These are excerpts from the article, which can be read in full at Gefira Financial Bulletin #68.

[…]
Nowadays, the situation is different: In the Euro-Asian heartland, China is making progress as a rising world power (the New Silk Road), and the world islands continue to be controlled by the former maritime powers (France controls most of the countries in West Africa and Sub-Sahara politically, economically, and through a strong military presence), half of the inhabitants of the remotest countries and islands kneel before the late Queen (no one in Central Asia, mind you), and Germany was flattened into a buffer state by the U.S., England and France after the war (especially when it comes to national identity and strength) and disempowered (their “decision makers” cannot decide whether they want to continue to act as a buffer state, a major Western country, or Russia’s stooge). Despite the new circumstances, Mackinder’s thesis remains relevant and the new/old world powers are striving for the heartland.
The “colonies” of the tsars were given the status of autonomous republics in the USSR by the Bolsheviks, which Putin always considered a mistake and questioned their autonomy. One could risk the statement that the Bolsheviks to some extent used soft power towards the autonomous republics, while Putin’s policy is always aimed at collision course towards the 21 autonomous republics: Chechnya, Ossetia, Abkhazia, Moldova are the examples. Putin wanted and wants to fix the mistake of the Bolsheviks, which after the end of the Soviet Union led to the independence of many resource-rich autonomous republics such as Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, and to the fact that Russia can no longer be supplied with fresh blood (raw materials) from its former colonial veins. The West has failed to understand that by trying to lure Ukraine into its Anglo-Saxon, German, Polish zone of influence, it is threatening the domination of the Heartland. Hence the whole war. If Russians tried to install in Canada an autonomous, Russian republic with traditional, conservative values, a republic, let’s say, of Indians so closely related to Siberian peoples, and supplied them with tons of weapons as First Nations, what would be left of Canadian cities? Are we crazy? No! The enemy, the friends, the target can be chosen at will in today’s times. It may be paradoxical, unrealistic and unfounded, but that’s the way wars are. Once they appear, they are full of idealistic contradictions and their consequences are worse than anyone could have expected. And everyone always wonders: why such a thing in the XXI century? Well, because the human mind and geopolitical points of view do not develop as fast as, say, the electronics and entertainment industries.
[…]
Yakutia
Speaking of the “absurd” idea of Canada being occupied by Russians: Yakutia, an autonomous republic in the Soviet Union and the Russian Federation, may become the next target of the West. In an area the size of India, there lives on average one person per square kilometer. Actually, they all live in Yakutsk or in small towns, otherwise there are only deserted, frost-soaked, but resource-rich large areas. “One tells that when God created the earth, he sent an angel over Siberia with a sack full of riches. When this flew over Yakutia, his fingers became stiff with cold, and he dropped everything. All the riches, , silver and platinum fell to the earth. However, out of anger at his loss, he punished this region with eternal winter”. 1

Yakutia (number 14 on the map) – the largest of the 22 autonomous republics within the Russian Federation.
[…]

These are excerpts from the article, which can be read in full at Gefira Financial Bulletin #68.

Historical precedent
Germany, 1918. The war has been going on for several years, a devastating war. The Germans occupy a sizable portion of French territory and also all of Belgium, not to mention the vast territories that German soldiers have managed to snatch from Russia. But the war is destroying all sides, and since there is no end in sight, the Germans decided to make concessions and, at least in the West, bring the hostilities to an end. The Entente promised to sit down at the negotiation table. An armistice was concluded. The famous armistice. The armistice or truce is not a surrender, right? A truce is a ceasefire, a truce is the creation of conditions for peaceful talks, a truce is a way to make peace. Aha, said the Western countries. Germany asked for a truce, that is, Germany does not have the strength to continue to fight, that is, we are the victors, that is, we should behave like victors, and treat the Germans as defeated! And to think of it: the Entente states thought so in a situation where a large part of France and all of Belgium were in the hands of… the German army!

[…]

The defeated and humiliated enemy morphed into an avenger. Amid the fierce battles that took place between the Communists, Social Democrats and National Socialists for the seizure of power in Germany, the last of the mentioned ultimately emerged victorious and implemented a program to rebuild the country, its economy, armed forces and international standing. It didn’t take long for the National Socialists to make Germany into a powerhouse, which began to dictate political solutions to the former victors. Finally, as is well known, there broke out a war, a world war. And yet, it might not have happened that way, and after all, neither the National Socialists nor the Communists had to have come to power. If Germany had not been psychologically humiliated, if hard peace terms had not been imposed on it, if it had not been debased, the political forces that demanded a rematch would not have come to power. They would not have gained so much support: consequently, the Second World War would not have erupted.

History likes to repeat itself

[…]

Didn’t the West act in the case of the Soviet Union of the late 1980s and in the case of Russia since the 1990s almost exactly the same way it once did with Germany? Let’s remind ourselves. Lo and behold, the Cold War has been going on for decades and the Soviet Union decides to end it, reaches out to the West and – wonder of wonders! – liquidates itself! Would such a course of events have dawned on anyone before 1991? Without a single gunshot, what was commonly referred to in the West as the SOVIET EMPIRE, crumbled, the states that emerged from its ruins rejected communist ideology and adopted capitalism as an economic system, the states – former satellites of Moscow – came out from under its influence and joined the Western camp. Russia and other post-Soviet republics looked up to the United States as if it were a deity, the disarmament and withdrawal of Soviet then Russian troops from bases outside Russia was taking place. It seemed that a miracle had occurred, that the world had entered an era of peace, international friendship and international cooperation, the “end of history” was even trumpeted. And what?

[…]

Not only did the West expand NATO to include more countries: it established missile launchers in Poland and Romania, and brazenly claimed in the process that they were not directed against Russia but against terrorists from…. Iran!, or that the missiles are purely defensive missiles. Arguably, the Russians should have taken this on faith. President Putin explained to Western journalists, among others, that a missile silo is a missile silo and can hold a defensive and an offensive missile. A child understands this, but not Western politicians.

Russia – like Weimar Germany – was subjected to constant pressure, humiliation, constant swipes, taunts and accusations.

① Khodorkovsky was imprisoned – this was not because he broke the law, but because dictator Putin abhors independent business entities;
② the so-called dissident Nemtsov was killed near the Kremlin – aha! Putin shot him with a rifle aiming from a Kremlin window;
③ Navalny lost consciousness – it’s obvious: Putin, a former KGB officer (we all know what atrocities KGB officers are capable of, don’t we?), had him poisoned (ineffectively as it were, and then had him immediately sent to Germany to enable German doctors to discover the poison in Navalny’s blood!);

[…]

And couldn’t Russia have been treated humanely after 1991? Couldn’t one have had an ally in her? Couldn’t she have been offered substantial financial assistance in the 1990s? After all, this is what was done to Germany after 1945, as a result of which nothing along the lines of National Socialism in Germany has been revived since then! At least here the lessons of history were learned. Why was this not done after 1991 towards Russia? What took the upper hand in American politicians? Arrogance? Risk-taking? Stupidity? Disregard for Russia? Belief in America’s mission? Belief that Americans are the chosen nation to be served by others?

Russia’s war with NATO continues. Did it have to happen? Of course not. However, this war was wanted. If you review the media over the past 30 years, that is, since the collapse of the USSR, you will find that Russia (as well as Belarus) was constantly portrayed in the media in an unfavorable light. Russia was allegedly ruled by a dictator, there was no democracy or freedom and so on, we all know it by heart. Russia was subjected to constant sanctions, constantly accused of various bad things. Suffice it to recall the comedy that unfolded around Navalny, a Russian renegade (for the Western media: a Russian dissident), whom the Russian special services failed even to poison, whom the intransigent Russian government extradited to Germany only for German doctors to determine the presence of poison in Navalny’s body, who, as soon as his health improved, willingly returned to Russia, to a cruel dictator and an inhumane system.

One need only recall the case of the NordStream pipelines. These pipelines allegedly threatened Europe’s energy security, but the most important member of the European Union – Germany – nevertheless built them together with Russia (Europe’s enemy) and somehow did not care about the energy threat. Leaders of other EU member states protested and wailed that they felt betrayed by the European Union, although they had previously told their own citizens that only in the Union was their safe and prosperous future. After all, one NATO country (the United States? the United Kingdom?) blew up the pipeline, and the supposedly sovereign German state didn’t even squeal about it. After all, everyone knows that the pipeline was blown up by the Russians because they didn’t want to turn off the gas tap and decided that bursting the pipe would be faster, cheaper and easier.

Such absurdities can be enumerated in abundance. Gefira 68 takes up some of them. For example, it debunks the myth that nations can determine how they want to live. Gefira 68 also considers whether people are better off under the dictator Lukashenko or the liberal democrat Zelensky. Gefira 68 marvels at the repetition of historical events and the fact that, unfortunately, no one is able or even willing to learn from the past, even the most recent. Isn’t the defeat of Imperial Germany in 1918 similar to that of the Soviet Union in 1991? Don’t the economic problems and resulting social unrest of Weimar Germany resemble the same problems experienced by Russia in the 1990s? Finally, aren’t the resulting wars unleashed then by Germany and now by Russia somehow similar in their genesis?

It is also necessary to take into account that history can repeat itself and the West might “take over” Russia, like many other states around the world, and something “entirely” new, Western might emerge on the Russian ruins. We are trying to confront the concept of the “heartland”, the strategic, untouchable center, thanks to which one can control the world and which must be defended cost it what it may, with the fact that Moscow’s authority in the Russian regions, as in the former Soviet republics of Central Asia, is not so secure at all. Note that just before the Ukrainian war there was unrest in Kazakhstan, to which Moscow reacted very strongly. We immediately drew attention to this in our bulletin. In this context, this time we turn our attention to Siberia, where Russia’s treasures rest.

 

Do you know how in Russia they view the armed conflict between Russia and the West, which is taking place mainly on Ukrainian territory? They view it as a struggle between good, which is Russia, and evil, which is the West; as a struggle between God, in whose name Russia is fighting, and Satan, in whose name the West is fighting. No more and no less. Note that this view is held by both Russian Christians and Russian atheists; Russians who pray in Orthodox churches and Russians who could be called neo-Bolsheviks. What’s more, these two groups work together in this regard, and although they represent different (once hostile to each other) worldviews, each group is closer to each other than to what the West represents.

Why do Russians consider the West to be forces of evil, forces of Satan, forces from hell? Here’s why. The so-called values that are promoted in Western countries – in the United States, Canada and the European Union – are abhorrent to most Russians. These include:

① blatant propaganda of sexual perversion, gender reassignment and also denial of the existence of biological sex;

② the populating of the West with anthropological types from the Third World;

③ the cutting off of the West from its own past, its own national heroes, its own cultural and religious roots, i.e. Christianity;

④ promoting the worship of Satan (as President Vladimir Putin has also mentioned in statements on more than one occasion), e.g., the opening of Satanic temples, the so-called artistic Satanic performances (rituals?) accompanying the opening of the London Olympics (2012) or the diabolical rituals accompanying the opening of the St. Gotthard Tunnel (2016);

⑤ supporting Nazis and bandits in Ukraine (whose photos of bodies covered with tattooed swastikas circulated throughout Russia).

The notion, belief or even deep conviction that Russia is defending European civilization and Christian faith as well as elementary morality is drawn by Russians from the works of Russian literature (Fyodor Dostoevsky), the prophecies of mystics (the Bulgarian visionary Baba Vanga, extremely popular in Russia) and common sense (i.e., a mind that Western propagandists have failed to poison as they have managed to do so with minds in the West). The West’s aggression against Russia, against Russians and everything Russian proved to be the last straw: it made the vast majority of Russians rally around their own national interest.

Consider that Russia was already acting as the liberator of Europe when it defeated the anti-Christian and anti-civilization forces spawned by the French Revolution of 1789. Let’s remind ourselves that before Russia liberated Europe in general and France in particular, huge numbers of Frenchmen (and not only Frenchmen!) fleeing the Jacobin massacres found refuge precisely in Russia. The future post-revolutionary King Louis XVIII of France found sanctuary in the Russian Empire. The world-famous military theorist and author of the work “On War” Carl von Clausewitz fought on the Russian side from 1812 to 1815, along with many other Prussian officers as part of the Russian-German Legion against revolutionary France, disagreeing with the fact that his homeland of Prussia had gone along with Napoleon Bonaparte. Continue reading →