Tweet
GLOBAL CLEANSING
Is it possible that global politics does not have rational goals? This
may be the most important question in political science and sociology,
perhaps also history.
The 20th century was deprived of rational premises, justifications
and tasks in politics. The end of the cold war suggested that global
politics would be more rational but it became more "romantic" although
what's the use of parting with "romanticism"?
In 1983 the last romantic of all great politicians Yuri Andropov died,
which marked the beginning of review of global geopolitics. It is
obvious that such review was determined by the course of history but
reviewers proved useless.
The international community dragged out the search for new realities
but not imaginary and provoked threats and has arrived at the
understanding that the global powers cannot pose real threats to one
another. A more actual threat was uneven demographic and economic
development which is not something new but the issue is that the world
powers hurried to describe this factor as outdated and unrealistic
in the era of scientific progress.
However, after significant scientific achievements and did not allow
to match and combine problems of intensive and extensive development.
The post-economic period (or epoch) did not start or was rather unreal
to regulate distribution of resources under such uneven development.
In order to forestall developments or catastrophe, the world centers
of power are undertaking wobbly steps and trying to ensure legitimacy
of corrections in the policy of immigration with which a lot of other
objectives are linked closely.
The immigration policy is a more natural and more or less civilized
sphere of a larger-scale policy of transformation of the global living
area. However, in order to resolve such large-scale objectives it
is necessary to redirect demographic flows with different methods,
including methods of "loyal, legitimate violence".
In the contemporary world when social standards have received such a
high level sending tens and millions of people refugees into a search
for a "new-old" homeland will be a catastrophe for some states and
nations and at the same time a political deliverance for others.
Now let's look into what Zbigniew Brzezinski says regarding Syria:
"Was this a strategic position? Why did we all of a sudden decide that
Syria had to be destabilized and its government overthrown? Had it
ever been explained to the American people? Then in the latter part
of 2012, especially after the elections, the tide of conflict turns
somewhat against the rebels. And it becomes clear that not all of those
rebels are all that "democratic." And so the whole policy begins to
be reconsidered. I think these things need to be clarified so that
one can have a more insightful understanding of what exactly U.S.
policy was aiming at." [The National Interest]
"I think if we tackle the issue alone with the Russians, which I think
has to be done because they're involved partially, and if we do it
relying primarily on the former colonial powers in the region-France
and Great Britain, who are really hated in the region-the chances of
success are not as high as if we do engage in it, somehow, with China,
India and Japan, which have a stake in a more stable Middle East."
"I'm afraid that we're headed toward an ineffective American
intervention, which is even worse. There are circumstances in which
intervention is not the best but also not the worst of all outcomes.
But what you are talking about means increasing our aid to the
least effective of the forces opposing Assad. So at best, it's simply
damaging to our credibility. At worst, it hastens the victory of groups
that are much more hostile to us than Assad ever was. I still do not
understand why-and that refers to my first answer-why we concluded
somewhere back in 2011 or 2012-an election year, incidentally-that
Assad should go."
(The National Interest,
http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/brzezinski-the-syria-crisis-8636)
The United States is implementing another messianic goal of cardinal
and radical review of recurrence of colonial and traditional empires,
trying (quite sincerely) to impart this policy with rational
characteristics which is practically impossible.
Global redesign of borders has a quite rational goal and purpose -
ensuring national and global security. However, realization of this
idea by way of some rational means doomed this policy to failure.
The Near East is undergoing not just a redesign of borders but
a global cleansing of the population on ethnic, confessional and
tribal grounds. Without global and regional cleansing a more or less
acceptable stable existence in the 21st century is impossible.
At the same time, not only the global centers of power but also big
regional states with certain mental ambitions participate in this
policy. Different states that understand this global tendency are
trying to obtain new geopolitical advantages, others are trying to
save from the beginning of the catastrophe.
The Western community is trying to finish this revision by the
time China's presence in different regions gets broader and more
significant. It is one of the possible time criteria but it is possible
that there are other limitations in space and time.
What will be a cementing factor for the new configuration of borders,
ethnicity, confession, economy or ideology? Apparently, one factor
or another will dominate in every separate case. It is difficult to
predict now who will benefit or win. In a global context, the world
powers will benefit, perhaps also regional states, or may be both
will benefit partly.
There are forces which are interested in any revision of state borders
(Abkhazia and Ossetia are separated from Georgia, Chechnya and
Dagestan separated from Russia, Transylvania from Romania, Scotland
from Britain, areas populated with Kurds from Turkey; no matter what
is divided, it is important that it divides and fragments, as soon
as possible, as a chain reaction). What is now happening in Syria
is a mass cleaning of the population therefore the regime ruling in
Syria continues to exist.
Most probably, the idea of revolution in the Near East put forth by
the administration of George Bush and Condoleezza Rice proposed not
just an ideological revision but a geopolitical revision. Freedom and
democracy are impossible without deliverance of nations from violence
and their own violence against other peoples.
Whatever interesting has been done in the U.S. policy intended for
a decade was initiated by the Republican Party (even petty tyranny
of the so-called neoconservatives). In this regard, the idea of
global cleaning serves as an alternative to the European idea when
state borders became something "sacred". Both poles of the Western
community are trying to combine these two doctrines, hoping that for
convergence and overcoming of controversies. Is it possible?
The problem is that the European states are increasingly sharing the
policy and points of view of the American establishment. A person
cannot be free unless his nation is free. Doesn't this match the
ideals of great religions?
Igor Muradyan 12:25 29/08/2013 Story from Lragir.am News:
http://www.lragir.am/index/eng/0/comments/view/30754
From: A. Papazian
Is it possible that global politics does not have rational goals? This
may be the most important question in political science and sociology,
perhaps also history.
The 20th century was deprived of rational premises, justifications
and tasks in politics. The end of the cold war suggested that global
politics would be more rational but it became more "romantic" although
what's the use of parting with "romanticism"?
In 1983 the last romantic of all great politicians Yuri Andropov died,
which marked the beginning of review of global geopolitics. It is
obvious that such review was determined by the course of history but
reviewers proved useless.
The international community dragged out the search for new realities
but not imaginary and provoked threats and has arrived at the
understanding that the global powers cannot pose real threats to one
another. A more actual threat was uneven demographic and economic
development which is not something new but the issue is that the world
powers hurried to describe this factor as outdated and unrealistic
in the era of scientific progress.
However, after significant scientific achievements and did not allow
to match and combine problems of intensive and extensive development.
The post-economic period (or epoch) did not start or was rather unreal
to regulate distribution of resources under such uneven development.
In order to forestall developments or catastrophe, the world centers
of power are undertaking wobbly steps and trying to ensure legitimacy
of corrections in the policy of immigration with which a lot of other
objectives are linked closely.
The immigration policy is a more natural and more or less civilized
sphere of a larger-scale policy of transformation of the global living
area. However, in order to resolve such large-scale objectives it
is necessary to redirect demographic flows with different methods,
including methods of "loyal, legitimate violence".
In the contemporary world when social standards have received such a
high level sending tens and millions of people refugees into a search
for a "new-old" homeland will be a catastrophe for some states and
nations and at the same time a political deliverance for others.
Now let's look into what Zbigniew Brzezinski says regarding Syria:
"Was this a strategic position? Why did we all of a sudden decide that
Syria had to be destabilized and its government overthrown? Had it
ever been explained to the American people? Then in the latter part
of 2012, especially after the elections, the tide of conflict turns
somewhat against the rebels. And it becomes clear that not all of those
rebels are all that "democratic." And so the whole policy begins to
be reconsidered. I think these things need to be clarified so that
one can have a more insightful understanding of what exactly U.S.
policy was aiming at." [The National Interest]
"I think if we tackle the issue alone with the Russians, which I think
has to be done because they're involved partially, and if we do it
relying primarily on the former colonial powers in the region-France
and Great Britain, who are really hated in the region-the chances of
success are not as high as if we do engage in it, somehow, with China,
India and Japan, which have a stake in a more stable Middle East."
"I'm afraid that we're headed toward an ineffective American
intervention, which is even worse. There are circumstances in which
intervention is not the best but also not the worst of all outcomes.
But what you are talking about means increasing our aid to the
least effective of the forces opposing Assad. So at best, it's simply
damaging to our credibility. At worst, it hastens the victory of groups
that are much more hostile to us than Assad ever was. I still do not
understand why-and that refers to my first answer-why we concluded
somewhere back in 2011 or 2012-an election year, incidentally-that
Assad should go."
(The National Interest,
http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/brzezinski-the-syria-crisis-8636)
The United States is implementing another messianic goal of cardinal
and radical review of recurrence of colonial and traditional empires,
trying (quite sincerely) to impart this policy with rational
characteristics which is practically impossible.
Global redesign of borders has a quite rational goal and purpose -
ensuring national and global security. However, realization of this
idea by way of some rational means doomed this policy to failure.
The Near East is undergoing not just a redesign of borders but
a global cleansing of the population on ethnic, confessional and
tribal grounds. Without global and regional cleansing a more or less
acceptable stable existence in the 21st century is impossible.
At the same time, not only the global centers of power but also big
regional states with certain mental ambitions participate in this
policy. Different states that understand this global tendency are
trying to obtain new geopolitical advantages, others are trying to
save from the beginning of the catastrophe.
The Western community is trying to finish this revision by the
time China's presence in different regions gets broader and more
significant. It is one of the possible time criteria but it is possible
that there are other limitations in space and time.
What will be a cementing factor for the new configuration of borders,
ethnicity, confession, economy or ideology? Apparently, one factor
or another will dominate in every separate case. It is difficult to
predict now who will benefit or win. In a global context, the world
powers will benefit, perhaps also regional states, or may be both
will benefit partly.
There are forces which are interested in any revision of state borders
(Abkhazia and Ossetia are separated from Georgia, Chechnya and
Dagestan separated from Russia, Transylvania from Romania, Scotland
from Britain, areas populated with Kurds from Turkey; no matter what
is divided, it is important that it divides and fragments, as soon
as possible, as a chain reaction). What is now happening in Syria
is a mass cleaning of the population therefore the regime ruling in
Syria continues to exist.
Most probably, the idea of revolution in the Near East put forth by
the administration of George Bush and Condoleezza Rice proposed not
just an ideological revision but a geopolitical revision. Freedom and
democracy are impossible without deliverance of nations from violence
and their own violence against other peoples.
Whatever interesting has been done in the U.S. policy intended for
a decade was initiated by the Republican Party (even petty tyranny
of the so-called neoconservatives). In this regard, the idea of
global cleaning serves as an alternative to the European idea when
state borders became something "sacred". Both poles of the Western
community are trying to combine these two doctrines, hoping that for
convergence and overcoming of controversies. Is it possible?
The problem is that the European states are increasingly sharing the
policy and points of view of the American establishment. A person
cannot be free unless his nation is free. Doesn't this match the
ideals of great religions?
Igor Muradyan 12:25 29/08/2013 Story from Lragir.am News:
http://www.lragir.am/index/eng/0/comments/view/30754
From: A. Papazian