

from reality, captures by the flow of subtly organized and cleverly manipulated hallucinations. And these processes are managed by the global oligarchy, that seeks to make world masses controllable and programmable. Never before individualism was glorified so much, and never before people all over the world were so similar to each other in their behavior, habits, appearance, techniques and tastes. In pursuit for the human rights human was lost somewhere himself. Soon he will be replaced with a posthuman: a mutant, a product of cloning, a biorobot, a replicant, a cyborg. The end of nations and peoples. The global world consistently destroys any national identity, one after another destroys sovereign states, increasingly interferes in internal affairs of other countries. Global oligarchy seeks to overturn any national barriers, impeding to its ubiquitous presence. Transnational corporations try to put their interests above national interests and state administrations, which leads to a dependence on external systems and loss of independence. This way instead of the manifold of independent states forms the structure of world government, based on the global financial oligarchy. Western countries and monopolies become the core of this global government, in which gradually integrate the economic and partly political elite of other, non-Western countries. Thus parts of the national elites become accomplices of globalization and betray interests of their citizens - peoples and states. The end of knowledge. Global Media created a system of total disinformation, organized in accordance with the interests of the global oligarchy. Only that, which is reported by the global media, is considered to be "reality". And that, how one or another event or phenomenon is reported about, is being automatically accepted by the global community as a "self-evident truth (Conventional Wisdom). Alternative views, although may spread in the network segments of interactive communication systems, remain on the periphery, because financial support is provided for only those feeds,

that serve the interests of global oligarchy. When critical opinions reach the threshold and become dangerous, there are being used classical instruments of repression - financial pressure, understatement, demonization, legal and physical harassment. In such a society, the whole system of knowledge becomes an object of a global moderation by the global elite. The end of progress. Last centuries, humanity has lived by faith in progress and hope for a better future. A promise of that was seen in development of technique, accumulation of knowledge and scientific discoveries, in growth of humanism and social justice. Progress seemed to be guaranteed and self-evident. In the XXI century this belief is shared by only a naive one or those, who deliberately turn a blind eye to the reality (for a certain bribe or privileges). Belief in progress is refuted by the whole course of things. Our world is not getting better, but on the contrary, is rapidly degraded, or, at least, remains just as cruel, cynical and unfair as before. The discovery of this fact leads to the collapse of the humanistic worldview. The double standard of the Western world, under catchy slogans of which about human rights and freedom, today only blind one will not see the egoistic will to colonize and control, becomes commonness. Progress is not only not guaranteed, but unlikely. If things are going to continue to develop as they are developed today, most pessimistic, catastrophic and apocalyptic prognoses will become actual. 2. In general, we are dealing with the end of a vast historical cycle, which basic parameters are exhausted, upset, and expectations associated with it deceived, and crossed out. The end of the world does not come, it unfolds before our eyes, and we are its observers and participants. Will it become the end of modern civilization or the end of mankind, no one can predict. But the scale of the disaster is such that we can not exclude that agonizing global Western-centric world will carry off to the abyss all others. The situation becomes even more dramatic by the fact that under the current situation and the existing

organization of the world's global power of transnational oligarchy, all catastrophic processes can not continue (the threshold is reached), nor stop (the force of inertia is too high), nor change the course (the rate of major trends doesnt allow to make an abrupt maneuver to change trajectory). 3. The current situation is intolerable, not only as it is, but where it goes by itself. Today a catastrophe, tomorrow assured death. The future was stolen from the Mankind. But the man differs from animals by having a historical horizon. And even if at a given moment one doesnt feel all the exigencies of the situation, his knowledge of the past and foresight of constructed future reproduce to him optimistic or ominous perspectives. Seeing where we were yesterday, and where are we going now, we can not misjudge this path as of evil, threat, challenge, attack. Only those who are deprived of historical thought, by turning them in ever-entertaining consumers by aggressive flow of advertising and disinformation, who are cut off from education and cultural codes translation, can ignore the horror of the actual situation. Only brute or consuming mechanism, biorobot, can not recognize that we live in a field of global catastrophe. 4. Those who have saved at least a grain of independent and free intellect cant help but wonder: what is the reason of the existing situation? What are the origins and triggers of the disaster? It is now clear that they should look into excessive keenness of western civilization on technical development, individualism, the pursuit of freedom at any cost, materialism, egoism, the cult of money and the whole of bourgeoiscapitalist liberal ideology, as well as in Western societies racist belief that this course is universal, the best, and obligatory for the rest of the world. If at first this passion gave positive results, engendered dynamics, opened up possibilities of humanism, extended the zone of freedom, improved peoples situation, opened new perspectives to them, then after reaching its limit the same trends began producing the opposite results: the technique turned from an instrument into a selfsufficient principle (the prospect of machines revolt); individualism carried to extremes, deprived one of his nature, freedom lost its subject, idolatry of matter led to spiritual degradation, egoism destroyed society, the absolute power

of money forced out not the labour only, but also the entrepreneurial spirit of capitalism; liberal ideology destroyed any form of social, cultural or religious solidarity. And if in the Western countries that grew out of the logic of their historical development, then in other parts of the world, the same principles were imposed by force, by colonial and imperialist practices, without taking into account the specifics of local cultures. The West, having embarked on this path in the modern era, not only brought itself to a lamentable ending, but also caused irreparable damage to all other nations of the earth. It has become global and universal, thus no one can simply avoid it or isolate from it. Something can be changed only by uprooting the entire spectrum of catastrophic phenomena. And, despite the fact that in non-Western societies, the situation is somewhat different, simply ignoring the challenge of the West can not change anything. The roots of evil are too deep. They should be clearly understood, comprehended, identified and put in the spotlight. It is unable to fight consequences without understanding the reasons. 5. There are reasons for current disastrous situation, and likewise there are those, who are interested in it, who wants it to last, who retrieves the benefit, profit, who profits from it, who's responsible for it who supports it, strengthens it, protects and guards it, as well as prevents it from changing its course of consecution and deployment. This is a worldwide global oligarchy, which includes political, financial, economic, military-strategic core of the world's elite (mostly Western), and a broad network of intellectuals serving it, executives, media moguls, forming a loyal oligarchical entourage of globalists. Taken together, the global oligarchy and its attendants are the ruling class of globalism. It includes political leaders of the United States, ones of the largest countries of NATO, economic and financial moguls, and agents of globalization who serve them, that make up the gigantic planetary network, in which resources are allocated to those ones, who are loyal to the main course of global processes, as well as flows of informational manipulation, political, cultural, intellectual and ideological lobbying, data collection, infiltration into the structures of national

states, still not fully deprived of sovereignty, as well as outright corruption, bribery, influence, campaigns of harassment of unwanted, etc. This globalist network consists of multiple floors, including both political and diplomatic missions, as well as multinational corporations and its management, media network, global trade, and industrial consuming structures, non-governmental organizations and funds, and so on. The catastrophe, in which we are, and which comes to its acme, has a manmade nature - there are forces, that are interested in everything to be just as it is no way else. Those are architects and managers of global ego-centric hypercapitalistic world. They are responsible for everything. Global oligarchy and its agents network is the root of evil. Evil is personified in the global political class. The world is as it is because someone wants it to be like this, and puts much effort for it. This will is the quintessence of the historical evil. But if this is true, and someone is responsible for present situation, then the opposition and disagreement with the status quo obtains its addressee. Global oligarchy becomes in a position of the enemy of all mankind. And it is the enemy. And further, the very presence of the enemy gives a chance to defeat him, that means a chance for salvation, and to overcome the catastrophe. Part 2. The image of a normal world 1. We are told (it is hypnosis and propaganda), that it can not be other way (than it is now). Or that any alternative would be "even worse. This familiar tune that democracy has many flaws, but all other political regimes are so much worse, that it is better to tolerate with what already is. This is falsehood and political propaganda. The world we live in, is unacceptable, intolerable, leading to inevitable death, and finding an alternative to it is a condition of survival. If we dont overthrow the status quo, dont change the course of development of civilization, dont deprive from power and destroy the global oligarchy as a system and as specific forces, groups, institutions, corporations and even individuals,

well become not only victims but also complicit of the impending end. The claim that "everything is not so bad", that "before it was worse," that "somehow everything will get better" etc. is a deliberate form of suggestion, hypnosis, intended to lull remains of free consciousness, independent and sober analysis. Global oligarchy can not allow lieges of the global elite to dare to think independently and all alone, without reference to their secretly and surreptitiously imposed standards. This elite does not act directly, as in totalitarian regimes of the past, but subtly, insidiously, producing their dogmas for granted, and even as a free choice of each person. But human dignity consists in the ability to choose and to choose specifically between saying yes or no to the current situation. Nothing and never under any circumstances can not automatically cause a humane "yes". "No" can be said to everything, anytime and under any circumstances. Denying this right, the global elite denies us to have human dignity. That means, it opposes not only humanity, but humaneness, human nature. And this alone gives us the right to revolt against it, to radically say no to it and the whole state of affairs, to refute its suggestion, to wake up from its hypnosis, to approve another world, another way, a different order, different system, different present and future. The world that surrounds us, is unacceptable. It is bad from all points of view. It is unjust, disastrous, untrustworthy, lying, it is not free. It must be crushed and destroyed. We need a different world. And it will not be worse, as the global oligarchy and its loyal servants frighten us, but it will be better and salvatory. 3. What is in this case, the correct world, the desired world order? What is the standard platform from which we estimate the existing as a pathology? The image of the normal world of different forces, pari passu discordant with the current situation may be very different. And if you delve into the details of alternatives projects, controversies will inevitably arise in the camp of the supporters of global alternatives, their unity will be shaken, their will to resist will be paralyzed, competition of projects will undermine consolidation of forces, which is necessary to resist. Thus, a normal world, a better world, must be talked of with the utmost caution. Nevertheless, there

are some absolutely obvious principles and benchmarks, which can hardly be questioned by anyone in the right mind. Let's try to find them. An economic model is required, an alternative to existing today system of speculative financial capitalism. Alternative can be seen as in real industrial capitalism, in Islamic economy, in socialism, so in environmental projects, as linked to the real production sector, so in search of completely new economic mechanisms, including new forms of energy, labor organization etc. Normal economy will not be that one, which exists today. In resource-poor the distribution problem must be solved on the basis of common to all mankind plan, not on the basis of egoistic struggle for controlling it. Resource wars - military or just economic - must be drastically suppressed. Humanity is threatened with death, and in the face of this fact, we have to move to a different attitude to the democratic and resource issue. In this game there can not be winners. Everyone will lose. In a normal world, this threat should be answered by all the people of the world together, not individually. Normal and the best state of human existence is not fragmentation and dissipation into atomic individuals, but preservation of social collective structures, maintaining transmission of culture, knowledge, languages, practices, beliefs. Man is a social being, thats why liberal individualism is destructive and criminal. We must save the human society at any cost. From this follows that the social orientation must prevail over the liberalindividualistic one. In a society which was to take place, one should maintain his species dignity, his identity, his essence, his wholeness, as well as the structures, without which his personality can not develop and fix - family, work, public institutions, the right of one to participate in his own fate, etc. Trends leading to the dispersal of people and to its replacement by other universal human types, should be stopped and turned away. Man is something that should be retained, and even recreated.

The normal society is that one, where peoples, nations and states are

stored as traditional forms of human community, as created forms, created by history and tradition. They can change or transform, but they should not be abolished or forcibly merged into a single global melting pot. Diversity of peoples and nations is a historical treasure of mankind. Abolishing it we will come to the abolition of history, to the end of plural marriage, freedom and cultural wealth. Globalization processes must be immediately cut down. Normal society is based on the possibility of getting knowledge, of knowledge transfer, on open ability to osmose the world, the existence, the human being on the basis of tradition, experience, discoveries and free search. The sphere of knowledge should not be a field of virtual pageant, of mass media hypnosis or a space for manipulation of consciousness on a global scale. Mass media surrogates and virtual strategies that substitute reality must be reassigned to sober self-reflection based on open source, intuition, creativity and experience. To achieve this, it is necessary to crush the current dictatorship of the media, to break the monopoly of global elites to control the mass consciousness. Normal society should have a positive horizon of the future in front of itself. But at the same time to achieve the intended purpose, it is necessary to abandon the delusion that things in themselves are developing well or, on the contrary, the assumption that the catastrophe is inevitable. The point of human history is that it is open, it includes a component of human will and the ability of one to implement his freedom. This makes the future zone of possibilities: it wont be itself neither better nor worse, as it can be created by the people as such, and other. All depends on what we choose and what we do. If we reject the choice and strong-willed construction, the future may not come at all. Or it would not be humane. 3. Normal society must be diverse and plural, polycentric. It must contain many open possibilities, many cultures. Normal is free, not forced dialogue. Each

society may choose itself the balance between spiritual and material components. Yet as history shows, the sharp domination of materialism invariably leads to disaster. Forgetting about the spiritual dimension of one is fatal and is baneful to him. The current sharp lurch to the exaggerated materialism must be offset by a sharp turn to the spiritual principle. And absolutely unacceptable is the total domination of money over all other values. Values can be of any type, but in any normal society they should not be placed on a highest level. In this sense, every society where the role of money is not as great as in ours, by definition, is more normal, fair and acceptable than that one, in which we live today. Who thinks otherwise is either sick, or is an agent of influence of the global oligarchy. Justice and harmony are more important than personal success and greed. Greed and desire for individual well-being are considered a sin by most of human cultures, or at least a weakness. And the justice, concern for the common good, is one of the most common values. A just society is more normal than that one, which is based on selfishness. A normal world order is that one, which recognizes the balance of power, the right of different societies and cultures for their own way. Videlicet this is the norm. And this norm, even in most general and approximate form, radically contrasts with that, what we have around us. Status quo is not normal, this is pathology. Once the global oligarchys hypnosis is crushed, all things return to focus. 4. In a normal society, we can not do without power in general. In one or another form it was, is and will be. It is also present in a global society that exists today. This power belongs to a global oligarchy that only veils it under the guise of "democracy" and "complicity", "dispersion of decision-making centres". Global oligarchy remains the power in its every sense, but becomes not direct, but indirect, acts not by direct coercion, but with subtle control. It is less coarse than other forms of power, but is more insidious, deceitful and sneaky, and not less brutal and totalitarian. Occasionally it takes the form of a paradoxical totalitarian anarchism, giving full freedom to the masses, but only while maintaining complete control over the content of this freedom and its parameters. You can do everything,

but only in accordance with established rules. The rule are dictated by the global oligarchy. In a normal society, the power should belong not to anonymous political and financial elite, that steadily leads humanity to its death, but to the best ones the strongest, smartest, most spiritual and fair, the heroes and sages, but not to the network of global corrupt officials, the liars and usurpers. Power always involves projection of multiple wills to a single instance. Formation of this instance should proceed in accordance with the historical, social, cultural, and sometimes the religious traditions of each particular society. There is no general formula of optimal power. Democracy works in one society and is a fiasco in another. The monarchy occurs ti be harmonious, and may reborn into tyranny. Collective management provides both positive and negative results. There are no universal recipes, suitable for all. But any power (and even lack of it) is better than that one, which exists today and which seized the control over global humanity. 4. The standard comes from a particular history of a particular human society. And it should not be other. The norm, the sample, the ideal, the law societies and peoples acquire through many sufferings, trials, errors, assessments, experiments, they hatch this rule for centuries. And thats why each particular society has the inalienable right for its own norm. For its own values. No one from aside has the right to criticize this norm on the basis of his own historical society, distinct from other ones. If peoples and nations do not develop the same way, as their neighbours do, it means not that they simply can not do so, but that they in extenso dont want to, that they estimate historical time and the scale of successes and failures according to other criteria. And this should be avowed once and for all, and any colonial and racist prejudices should be categorically refused: if some society is not similar to ours, is doesnt mean that it is worse, more backward or primitive; it's just different, and its otherness - is its nature, that we must avow. Only such an approach is normal. Globalism, west-centrism and universalism are profound pathology requiring eradication. Especially, it is pathological or even criminal, if universal standards are defined by illegitimate, self-proclaimed global elite, that had usurped the planetary power. There are as many norms, as many

societies there are, videlicet this norm is universal one, the absence of uniform standard for all, freedom and right of choice. Part 3. Revolution imperative 1. Against the existing order, perceived as intolerable evil, as the pathology and the situation, which will inevitably lead to catastrophe and to the death of humanity, it is necessary to propose an alternative beau ideal, the standard, the project of that, which doesnt exist now, but what should be. But the global oligarchy will not give up its power itself under any circumstances. It would be naive to think otherwise. Hence, the task is to dislodge it from its hands, to wrest the power, to take it by force. This can be done only under one condition: if all the forces, dissatisfied with the current situation will act together. This principle of conjoint action is a unique phenomenon of recent history, that has become global. Global oligarchy sets its dominance on the planetary level. Its global nature is not a secondary quality, but reflects its essence. This global oligarchy attacks all peoples, nations, states, cultures, religions and societies. Not some type, not some regimes, not any particular selected objects of attack. This elite comes frontally and totally, seeking to turn all the areas of the Earth into the zone of its control. But in this areas there are different societies, different cultures, different peoples, different religions. And yet they havent lost their originality completely. Globalization brings death to all of them, and they still can understand it or feel it intuitively. But in the current situation no country, taken alone, has enough force to provide effective resistance to a global oligarchy. And even if you combine the efforts of one or another culture, or one or another regional community, that go beyond the borders of a single country, all the same forces are not equal. Only if all humanity will become aware of the need for radical opposition to globalism, well have a chance to make our fight effective and rewarding results. Conjoint action does not require us to be

fighting for the same ideals or to be in solidarity with those standards, which will replace the current catastrophe and pathlogy. These ideals may be different, and even, to some degree, conflict, but we all must realize that if we wont be able to scrag the global oligarchy, all of these projects (whatever they are) will remain unrealized, and will die in vain. And if we find enough intelligence, will, sobriety and courage in ourselves to act together against global oligarchy within the framework of idem Global Revolutionary Alliance, we will have a chance and open opportunity not only to fight on equal, but also to win. The differences between our societies and their normatives will matter only after we overthrow the global oligarchy. Until this moment contradictions of projects will only play into the hands of the global oligarchy, acting on age-old principle of all empires - the "divide and conquer". The global revolution has two aspects: the unity of what is to be destroyed, and the multiplicity of what is to be approved. 2. The revolution of the XXI century can not be a simple remake of the revolutions of XIX or XX centuries. Earlier revolutions sometimes correctly evaluated flaws of three regimes, against which they were directed. But the historical panorama did not allow to realize the most versatile and deep roots of evil. To attacks on truly pathological features of sociopolitical setup and unfair, alienated usurped power mingled minor and incidental historical and sociological elements that did not deserve such a hard rejection. Earlier revolutions quite often splashed the child with water, hitting the evil, affected something, what on the contrary, deserved preservation and restoration. Pure evil in the previous phases was hidden, camouflaged, and sometimes these revolutions itself brought in something of the spirit, of those guidelines and the trends, that led today to the financial, media and global tyranny of oligarchy. Moreover, previous revolutions mostly often proceeded within local conditions, and even there, where they claimed to be global, this scale was not possessed. Only today there are ripe conditions for a revolution to become really global. Since the system, against which it is directed, is already global in practice (not just in project). Another

feature of previous revolutions was that they put forward clear alternative sociopolitical models, which mostly often pretended to be universal. If we now repeat this path, we will inevitably repel from the revolution those ones, who see the standard other way (through the prism of their society, their history, their culture) and who want a different future for themselves, than other revolutionaries against the global oligarchy. Thence, the revolution of the XXI century must be truly planetary and plural in its ultimate goals. All nations of the earth must revolt against existing world order jointly and severally, teamwise, but in the name of different ideals and to approve different normative in reality. To have future, we must conceive it as a complex bouquet of opportunities, realization of which is being prevented by the current world system and the global oligarchy. If we dont crush it all together in the name of different purposes and different horizons, we wont get nor bouquet, nor any other future, nor more of other futures. Let each society fight for its own design of the future. Revolution of the XXI century will be successful only if within its framework all nations will fight against the common enemy in the name of different goals. 3. Those spectacles that we see today in the so-called "colour revolutions" have nothing of genuine revolutionary in itself. They are organized by global oligarchy, are prepared and supported by its networks. The "colour revolutions" are almost always aimed against those societies or those political regimes, that actively or passively resist the global oligarchy, challenge its interests, that try to keep some independence from its policy, strategy, regional affairs and economy. Thus, "colour revolutions" occur selectively, basing on mass media networks deployed by the globalist elite. These are a parody of revolution, and serve only counter-revolutionary purposes. 4. The new revolution should be geared to the radical overthrow of the global oligarchy, to destroy the world's elite, to destroy all order of things associated with it, or, rather, controlled disorder of things. Destroying the nerve of evil, we will liberate the history of peoples and societies from the parasitic vampire

- world oligarchy. Only this can open up the prospect of constructing an alternative future. By the very definition revolution must be global. Global oligarchy is now dispersed throughout the world. It is present not only in the form of hierarchical structure with a clearly defined centre, the core, but in the form of a net dispersed field, dispensed throughout the world. The centre of decision making is not necessarily in the same place where the visible centres of political and strategic management of the West lie - that is, in the U.S. and other centres of the Western world. Specificity of the global elite is that its location is mobile and fluid, and the decision-making centre is mobile and dispersed. Thus, it is extremely difficult to strike at the core of the global oligarchy, focusing on its strong territorial fixation. To defeat this network evil, it is necessary to uproot its presence simultaneously in different parts of the earth. Moreover, it is necessary to infiltrate in the network itself, to sow there panic, crash, to place viruses and destructive processes. Radial destruction of the global oligarchy requires from the revolutionary forces to master the network procedures and to study network protocols of globalism itself. Humanity must fight the enemy on its territory, because today the whole area became a zone, one or another way controlled by the enemy. The struggle for destruction of the global elite therefore must be not only common, but also synchronized in different parts of the world, albeit asymmetric. In addition, the revolution in the present case involves a strategy of guerrilla warfare in the territory occupied by the enemy. Particularly, this means that the battle must be deployed in cyberspace too. Cyber revolution and the practice of radical struggle in the virtual space should be an integral part of the revolution of the XXI century. 5. Of all the ideologies of modernity times to present date, only one survived, embodied in liberalism or liberal capitalism. It is exactly this, where worldview and ideological matrix of the global oligarchy has concentrated. This global oligarchy is openly or covertly liberal. Liberalism does a dual function: on the one hand, it serves as a philosophical card to strengthen, preserving and expanding the power of the global oligarchy, that is, acts as a guide to

its ongoing global politics, on the other hand, it allows to recruit volunteers and collaborators of this elite by a wide grip, and its entourage, anywhere in the world; accepting liberalism, different personalities - political leaders, bureaucrats, industrialists, traders, intellectuals, scientific community, youth, in any country automatically generate the environment in which the staff for globalism is being recruited, via which networks are set, information is collected, influence centres are organized, transaction and solutions for the benefit of transnational corporations are lobbied, other strategic operations for establishing the global domination of the global oligarchy are conducted. Thats why, the main impact of the revolution should be on the liberals in all their expressions as representatives of the ideological, political, economic, philosophical, cultural, strategic, technological direction. Liberals are the shell, under which the global oligarchy is hidden. Any strike on liberalism and liberals, has a big chance to affect sensitive parts of global oligarchy, its vital organs. Total fight against liberalism and liberals is the main ideological vector of global revolution. The revolution must be of rigidly anti-liberal character, because exactly liberalism is a concentrated knot of evil. Any other political ideology can be considered as a possible alternative, and there are no restrictions. The only exception is liberalism, which must be destroyed, crushed, overthrown, obsolete. Part 4. The Fall of the West: the United States as a country of absolute evil 1. The origins of the current situation lie deep in the history of West and socio-political processes, that are unfolding in this part of the world. History of Western Europe led its societies to the point, when gradually individualism, rationalism, materialism, reductionism began to dominate, and then on its basis the capitalism formed and the bourgeoisie became triumphant. The ideology of liberalism became an ultimate expression of bourgeois system. Exactly this ideological, philosophical, political and economic line led to the

current situation. In times of modernity, Europe was the cradle of materialistic liberal civilization, which it imposed to other peoples of the earth through its colonial imperialist policy. Herewith most heinous forms of coercion were used: for example in the XVI century Europeans recreated the institution of slavery, which ceased to exist a thousand years ago under the influence of Christian ethics. Europeans turned to this disgusting practice in the very moment when the West began to develop the theory of humanism, free thought and democracy. Slavery, therefore, was an innovation of capitalism and the bourgeois order. The bourgeois system was installed in European colonies; in some of which it got most consistent and vivid expression, bringing the bourgeoisdemocratic set to a logical end. United States of America, a colonial state based on slavery, individualism, egoism, dominance of money and tangibles, became a coronal of this bourgeois Western Civilization of Modern era. Gradually, former European colonies became independent centre of power and in the middle of the XX century became the centre of whole Western civilization, to the pole of the world capitalist system. After the end of the Soviet Union the U.S. were left without its balancing socialistic bloc, becoming a centre of global bourgeois system. That is exactly American elite that mostly closely fused with the global oligarchy, practically identified with it. And although the global oligarchy is wider than American political class, it also includes the European oligarchy, and partially Westernized bourgeois elites from other parts of the world, namely the United States became the backbone of the modern global world order. American military power is a major strategic factor in global politics, American economic system is a model for the rest of the world, American system of mass media actually coincides with a global network, American cultural cliches are imitated throughout the world, American technology are ahead of all the other technological developments. In such a situation the population of the U.S. itself plays the role of passive hostages, which are controlled by the global elite, using the tools of American nation to implement its global objectives. The United States is a giant golem, controlled by the

oligarchy. In the United States embodies the spirit of such an order of things, which poses an imminent catastrophe in itself, which is an expression of evil, injustice, oppressive exploitation, alienation and colonial imperialism. 2. United States and its policies around the world is a major scourge and a major factor in upholding and strengthening the existing order of things. All the catastrophic trends of our time come from there. a. The American economy is based on the dominance of the financial sector, that completely replaced the worthiness of production, the classical industrial capitalism, not to mention agriculture. The vast majority of U.S. citizens are employed in the tertiary service sector, that is they produce nothing in the concrete. U.S. financial parasitism applies to the entire planet, because the dollar, printed without any limitation by the Federal Reserve System, is a reserve currency in a global world model. The world economy is US-centric and works for U.S. regardless of whether this economy is effective or not. b. Herewith the United States consumes the largest percentage of worlds resources reserves per capita, contaminating the atmosphere with poisonous waste and billions of tons of debris. U.S. exhausts resources from the rest of the world and establishes (through the military-strategic, diplomatic and economic control over the suppliers) such a price for it, from which the United States benefits. Exactly this model of U.S. world hegemony creates a major imbalance in world economy, injustice and exploitation, approaching the inevitable resource collapse. Herewith, in distribution of natural resources the U.S. are guided solely by their national interests, what causes prerequisites for impending disasters. c. American society has gone further than any other Western society on the way of atomization, individualization and disruption of social ties. Built by immigrants from different countries, American society initiated the beginning of individual identity. Divorced from a specific collective, from its roots, the West European model was allowed to be realized in the territory of Americas in purely laboratory conditions. American society did not just gradually disintegrate to individuals, but it was originally composed of

them. Thats why here individualism reached its logical treshold, and sociality (including socialism) had minimal extent in comparison with all other Western countries (not to mention the east). d. That is exactly U.S. where the process of individuation in has reached its extreme limits and went out of it in the direction of experiments to establish post-human beings. Successes of American scientists in the sphere of cloning, genetic engineering and experiments on developing hybrids allow to suggest that one day we will witness the phenomenon of appearance of post-human beings. e. American society was based primarily on the mixture of cultures, nations and ethnic groups, on the principle of the "melting pot". The absence of organic ethnic ties were its specialty. Spreading its influence throughout the rest of the world, the U.S. are also promoting this cosmopolitan principle, making it a universal norm. Furthermore, the U.S. act as the main force, depriving one country after another from their right of national sovereignty, intruding in others' territories, whenever it is appropriate to its interests. Such were the invasion of the U.S. armed forces and other NATO countries, following the line of U.S. policy in Serbia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, etc. It is exactly the U.S. that play a major role in promoting cosmopolitism and de-sovereignization of nations and states. f. The world's media, on whose conscience lies creation of absolutely false virtual image of the world, laid out in the interests of the global oligarchy, are mostly American and represent a continuation of U.S. media. Acting in the interests of the global world elite, they base their systems on the U.S. information network. In the American society itself masses of population are extremely ignorant and have lack of culture, combined with the naivete and trusting entirely false and fabricated notions, that are distributed by the entertainment industry, media and other means. This stereotype of ignorance, cartoon representation of the world, society, history, etc., in combination with certain technological skills and competencies, the United States spread to societies that get in the zone of their influence. Namely American system of knowledge, focused exclusively on pragmatic and material interests, based on the exploitation of intellectuals, almost

entirely composed of immigrants from other countries, represents the culmination of the distortion of the sphere of knowledge for the sake of propaganda, pecuniary and utilitarian benefits. g. Americans have a specific idea of progress, believe in the unlimited growth of their economic system, are confident about the future, which from their point of view should be "American". Most of them sincerely believe an expansion of the "American way of life" for all humanity to be the real boon, and are perplexed when face with rejection and an entirely different, negative reaction (especially when the spread of this lifestyle is accompanied by a military invasion and mass extermination of the local population, violent uprooting of traditional and religious customs and other delights of direct occupation). That one, which Americans call the " progress", the "democratization", "development" and "civilization" is in fact a degradation, colonization, degeneration, degeneracy and peculiar paradoxical form of liberal dictatorship. It is no exaggeration to say that the United States as a stronghold of militant liberalism, is a visible embodiment of all the evil that plagues humanity today, is a powerful mechanism that steadily leads humanity to the final catastrophe. This is empire of absolute evil. And the hostages and victims of the disastrous course of this empire are not only all other nations, but also ordinary Americans, not different from the rest of conquered, fleeced, deprived and persecuted to the slaughter nations. 3. It is significant that the U.S. national symbolics is a set of sinister details. Statue of Liberty reproduces the Greek goddess of hell - Hecate, and her torch, whish people light up at night, alludes that this is a country of night. The dollar sign copies columns of Hercules, by which according to ancient Greeks the habitable zone of the Mediterranean ended, beyond which lied the world of oceanic hell - the area of titans, demons, and sank because os of its pride, its materialism and its corruption, Atlantis; but instead of the inscription Nec plus ultra ("Nothing further beyond"), which was made on aegis, binding the columns, the Americans put an inscription Plus ultra Further beyond"), cracking, thus, a symbolic ban and morally justifying the construction

of its hellish civilization. Masonic pyramid on the arms of the United States has no top, that means a society without a vertical hierarchy, cut off from its heavenly source. No less ominous are the other symbols. These are details, and they can be treated differently, but knowing what a huge role in human culture they play, at the same time we must not neglect such significant characters. 4. U.S. lead other societies to ruin. And perish themselves. At the same time the scale of catastrophic processes is such, that it would be naive to expect that someone in this situation would be able to wriggle out alone from destructive power of the incident idol. The question is not simply to "push the incident one", but to nudge it to such a place, that is safe for us. That it does not crush us. American Babel Tower is destined to collapse, but it is much likely that under its rubble all other countries will be buried. The U.S. have become a global phenomenon long ago, not a separate country. Therefore, the struggle with the United States can not be of a character of those historical wars, that were waged by one states against other ones (or coalitions of states). America is a planetary phenomenon, global, and therefore the effective fight against it is possible only if it will take place simultaneously throughout the world, including the territory of U.S. itself, where, as elsewhere, are present nonconformist revolutionary forces, that categorically disagree with the course of the United States, the capitalist world and the global West. These revolutionary forces within the U.S. may be the most diverse groups - both rightists and leftists, people of different religious, ethnic and religious orientations. And they must be regarded as a valuable segment of the planetary revolutionary front. To some extent we are all today in the American empire - either directly or indirectly, and still unknown, whether it is easier and safer to struggle against it on the periphery, in countries yet not formally placed under direct U.S. control. Suite of global oligarchy, which is almost always at the same time agents of American influence, hidden or direct Liberals, alerts to demonstrations of non-conformism in all world regions. And with the proliferation of tracking means and storage capacity,

information processing and transmission total shadowing after any suspicious element anywhere in the world is already an easily solved problem, and tomorrow will be a routine occurrence. It is important to understand that we live in a global America, and in this respect, those who oppose the United States and American hegemony as well as the global oligarchy from the outside, dont differ much from those who are against the same enemy from within. We are all strictly in the same situation. Part 5. War practice 1. Global oligarchy uses convenient conflicts, divides and incites its enemies against each other. She is at aggressive wars, provokes them and will act this way in future. The question is not: to fight or not to fight, we will be forced to fight in any case, today more important is how to fight and with whom? War is indefeasible part of human history. All attempts to evade it in practice led only to new wars, each time more violent than previous ones. Thus, realism compels us to treat the war evenly and impartially. Humanity made wars, makes it now and will make it until its end. Most of the religious prophecies about the future describe it in terms of "final battle". Thence, war must be understood as a socio-cultural environ of human existence. It is inevitable and this should be taken for granted. Wars will rend humanity, but every time we have to learn to correctly analyse the forces involved in the war. This analysis qualitatively changes under current circumstances. Earlier wars were fought between ethnic groups, or between religions, or between empires, or between national states, in the XX century between ideological blocs. Today a new warfare era came, where the protagonist is always a global oligarchy, carrying out its plans, either with the direct use of American forces and NATO troops, or organizing local conflicts in such a way, that its scenario is consistent with the interests of this elite indirectly. In some cases, conflicts, wars and unrest are provoked with

participation of many groups, none of which represent the interests of the global oligarchy directly; then we are dealing with a situation of controlled chaos, manipulation with which are processed by American strategists since the 80s. In other cases, the global oligarchy stands simultaneously for the two warring parties, manipulating them in its advantage. Correct analysis of modern war thus is reduced to defining the algorithm of behaviour and singling out tactical and strategic goals of the global oligarchy and American state in each particular case. This kind of analytics requires a new method, based on a revolutionary and global consciousness. Participating the war or watching the war, we should always try to understand its hidden structure and the true nature, relating to the inherent in the conflict program of world government and the planetary elite. Videlicet this instance is a provocateur of practically all of today's wars, with the help of which the global oligarchy maintains and strengthens its dominance, trying to delay its end. 2. Anti-American front in conditions of newest warfare must firstly become the centre of correct analysis of the opposing forces, and of global oligarchys interests, hidden behind them, and secondly, must master skills of reorientation of military actions against the real culprit of any modern conflict - against the global oligarchy itself, the liberal environment, the U.S. influence agents network and other accomplices. Today there are no more aggressors and victims, national interests or competition in the accumulated force, which explained wars of the past. Wars of the XXI century are of a character of episodes of a single world civil war, insurgency and symmetrical retributive operations by world government. Anti-American front by its very existence should serve as a mechanism for the reorientation of any flashing military conflict in the true purpose and its real culprits - the U.S., globalism, and their structures. 3. The new conditions require us to improve the skills of classic fighting, as well as mastering new territories of war - including network, cyber, virtual zones. Mastering these areas is the most important area for antiAmerican front, because the virtual network area allows to effectively use

asymmetric forms of military operations. If military power in the sense of traditional forms of weapons makes resources of global hierarchy and their U.S. and NATO tools incomparably and many times more superior than the whole power of potential adversaries, and in this area of the frontal confrontation there hardly is a chance to win, then in the area of network warfare and cyber strategies other factors are decisive. Not least role is played by creativity, unconventional ways of thinking, inventiveness, and ability to act outside the box. In cyberspace, at a certain stage forces of global oligarchy and the revolutionary counter-elite can be equated at least temporarily: in frames of once again opened area, zone or technology, especially at first, creativity of loners is comparable with major budgetary constructions of transnational corporations. Suchwise a personal website or stylish blog of a gifted loner may attract public and have an impact comparable to the official government source of information of a country or a large scale funded by globalists media resource. Having mastered the network strategies, it becomes possible to wage a sterling and dynamic cyber war with the global oligarchy including virology, revolutionary trolling, flaming, flooding, spamming and usage of bots, virtuals and socket-puppet strategies. In this regard, anti-American front of the global counter-elite needs both military trainers and veterans of hot conflicts of classic design, hackers troops, programmers, system administrators or single figures of the global network resistance. Entire reality is now a field of the war - both located in offline, and related to the zones of virtuality. We must be prepared to lead an all-out global war, extending the zone of combat operations at all current levels - from common behaviour, lifestyle, fashion, work and leisure to ideology, information flows, technology, networking and virtual worlds. We must seek to inflict maximum damage on a global oligarchy and the interests of U.S. and NATO on all available levels - personal, military, economic, cultural, informational, network, cyberspace, etc. The enemy must be attacked both frontally and stealthily. At any point where flames resistance to globalism, American expansion and domination of the global oligarchy, should

concentrate global efforts of planetary anti-American front, giving support to the rebels, information maintenance, military assistance, conducting all types of actions aimed at inflicting maximum damage on a global oligarchy - moral, physical, informational , image, ideological, material, economic, etc. 4. World revolutionary counter-elite must act by any means, depending on the situation. Under military circumstances by military means, under peaceful ones - as it will turn. It should be clear: we are dealing with a system of illegitimate liberal terror, political system created by the cannibalistic junta of international maniacs, that unlawfully seized world control levers, leading the humanity to a death. If we accept their rules, we are guaranteed with slavery, humiliation, degradation, dissolution and forthcoming death. Current situation is not just some temporary condition, burdened by unpleasant details and vexatious costs; it is a fatal diagnosis: continuation of the current trends is not compatible with life. In such a situation, for us there is no longer either law, obstacles, moral attitudes and code of conduct. On this topic we shall speak only after destruction of obscene global clique of oligarchs and their international mercenaries. Thus, in the fight against the system any means to an end. We must clearly realize that the power of the global oligarchy can not be considered a law, and its settings and power authorities that cooperate with it are illegitimate collaborators. The only law is the global revolutionary struggle for a radical change in the course of human history. Only this war is legitimate, just and moral. Only its rules and its purposes are justified and worthy of respect. Anyone who is not involved in this war on the side of the Revolution, with this simple fact already helps the global oligarchy to maintain and strengthen their power. The law of modern global society is lawlessness, all proportions reversed. And on the contrary, the only rightful is now revolt, resistance, struggle against the status quo, trying to arrange its despotism in real terms. While the power is in the hands of the global oligarchy, we dont have to comply any laws except the laws of war and revolution. However, the global oligarchy itself rules basing on the new one, provokes conflicts and tries

to manipulate them. In such circumstances, we are dealing with illegal thieves and maniacs, killing whom is the duty of every normal person, mindful of his species dignity. War is our homeland, our element, our natural, native environment in which we must learn to exist effectively and victoriously. Part 6. The structure of Global Revolutionary Alliance 1. The subject of the new world revolution must be the worldwide counterelite. This counter-elite is intended to form the Global Revolutionary Alliance (GRA) as a crystallization of efforts of planetary subversive disruptive revolutionary activities aimed at the demolition of the current global world system and the overthrow of the power of the global oligarchy and its entourage. This Global Revolutionary Alliance should be a new type of organization, proper to conditions of the XXI century. Nor party, nor movement, nor order, nor lodge, nor sect, nor religious community or ethnic group or caste - as collective forms of earlier eras - can not serve as a model for its structure. The Global Revolutionary Alliance should be a network structure, without a single control centre, or a set of fixed permanent members, nor the steering group, or a permanent establishment or a well-defined algorithm of action. The Global Revolutionary Alliance should be spontaneous, organically inscribed in the logic of global processes, never being planned in advance and not tied to a particular time and place. Only such a mobile presence will provide an alliance the effectiveness and immunity against planetary global oppressive system and its policing. Alliances activities should be based on understanding of a set of common principles, objectives of the struggle, the identity of the enemy, recognizing the status quo as catastrophic, intolerable and requiring total destruction, as well as understanding the causes of this situation, the stages of its development and instrumental processes, that make it possible and real. Every one who understands it is a member of the Global Revolutionary Alliance, every one who doesnt accept the current situation and who is ready to act in

accordance with this understanding. Thats why the Global Revolutionary Alliance must be polycentric. It shouldnt have a single territorial, national, religious or another centre. The alliance should operate everywhere, regardless of frontiers, races and religions, on the basis of inner conviction and spontaneously opening windows of opportunity. Exactly the absence of general strategy is the axis of the revolutionary strategy, and the absence of a fixed in space unified hierarchical nerve centre - the dominant model of its operation. The Global Revolutionary Alliance should be everywhere and nowhere, should carry out its rebel actions always and never at a fixed time. The Global Revolutionary Alliance should appear then and there, when and where the global oligarchy least expects it. In this Global Revolutionary Alliance should be similar to the avant-garde performance, to Zen Buddhist practice or to exciting game; to game on the background of end of humanity. The rules of this game can be easily changed in the progress of its development; the players can change their faces, identity, personal history and other individual characteristics (including residence and documentation). Global Revolutionary Alliance should provoke a system failure, a short circuit in the functioning of the global hierarchy and its set up system. It is unable to carry it out in a well-planned, prepared and modelled way; global oligarchy will immediately discover it and take preventive measures. Thats why we should act with a focus on complete unpredictability - combining personal heroic actions with collective actions in all segments of reality. 2. The Global Revolutionary Alliance should be deliberately asymmetric it could be potentially taken part in by states, social forces, political parties, movements, groups, up to single individuals. All that opposes really or moderately, frontally or tangentially to the power of the global oligarchy must be regarded as a territory of Global Revolutionary Alliance. This area can be conditional or concrete, national or cybernetic, natural or network. a. If any country in the world - large or small - acts against the global domination of U.S., NATO, the global West and the world liberal financial system, then

this state should be considered as part of the Global Revolutionary Alliance and helped in every way, regardless of whether we share values of this state, whether its rulers are attractive or repulsive, whether its current system is just or corrupt. Nothing should keep us from supporting such state, as passim in the current world balance of powers criticism, blackening and the demonization of such a state can be nothing but a black propaganda of global elites, discrediting their opponents. The Global Revolutionary Alliance categorically prohibits its supporters and participants any criticism of the antiAmerican regimes and even those countries, whose policies at least some ways significantly differ from the strategy of the global elite. Those who will succumb to the trick of worlds system of total disinformation and will believe to insinuations adressed against such anti-American regimes, deserves a dispraise. We can not exclude, that this is about provocateurs seeking to split the ranks of the counter-elite. Observing this rule or its violation can be a probable cause for determining the adequacy or inadequacy of those who claim to participate in the Global Revolutionary Alliance. b. The same principle applies in the case of estimating movements, parties, religious, national and political organizations. It does not matter what they are calling for, are their goals good or bad, whether we like or dislike their leaders, are their values clear or not, their attitudes, motives and goals. Important is another thing: whether they fight with U.S. and global oligarchy, whether they destroy the existing system, or on the contrary, maintain it, serve it and assist its functioning. If first, they are automatically considered as elements of Global Revolutionary Alliance; if the second - they fall into the camp of the world's evil and satellites of the global oligarchy; and in that case they should not expect no mercy nor condescension. Especially criterion of orientation on discord should be distinguished here : those movements, political parties, religious groups and other associations, which put the confrontation and competition with other movements of the same level above the imperative of opposition to global oligarchy, are indirect accomplices of this oligarchy itself and are its

unconscious instruments. Global oligarchy maliciously incites one group against another to distract both from their struggle against itself. Thats why only those groups (huge ones, as carriers of particular world religion, and small ones, as separate associations of citizens on a common platform) should be ranked to Global Revolutionary Alliance, that are clearly aware of the fact that in any local and regional confrontations the main enemy is mostly often hidden, as it is the global oligarchy, and that to defeat it, if necessary, they must unite even with the worst enemies (on the local level), if they are also oriented against this oligarchy. Those who challenge this principle, play into the hands of the global oligarchy and can be blamed in it with all causes of accusation. In this sphere also can not be trusted the world of mass media, discrediting certain political, national, ideological or religious organizations, that contend with global oligarchy: for sure all the information about them will be scienter false, and trust to it should be considered a mistake, if not a crime. Those who are denigrated by the global media, are almost certainly the most deserving political, religious, ideological and social groups and movements that deserve the support of the Global Revolutionary Alliance. c. The same should be applied to separate individuals, holding a position of rejection of the global oligarchy or its critics. These are already members of Global Revolutionary Alliance on their own, whether they realize it or not, declare it, or conceal, avow it or deny. It is not necessary to require a clear position from such people : for technical reasons, in certain situations it would be disadvantageous for them (thus for all of us). It is necessary only to evaluate the damage that they cause in practice to a global oligarchy and proceed from that. Positive program for which they are struggling is absolutely irrelevant. It may be close to us, and may be completely alien. It is necessary to evaluate these people by the extent and effectiveness of their resistance, their subversive, destructiveness to the current status quo. If this level is great, they deserve a full and undoubted support. And again in this case it would be a mistake, and even a crime to take into account the denigrating information, that is produced against them by the global media and its national satellites. If the

global oligarchy puts a particular person in the black list, the Global Revolutionary Alliance simply must support him. Mostly often everything alleged to this person would be a deliberate falsehood from beginning to the end. But this does not matter - whether all globalists innuendos were pure truth, it wouldnt change anything - we live under martial law and a hero is that one, who is able to inflict maximum damage to the enemy, but not someone who has exemplar morals or other qualities, crucial for social human estimate in times of peace. A revolutionary has his own moral: it is the effectiveness and success of his struggle against the main world despotism. 3. Whatever are the motives which make certain powers to reject the status quo and to challenge the oligarchy, globalization, liberalism and the U.S., they should be, in any case, brought to the alliance. The rest will be decided after the victory over the enemy and the collapse of the new Babylon. This is the most important principle that should be taken as the base of the Global Revolutionary Alliance. Global oligarchy bases its power on the fact that projects of its alternative revolutionary forces differ from one zone to another, from one society to another, from one confession, or even within confessional lines, to another, from one party to another, and finally, from one actor to another. These contradictions of goals maximally relax the camp of the status quo opponents, and thereby create conditions for a sole domination of the global elite. This exact principle is the strategic backbone of its despotic and success power. It was repeatedly noted that even weak attempts to unite different parties, movements, ethnic groups, states or even separate individuals on the general antiglobalistic and anti-oligarchic platform causes a hysterical reaction of global oligarchy and their allies, unmotivated repressions, preventive measures to eradicate and prevent even a split term of such attempts. Mentioning this topic of creation of the Global Revolutionary Alliance, ignoring differences in the objectives on the basis of the oneness of a common enemy global oligarchy, the U.S. and the planetary West and financial capitalism, we hit the most vulnerable place of the existing system, break open its code, undermine

the basis of its imperial strategy, consisting in the game on the internal contradictions of different forces. The history of the XX century shows that any association based on common goals, even the most massive (as it was in the case of world system of communism and the communist parties operating practically in all countries of the world) has its own restrictive bar and can not go beyond a certain limit. And the collapse of world socialism is related to it: having united everyone possible around anti-capitalist initiatives with clearly defined positive goals, dogmatic setups, having restricted other interpretations, communists exhausted all the revolutionary resources of Marxism, but did not collect the critical mass, necessary for a real victory over the capitalism. Outside of the Marxist movement were left fiery stratums of conservative, religious, national movements, which were equally intransigent with regard to global capitalism, but did not share specific communist utopia. Taking advantage of this split, the West was able to defeat the Soviet bloc. This fate must be taken into account by revolutionaries of the XXI century very seriously. If today we continue insisting on agreement on a unity of purpose that we propose as an alternative to a global catholic (capitalist ?) oligarchy and world domination of the U.S., we are doomed to inevitable failure and ourselves pass in the hands of enemy the weapon of victory over themselves. 4. The Global Revolutionary Alliance should be fed by the spirit of freedom and independence in the first place, and only secondarily should seek material resources for realization of particular operations and projects. Never start with a matter or resources. It should start from the will. This is the sense of human dignity. This is the most important rule of development of the Global Revolutionary Alliance. In its centre the spirit should be. There are situations where one can not cope with external circumstances, with forces of nature, with the power of fate. Sometimes one confronts with obstacles that are impossible to overcome, that are above him. But the essence of the humane lies in the fact, that even conceding brute force or pressure of circumstances,

one can morally admit or not admit what is happening, to say either "yes" or "no" to circumstances. And if he says "no", thereby he sentences the circumstances by his decisive verdict, thus preparing the platform for their further suggestions (solution? resolve?). Being disagreed with the objective world, the human spirit with its disagreement already changes it, and even if the consequences of his verdict come not at once and not in his case, they are never a dead letter. It is exactly the spirit that runs the history, society and human life. Any material wealth, any potential without complicity of the spirit, will and moral approval will be useless and powerless. And we know examples where whole civilizations deny the right of material things to be considered true values, and on the contrary, place true values within the spiritual realm - in the worlds of contemplation, deity, faith, asceticism. Conversely, the presence of moral choice will is able to make a complete lack of resources and means into its opposite, to construct endless empire with a minimal starting capital, covering a vast area of material existence. The human spirit can do anything. Thats why the Global Revolutionary Alliance should be ready to begin its struggle against the global oligarchy from any point - from the separate individual, small group of people, from movement, party, and so to the confines of religious communities, entire societies, nations and civilizations. You can enter a battl having nothing at all, on the basis of a negative estimate of the current situation and radical discontent, dissatisfaction with what is happening. And you can rely on the existing structures of any scale. Resources for the implementation of the global revolutionary activities, for a total planetary war should be drawn from everywhere, not worrying about its source and fate. Here all will fit - big and small, traditional weapons and new technologies, infrastructures of entire states or international platforms, creativity of separate individuals, heroically joining the struggle against global oligarchic beast. Only the spirit runs human history. In the spirit, in its illness, in its weakness, in its decline, in its stupefaction we should look for the root of current pathology, and it can be cured by spirit only.

Part 7. Images of the Future: the Dialectics of Multiple Norms 1. The future will only be possible if we manage to destroy the existing world and to make the norm a reality. Each segment of the anti-American front, each element of the Global Revolutionary Alliance has its own vision of the future, its own norm. It must be assumed that these images and these norms are different, disparate, and even mutually exclusive. But this circumstance will be important only if these norms and images of the future are realized as something universal and obligatory, something that is exclusive and excludes all other imperatives common to all mankind. In this case, the split within the Global Revolutionary Alliance is sooner or later inevitable, and, therefore, its activity is doomed to failure at some point. The Muslims, atheists, Christians, socialists, anarchists, conservatives, libertarians, fundamentalists, sectarians, progressivists, environmentalists, or traditionalists will hardly get along with each other, if they try to spread their vision of the future to their neighbours, and even more so, to all mankind. And the global oligarchy will immediately take advantage of this, hammering a wedge between the opponents; it will split their solidarity and will kill or strangle each individually. Considering the sheer simplicity and primitiveness of such a strategy, it has invariably and consistently given a positive result to those who have been using it over the past millennia. The Global Revolutionary Alliance has no right to succumb to such a preprogrammed and anticipated turn of events. The ability to extract knowledge from history and to create a strategy based upon rational thought is an essential attribute of an intelligent person. Thus, in order for its war to succeed, the Global Revolutionary Alliance must avoid this impending trap. With diverse and disparate images of the future, we must learn to imagine them in their local, rather than a universal context. Islam for Muslims, Christianity for Christians, socialism for socialists, ecology for environmentalists, fundamentalism for fundamentalists, nation

for nationalists, anarchy for anarchists and so on that should be the way of designing the future. This means that we must recognize the multiplicity, the plurality of the future, its polyvariability, as well as the coexistence of different designs of the future on different contiguous or noncontiguous territories. The Global Revolutionary Alliance opposes a single future common to all; it stands for a bouquet of futures, for humanity to be replenished with a variety of shades and colours, ways and variations, horizons and waymarks, areas for a forward-throw or the return to the roots. But for some of these alternative futures to come into being, the help of other forces ones that are certain to see the future in a different way is needed. This is the main discovery of the revolutionary strategy of the XXI century. No one gets his own future, if one rejects the idea that the others will have their own future as well, distinct from that of any other, its own norm, and its own horizon. The future will become real and free only if all nations and cultures, all civilizations and political movements, all states and separate individuals manage to do away with the American hegemony, the global oligarchy, and the financial system. And this can be done only by combining the efforts of all those who are discontent. No one should be excluded from the Global Revolutionary Alliance. All those who oppose the status quo and who see the root of all evil in liberalism, globalism, and Americanism should be treated as plenipotentiary participants of our common front. 2. The future must be based on the principle of solidarity, on societies as organic holistic units. Each culture will give its own response in a particular spiritual and religious form. This form will be different in each case. But they will all have something in common. There are no such cultures, religions and states, which elevate matter, money, physical comfort, mechanical effectiveness, and vegetative pleasure to the highest value. Matter can never retrieve its own form, because it is formless. But it is precisely this kind of an entirely materialistic civilization that is being built on a global scale by the worlds global oligarchy, exploiting the basest,

the most tangible incentives, and the most primitive impulses of mankind. At the darkest depths of the soul, there are shameful, semi-animal, semi-demoniac energies lying dormant, tending to matter in order to merge with the organic, physical being. These sluggish energies, resistant to fire, to light, to concentration and elevation, are the very backbone exploited by the global system, which it cultivates, with which it gallivants, and which it celebrates. This depth of the soul, or the voice of physicality, ruins any cultural form, any ideal, any normative, whatever it is. This means, that the course of history comes to a stop, the eternal return of the consuming cycle begins, as does the race for material pleasures, consumption of simulacra and of mindless images. It is in this way that societies lose their future. Each culture opposes these basest appetites, the energies of spiritual entropy and decay, but does so in its own way and marks the coordinates for its own norms, its ideas, and its spirit. And despite the fact that the lineaments and configuration of these forms and ideals are different, they all have one thing in common in fact, such is the case anytime we are talking about form, rather than substance, about an idea, rather than physicality, about the norm and effort, rather than dissipation, entertainment, and debauchery. Therefore, the image of the future is common in all its diversity, and to attain it, all the elements of the Global Revolutionary Alliance must fight against the global oligarchy. In all cases, it is the form, rather than deformity, an idea, rather than matter, something that elevates the human spirit, rather than sinks it into the abyss of empty inertial entropic physicality. At the heart of any norm stand the common good, truth, and beauty. Each nation has its own ideals usually quite different. Yet they share the view that it is these that are the ideals, and not anything else. The global oligarchy destroys all these ideals, not letting them be upheld. In doing so, it deprives all societies of the future. 3. These ideals should be conquered in war and hardened in the fire of revolution. This will not occur simply by itself. That is the reason why the revolution against the American global world is not just a detail or an accident, but the workings of history, the movement of which is blocked by certain forces. These forces will not

leave by themselves, will not step aside, and will not give way for energies of existence. We are at a civilizational and historical dead end. The structure of this dead end is such that both its objective and subjective dimensions presuppose that the deadlock is deliberately selfishly maintained by a certain historical and, at the same time, anti-historical phenomenon the global oligarchy. In order to open the gates to the future, it is necessary to blow up the dam that stands in its way. No war no victory. No victory no ever-coming future. Unlike nature, where the sun rises every morning on its own, the onset of the dawn of human history depends directly on the effectiveness and the success of the struggle against the dark forces the worlds oligarchy, the U.S., and global capitalism. Only having uprooted the existing global elite, the course of history can move forward, from where it got stuck today. The future can only be created in war and born out of the fire of the Global Revolution. War and Revolution are an awakening. Daytime is the time of the awakened ones. Meanwhile, the global oligarchy does all it can to ensure that humanity continues sleeping, and seeks to guarantee that it never awakes. For this exact purpose, an artificial virtual world is being created, where the night lasts forever, and the day is represented in exquisite electronic simulation. This world should be blown it up. 4. The design of the future must be contemplated and created openly. Peoples and societies must select it, but not receive it as something imposed. Thus, the Global Revolutionary Alliance should appeal to all and to everyone; it must disclose everything about its goals and objectives and their horizons and their plans. The Global Revolutionary Alliance should not seek to impose or bestow anything onto anyone. The Global Revolutionary Alliance promises nothing, does not tempt, and does not lead to a place that is only clear to the Alliance itself, but that remains a mystery to everyone else. Such tactics will not give us the desired result. The Global Revolutionary Alliance insists on a universal awakening, on total mobilization, the piercing and general awareness of the catastrophe that has opened up and is gaining momentum, and on building a new transparent world open to all people on this tragic foundation. We must tell people the truth: the state of

humanity is awful, the self-diagnosis is highly disappointing. Yes, this is a disease, a severe illness, deep and relentless. But .....curable. It is curable only if it is recognized as a disease, considered such, and if there is the will to change the situation and to find the horizon of recovery. To find health, it is necessary to recover. To recover, we must realize that we are seriously ill. And the first step to recovery will be to identify where the disease takes us, and what its main carriers are. The case records are located in modern Western culture and its historical prelude. The carrier of the disease, parasitic on its development much like tumor cells in healthy tissues, is the worlds global oligarchy, the Monster-State USA, the ideology of liberalism, vicious in its foundations, its worldwide network of agents of influence, serving the interests of the empire of evil in all societies including those that were able to maintain at least partial immunity to these malignant, corrosive viruses. Doctors know that without the will of the patient, recovery is not possible, and no tricks and external methods will help. Therefore, the main allies of the Global Revolutionary Alliance are the people themselves, societies, cultures, all of mankind, which are simply obliged to wake up and to shake off the blood-sucking American oligarchic liberal scum. Reset and start living a full life according to ones own will and relying on ones own mind. Only then will the mission of the Global Revolutionary Alliance be carried out, and there will no longer be a need for it. In its place will come the future, which mankind will choose for itself, and which it will freely make with its own hands. It will create itself, only by itself, and for itself only.

THE EURASIANIST VISION Basic principles of the eurasianist doctrinal platform The breath of the epoch Every historical epoch has its own distinct system of coordinates political, ideological, economic and cultural. For example, the XIX century in Russia passed under the sign of the dispute between Slavophiles and Pro-westerners [zapadniki]. In the XX century the watershed passed between Reds and Whites. The XXI century will become the century of the opposition between Atlantists * (the supporters of unipolar globalism **) and eurasianists **.

* Atlantism geopolitical term denoting: - from the historical and geographical point of view, the Western sector of the world civilization: - from the military-strategic point of view, the member countries of the NATO (in the first place, the US); - from the cultural point of view, the unified information network created by the Western media-empires; - from the social point of view, the market system, claimed to be absolute and denying all the different forms of organization of the economic life. Atlantists are strategists of the Western civilization and their conscious supporters in other parts of the planet, aiming at putting the whole world under control and imposing the social, economic and cultural stereotypes typical of the Western civilization upon the rest of mankind. The Atlantists are the builders of the new world order the

unprecedented world system benefiting an absolute minority of the planets population, the so-called golden billion. ** Globalism the process of building the new world order, at the centre of which stand the political-financial oligarchic groups of the West, is called globalization. The victims of this process are sovereign states, national cultures, religious doctrines, economic traditions, manifestations of social justice, surrounding environment all spiritual, intellectual and material diversity on the planet. The term globalism in the customary political lexicon means just unipolar globalism, i.e. not the fusion of the different cultures, social-political and economic systems into something new (as this would be multi-polar globalism, eurasianist globalism), but the imposition of Western stereotypes upon mankind. *** Eurasianism (in its widest meaning) basic geopolitical term indicating: - from the historical and geographical point of view, the whole world, excluding the Western sector of the world civilization: - from the military-strategic point of view, all countries who do not approve the expansionist policies of the US and of their NATO partners; - from the cultural point of view, the preservation and development of organic national, ethnical and religious cultural traditions; - from the social point of view, diverse forms of economic life and socially equitable society. Eurasianism (in its strict historical meaning) is a philosophical current generated in the 1920s among the Russian migrs. The major authors are N.S. Trubetskoy, P.N. Savitsky, N.N. Alekseev, V.G. Vernadsky, V.I.Ilyn, P.P. Suvchinski, E. Khara-Davan, Ya. Bromberg, and others. From the 1950s and the 1980s this movement was further developed by L.N.Gumilyov.

Neo-eurasianism: arose at the end of the 1980s (the founder being the philosopher A.G. Dugin) and broadened the scope of the traditional concept of eurasianism, aligning it with new blocs of ideas and methodologies traditionalism, geopolitics, metaphysics, New Right, New Left, third way in economics, theory of the peoples rights, ecology, ontological philosophy, eschatological vector, new understanding of the universal mission of the Russian history, paradigmatic perspective of the history of science, etc. Against the establishing of the atlantist world order and globalization stand the supporters of the multi-polar world the eurasianists. The eurasianists defend on principle the necessity to preserve the existence of every people on earth, the blossoming variety of cultures and religious traditions, the unquestionable right of the peoples to independently choose their own path of historical development. The eurasianists support dialogue of cultures and value systems, they cherish the organic combination of devotion to tradition and creative cultural innovations. Eurasianists are not only the representatives of the peoples living in the Eurasian continent. Being eurasianist is a conscious choice, which means combining the aspiration to preserve the traditional forms of life with the aspiration to free creative (social and personal) development. In this way, eurasianists are all free creative personalities who acknowledge the values of tradition; among them are also representatives of those regions, which objectively form the bases of Atlantism. Eurasianists and Atlantists are opposed to each other in everything. They defend two different, alternative, mutually excluding images of the world and its future. It is the opposition between eurasianists and Atlantists that defines the historical outline of the XXI century.

The Eurasianist vision of the future world The Eurasianists consequently defend the principle of multi-polarity, standing against the unipolar globalism imposed by the Atlantists. According to the Eurasian vision of this New World, there will no longer be traditional states. Instead, there will be new integrated civilizational formations (great spaces), united into geo-economic belts (geo-economic zones). According to the principle of multi-polarity, the future of the world is imagined as the equal, benevolent partnership relations among all countries and peoples, organized according to a principle of proximity in terms of geography, culture, values and civilization in four geo-economic belts (each one consisting in turn of some great spaces). Euro-African belt, including 3 great spaces: the European Union, Islamic-Arab Africa, sub-tropical (black) Africa; Asian-Pacific belt, including Japan, the countries of South-eastern Asia and Indochina, Australia and New Zealand; Eurasian continental belt, including 4 great spaces: Russia and the countries of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), the countries of continental Islam, India, China; American belt, including three great spaces: Northern America, Central America and Southern America. Thanks to such organization of the world space, global conflicts, bloody wars and extreme forms of confrontation, threatening the very existence of mankind, become less likely. Russia and its partners in the Eurasian continental belt will establish harmonic relations not only with the neighboring belts (Euro-African and Asia-Pacific), but also with its antipode the American belt, which will be also called to play a

constructive role in the Western hemisphere in the context of the multi-polar structure. Such vision of future mankind is the opposite of the globalist plans of the Atlantists aimed at creating a unipolar, prepackaged New World Order under the control of the oligarchic structures of the West.

The Eurasianist vision of the evolution of the state The eurasianists consider the nation-state, in their present features, as an obsolete form of organisation of spaces and peoples, typical of the historical period from the XV to the XX centuries. In the place of the nation-states new political formations must rise, combining into themselves the strategic unification of the great continental spaces with the complex multi-dimensional system of national, cultural and economic autonomies. Some features of such organization of spaces and peoples may be observed both in the ancient empires of the past (e.g., the empire of Alexander the Great, the Roman empire, etc.) and in the newer political structures (European Union, CIS). The contemporary states today face the following outlooks 1. self-liquidation and integration in the single planetary space under US domination (Atlantism, globalization); 2. opposing globalization, attempting to preserve their own administrative structures (formal sovereignty) notwithstanding globalization; 3. entering supra-state formations of regional nature (great spaces) on the basis of historical, civilizational and strategic communities. The third variant is the Eurasianist one. From the point of view of the eurasianist analysis, this is the only way of development capable to preserve things most valued and original, which the contemporary states are called to safeguard in the face of globalization. The mere conservative aspiration to preserve the state at any cost is doomed to failure. The conscious orientation of the political leaderships of

the states to dissolving into the globalist project is estimated by the eurasianists as renouncement of values whose preservation has been the duty of the historical states toward their subjects. The XXI century shall be the arena of the fateful decisions by contemporary political elites concerning the issue of the three possible outlooks. The struggle for the third variant of development lies at the foundations of a new wide international coalition of political forces, in tune with the eurasianist world-view. The eurasianists consider the Russian Federation and the CIS as the nucleus of a forthcoming autonomous political formation the Eurasian Union (core Eurasia), and further of one of the basic four world geo-economic belts (Eurasian continental bloc). At the same time, the eurasianists strongly favor development of a multidimensional system of autonomies *.

* Autonomy (ancient Greek: self-government) the form of natural organization by a community, united by some kind of organic feature (national, religious, professional, familiar, etc.). A distinctive feature of the autonomy is the greatest amount of freedom in spheres not concerning the strategic interests of the geographical political formations. Autonomy is opposed to sovereignty a feature of the organizations of peoples and spaces typical of the nation-states in their present form. In the case of sovereignty, we deal with the priority of the right to free and independent management of the territory; autonomy supposes independence in the issues of the organization of the collective life of peoples and regions, not linked to management of the territory.

We view the principle of multi-dimensional autonomy as the optimal organizational structure for peoples, ethnic and social-cultural groups, in the Russian Federation, the European Union, the Eurasian continental belt and the remaining great spaces and geo-economic belts (zones). All the lands (territories) of the new political-strategic formations (great spaces) must be placed under direct management of a center of strategic government. Within the competence of the autonomy remain issues linked to non-territorial aspects of management.

The eurasianist principle of division of powers The eurasianist principle of political management proposes two different levels of government: local and strategic. At the local level, the government is controlled through the autonomies of course being composed of associations of different kinds (from those with millions of people to small units consisting of few workers). This government acts absolutely unconstrained and is not regulated by any higher authorities. The model for any kind of autonomies is freely chosen, stemming from tradition, inclination, direct democratic expression of the will of the organic units: societies, groups, religious organizations. Under the management of the autonomies are placed the following:

civil and administrative issues, social sphere, education and medical services, every sphere of economic activity.

i.e., everything, apart from the strategic branches and those issues concerning security and territorial integrity of the great spaces.

The level of citizens freedom, thanks to the organization of the society according to the eurasianist principle of autonomy, is unprecedentedly high. Person is given opportunities for self-realization and creative development never before seen in the history of mankind. The issues of strategic security, the international activities beyond the frame of the single continental space, the macro-level economic issues, the control over strategic resources and communications are found under the management of a single strategic centre *.

* Single strategic centre conventional definition for all those instances when control is delegated to the strategic regional government of the great spaces. It is a rigidly hierarchic structure, combining elements of the military, juridical and administrative branches. It is the pole of geopolitical planning and the government of the great spaces. The balance of strategic and local levels of power is strictly defended. Any attempt to introduce the autonomy in the issues found under the competence of the single strategic centre must be precluded. The reverse is also true. In this way, the eurasianist principles of government organically combine traditional and religious rights, national and local traditions take into account all the diverse social-political regimes shaped in the course of history, and therefore offer a solid guarantee of stability, security and territorial integrity.

The eurasianist vision of economy The Atlantists aim to impose on all peoples in the world a single model of economic order, elevating the experience of the economic development of the

Western part of the world civilization in the XIX-XX centuries to the status of a standard. Eurasianists on the contrary, are convinced that the economic systems derive from the historical and cultural features of the development of peoples and societies; consequently, in the economic sphere they conform to variety, plurality of regimes, creative research, and free development. Only the large-scale strategic fields, linked to the need to ensure the general security (the military-industrial complex, transportation, resources, energy, and communications) are subject to rigid control. All remaining economic sectors must freely and organically develop in accordance with conditions and traditions of the concrete autonomies where economic activity naturally takes place. Eurasianism comes to the conclusion that in the field of economics there is no ultimate truth the recipes of liberalism * and Marxism * can only be partially applied, depending on the actual conditions. In practice, the free market approach has to be combined with control over the strategic fields. Redistribution of profits needs to be controlled according to the national and social aims of the society as a whole. In this way, eurasianism conforms to the third way * model in economics.

* Liberalism economic doctrine which maintains that only the utmost freedom of the market and privatization of all economic instruments create optimal conditions for economic growth. Liberalism is the dogmatic economic doctrine of Atlantists and globalists ** Marxism economic doctrine which maintains that only full control over economic process by some social body, the logic of compulsory general planning, and the equal distribution of the surplus product among all members of society (collectivism) can lay economic foundations of a

just world. Marxism rejects the market and private property. *** Third way economics set of economic theories, combining the market approach with a definite share of regulated economy on the basis of supra-economic criteria and principles.

The economics of eurasianism must be built on the following principles

subordination of the economy to some higher civilizational spiritual values; principle of macro-economic integration and division of labour on the scale of the great spaces (customs union); creation of a single financial, transportation, energy, productive and informational system within the Eurasian space; differentiating economic borders with neighbouring great spaces and geoeconomic zones; strategic control of the system-forming branches by the center and parallel maximal freedom of economic activity at the level of medium and small business; organic combination of the forms of management (market structure) with the social, national and cultural traditions of the regions (absence of a uniform economic standard in medium and large enterprises).

The eurasianist vision of finance The single strategic centre of the Eurasian Union must also consider the issue of the control over monetary circulation as strategically relevant. No single means of payment must be used as universal world reserve currency. It is necessary to create a proper Eurasian reserve currency, being the legal tender on the territories belonging to the Eurasian Union. No other currency shall be used within the

Eurasian Union as reserve currency. On the other hand, creation of local means of payment and exchange, being the legal tender within one or more than one neighbouring autonomies, must be encouraged in every way. This measure prevents accumulation of capital for speculative purposes and provides a stimulus to its circulation. Besides, it increases the size of investment into the real sector of the economy. Therefore, the funds will be invested first of all where they can be productively employed. In the eurasianist project, the financial sphere is seen as an instrument of real production and exchange, directed towards the qualitative aspects of economic development. As opposed to the Atlantist (globalist) project, the financial sphere must have no autonomy (financialism *) whatsoever.

* Financialism the economic system of the capitalistic society in its post-industrial stage, being the logical result of the unlimited development of liberal principles in economics. Its distinctive feature is that the real sector of the economy becomes subordinated to virtual financial operations (stock markets, financial paper markets, portfolio investments, operations with international liabilities, futures transactions, speculative forecasting of financial trends, etc.). Financialism hinges upon monetarist policies, separating the monetary area (world reserve currencies, electronic money) from production. The regional vision of the multi-polar world supposes different currency levels:

geo-economic currency (money and paper values, being the legal tender within a definite geo-economic zone, as the instrument of financial relations among the strategic centres of a set of great spaces);

great space currency (money and paper values, being the legal tender within a definite great space particularly within the Eurasian Union , as the instrument of financial relations among the autonomies); currency (different forms of exchange equivalent) at the level of the autonomies.

In accordance with this scheme, there must be organized issuing and financialcredit institutions (banks), regional banks, banks of the great spaces, banks (and their equivalents) of the autonomies.

The eurasianist attitude toward religion In devotion to the spiritual heritage of the ancestors, in the meaningful religious life, the eurasianists see a token of authentic renewal and harmonic social development. The Atlantists in principle refuse to see anything but the ephemeral, the temporary, the present. For them there is essentially neither past nor future. The philosophy of eurasianism, on the contrary, combines the deep and sincere trust in the past with an open attitude toward the future. The eurasianists accept fidelity to the religious sources as well as free creative research. Spiritual development for eurasianists the main priority of life, which cannot be replaced by any economic or social benefits. In the opinion of the eurasianists, every local religious tradition or system of faith, even the most insignificant, is the patrimony of all mankind. The traditional religions of the peoples, connected with different spiritual and cultural heritages, deserve the utmost care and concern. The representative structures of the traditional religion must be supported by the strategic centres. Schismatic groups, extremist religious associations, totalitarian sects, preachers of non-traditional religious doctrines and teachings, and any other forces oriented toward destruction

must be actively opposed.

The eurasianist vision of the national question The eurasianists believe that every people in the world, from those who founded great civilizations to the smaller ones, carefully preserving their traditions, are an inestimable wealth. The assimilation through external influence, the loss of the language or the traditional way of life, the physical extinction of any one of the peoples of the Earth is an irreparable loss for all mankind. Eurasianists call the profusion of peoples, cultures and traditions the blossoming complexity, a sign of the healthy, harmonic development of the human civilization. The Great-Russians, in this connection, represent a unique case of the fusion of three ethnical components (Slavic, Turkish and Finno-Ugric) into one people, with an original tradition and a rich culture. The very fact of the rise of the GreatRussians from the synthesis of three ethnical groups, contains an integration potential of exceptional worth. For this same reason Russia more than once became the core of the union of many different peoples and cultures into a single civilizational joint. The eurasianists believe that Russia is destined to play the same role in the XXI century. The eurasianists are not isolationists, to the same extent that they are not supporters of assimilation at any cost. The life and destiny of nations is an organic process, which does not tolerate any artificial interference. Inter-ethnic and international issues must be decided according to their inner logic. Every people on Earth should have the freedom to independently make their own historical choices. Nobody has the right to force any people to lose its uniqueness by blending into the global melting pot, as the Atlantists would have. The rights of the peoples are no less significant to the eurasianists than the rights of individuals.

Eurasia as a planet Eurasianism is a world-view, a philosophy, a geopolitical project, an economic theory, a spiritual movement, a nucleus around which to consolidate a wide spectrum of political forces. Eurasianism is free from dogmatism, from the blind submission to authorities and ideologies of the past. Eurasianism is the ideal platform for the inhabitant of the New World, for whom disputes, wars, conflicts and myths of the past have but an historical interest. Eurasian principle is the new world-view for the new generations of the new millennium. Eurasianism derives its inspiration from various philosophical, political and spiritual doctrines, which until now appeared irreconcilable and incompatible. Together with this, eurasianism has a definite set of basic founding ideas, from which one cannot deviate under any circumstances. One of the main principles of eurasianism is the consistent, active and widespread opposition to the unipolar globalist project. This opposition (different from the simple negation or conservatism) has creative character. We understand the inevitability of some definite historical processes: our aim is being aware of them, taking part in them, leading them to the direction that corresponds to our ideals. It might be said that eurasianism is the philosophy of multi-polar globalization, appealing to the union of all societies and peoples on earth to build an original and authentic world, every component of which organically derives from historical traditions and local cultures. Historically, the first eurasianist theories made their appearance among Russian thinkers at the beginning of the XX century. But those ideas were consonant with the spiritual and philosophical search of all the peoples on earth at least, of those who realized the limited and inadequate nature of the banal dogmas, the failure and the blind alley to which the intellectual clichs were bound, the need to escape

from the usual frameworks toward new horizons. Today we can attribute to eurasianism a new, global meaning; we can realize how our eurasianist heritage is not solely the work of the Russian school, oftentimes identified with the term, but also of an enormous cultural and intellectual stratum of all the peoples on earth, not strictly belonging to the narrow framework of what until recently (in the XX century) was considered immutable orthodoxy (liberal, Marxist and nationalist). In this highest and widest meaning, eurasianism acquires a new extraordinary significance. Now it is not only the form of the national idea for the new postcommunist Russia (as it was considered by the founding-fathers of the movement and the contemporary neo-eurasianists in the first stage), but a vast program of planetary universal relevance, by far exceeding the borders of Russia and the Eurasian continent. In the same way as the concept of Americanism today may be applied to geographical regions found beyond the borders of the same American continent, eurasianism means a distinct civilizational, cultural, philosophical, strategic choice, which can be made by any individual, wherever he lives and whatever the locale of his national and spiritual culture is. In order to provide this meaning of eurasianism with real content, there is still much to be done. And to the extent that newer and newer cultural, national, philosophical and religious strata will join in our project, the same global meaning of eurasianism will be widened, enriched, changed in its features. Yet such evolution of Eurasianist thinking must not simply remain a theoretical issue many aspects must find their expression and accomplishment only through the concrete political practice. In the eurasianist synthesis, neither word can be thought without action, nor action without word. The field of the spiritual battle for the sense and the outcome of history is the whole world. The choice of ones own camp belongs to everyone individually.

Time will decide the rest. Yet sooner or later, through great accomplishments and at the cost of dramatic battles, the hour of Eurasia shall come.