Possibility of direct NATO Attack on Belarus and Russia Constantly Increasing

The possibility of NATO directly attacking Belarus and Russia is constantly increasing. It cannot be ruled out that an attack on Belarus will coincide with Sweden’s closure of the Baltic Sea, which will lead to a Russian strike on the Baltic states and a further escalation in the domino effect.

 

Alexander Lukashenko informing about NATO plans for imminent invasion - April 25, 2024.

Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko highlighted the West's active warmongering around his country and Russia, adding 33 thousand more NATO troops, 20 thousand of them concentrated in Poland and the Baltic states near Belarus. The Belarusian leader warned about "US tactical nuclear weapons located on NATO territory are being upgraded at an accelerated pace". Lukashenko mentioned NATO plans of West-backed opposition to seize the Belarusian region of Kobrin and to declare a new government with NATO's help. "A Ukrainian army group of about 120 thousand troopers is concentrated near the border of Belarus, and the likelihood of provocations is very high. Minsk will not initiate a war and will only fight if someone sets foot on our land. I know the mood of the Ukrainian military. They are already tired of this war. If we don’t negotiate now, Ukraine may lose its statehood and cease to exist," Lukashenko stressed. The Head of Belarusian Intelligence Ivan Tertel said "the Belarusian army prevented drone strikes from Lithuanian territory on targets in Minsk. Sending Ukrainian special service agents to commit terrorist acts in Belarus and Russia has become a daily occurrence. More than 40 channels for transferring weapons and explosives from Ukraine to Belarus were stopped."

Reference:
Intel Republic Telegram Channel - April 25, 2024.

500 Years of Western Dominance - What Comes Next | Glenn Diesen

Felix Abt: A great European religious war and the first pan-European conflict over superpower status came to an end in 1648. After 30 years of devastating wars and chaos, especially on German soil, with millions of deaths and shattered economies, the Peace of Westphalia brought a new, rules-based order to Europe, as the Western political class would call it today. This included the inviolability of borders and non-interference in the internal affairs of sovereign and equal states; it is regarded as a milestone in the development toward tolerance and secularization. How did this affect the new powers that emerged afterward and their quest for hegemony?

Glenn Diesen: The lesson from the Thirty Years War (1618-1648) was that no one power could restore order based on hegemony and universal values, as the other states in Europe would preserve their own sovereignty and distinctiveness by collectively balancing the most powerful state. This was evident when Catholic France supported Protestant Sweden to prevent the dominance of the Catholic Habsburgs. The Peace of Westphalia in 1648 gave birth to the modern world order, in which peace and order depend on a balance of power between sovereign states. The Westphalian system prevents hegemony as other states collectively balance the effort of an aspiring hegemon to establish economic and military dominance, and universal values are rejected to the extent they are used to reduce the sovereignty of other states.

» The Westphalian system prevents hegemony. « 

The 1648 peace treaty between the parties in the Thirty Years' War established the Westphalian system.

 

The principle, known as the Westphalian principle of sovereignty, prohibits interference in the internal affairs of another state, and every state is equal before international law, regardless of its size. Thus, every state has sovereignty over its territory and its internal affairs, to the exclusion of all external powers. But when the European colonial powers used violence to impose their will on other continents, they violated this ideal. Was this the beginning of this principle’s demise?

 

The Westphalian system should in principle be based on sovereign equality for all states. However, it originated as a European security order that later laid the foundation for a world order. Under the original Westphalian system, the Europeans claimed special privileges and the principle of equal sovereignty for states did not apply to everyone. Sovereignty was deemed to be a right and a responsibility assigned to “civilized peoples”, a reference to the Europeans as white Christians. The international system was divided between the civilized and the barbarians. There was one set of rules for the Europeans in the civilized “garden”, and another set of rules when the Europeans engaged with the so-called despotic barbarians in the “jungle”. The interference in the internal affairs of other peoples and the development of vast empires was framed as the right and the responsibility of civilized states to guide the barbaric peoples towards universal values of civilization. This responsibility to govern other peoples was termed the “white man’s burden” and the “civilizing mission”.

 » The gardeners have to go to the jungle. «

Josep Borrell's universal mission.

In our current era, we have abandoned the civilized-barbarian divide, but we have replaced it with a liberal democracy-authoritarian divide to legitimize sovereign inequality. The West can interfere in the domestic affairs of other states to promote democracy, invade countries to defend human rights, or even change the borders of countries in support of self-determination. This is the exclusive right and a responsibility of the West as the champions of the universal values of liberal democracy. As the EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell explained: “The gardeners have to go to the jungle. Europeans have to be much more engaged with the rest of the world. Otherwise, the rest of the world will invade us”.

International law in accordance with the UN Charter defends the principle of sovereign equality for all states. The so-called “rules-based international order” is based on sovereign inequality, which introduces special privileges under the guise of universal liberal democratic values. For example, the West’s recognition of independence for Kosovo was a breach of international law as it violated the territorial integrity of Serbia, although it was legitimized by the liberal principle of respecting the self-determination of Kosovo Albanians. In Crimea the West decided that self-determination should not be the leading principle, but territorial integrity. The US refers to liberal democratic values to exercise its exclusive right to invade and occupy countries such as Iraq, Syria and Libya, although this right is not extended to countries in the jungle.  

» The so-called “rules-based international order” is based on sovereign inequality, 

which introduces special privileges under the guise of universal liberal democratic values. «

In 1945 fifty countries established the United Nations System. With the help of this supra-national governance

system the Anglo-Frankish-Zionist-Dönmeh-Wahhabi-Takfiri elites of the UK, France, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, the US and

some others, expected to secure their hegemonies beyond the foreseeable demise of traditional colonialism. 

The Bretton Woods conference, World Bank, IMF, nuclear bombing of Japan, dividing Korea 

and creating the State of Israel in Palestine are early show cases of what Pax Americana and UN are all about.

[...] The Ukrainian conflict is essentially an extension of American geopolitics, which aims to carry out Mackinder’s aforementioned stanza, “He who rules Eastern Europe rules the world.” What are your thoughts about it?

Preventing Germany and Russia from controlling Eastern Europe means that much of the Eurasian continent becomes landlocked. US control over Eastern Europe implies that Russia can not bridge Europe and Asia, but rather becomes an isolated land-locked region at the dual periphery of Europe and Asia.

Brzezinski outlined the strategy for developing and preserving US global primacy, which relies on the age-old wisdom of divide-and-rule. Brzezinski wrote that the US must “prevent collusion and maintain security dependence among the vassals, to keep tributaries pliant and protected, and keep the barbarians from coming together”. Historically, the British and the Americans have worked to prevent Germany and Russia from coming together as it would form an independent pole of power. Hegemony requires conflict between Germany and Russia, as Germany becomes a dependent ally and Russia is weakened. This logic is also applied to why it is beneficial to perpetuate tensions between the Arabs and Iran, or between China and its neighbors. The US has been very concerned about the economic integration between the Germans and Russians, which is why the US was so hostile to the Nord Stream pipelines and most likely was behind the attack on these pipelines. 

 

 Anka Feldhusen, a fine example of a German Neonazi apparatchik of the 21st century.

March 22, 2023.

 

 Wehrmacht 2.0 south of Kiev. 

There will be hell to pay.

March 22, 2024.

The problem is that the world is no longer Western-centric and by pushing Russia away from Germany, the US has pushed Russia towards China – a technological and industrial power much greater than Germany. In the mid-19th century, the British fought against Russia in the Crimean War with the explicit purpose of pushing Russia back into Asia, where it would remain technologically and economically backward and stagnant. NATO’s war in Ukraine is a repeat of the efforts to push Russia back into Asia, although this time Asia is much more dynamic than the West. The failure of the West to adjust our grand strategy to this new reality has been a mistake of immeasurable proportions. We have not subordinated Russia, rather we ended Russia’s 300-year-long Western-centric policies in which Moscow looked to the West for modernization.

What is driving this stunning anti-Chinese obsession in the United States against a country that upholds the principle of non-interference in other countries, that used its mighty navy only for trade and not for gunboat politics when it was a superpower in the past, and that follows the millennia-old concept of “Tianxia” (天下), which literally means “everything under heaven”, that is, an inclusive world full of harmony for all?

China does not threaten the US, but it threatens US dominance as the foundation for the unipolar world order established after the Cold War. The US is currently attempting to weaken China through economic warfare, convincing its allies to decouple from the Chinese economy, and knocking out Russia in Ukraine as a vital partner of China. If the US fails to achieve its objectives, then it will likely stoke conflicts between China and its neighbors to make the neighbors more dependent and obedient, and also create instability for the Chinese that will bleed it of resources. The ideal would be greater tensions between India and China, as India would have to make itself more reliant on the US and it would be an important ally to weaken China. If all fails, then the US could also fight an indirect war through a proxy similar to the way they are using Ukrainians to fight Russia – by for example pushing for Taiwan’s secession. Besides securing its supply chains and building a military for deterrence, China should prioritize resolving its disputes with India as any friction with China can be exploited.

» This is a Westphalian system with Eurasian characteristics. « 

Since 2009 BRICS is establishing a Multipolar World Order based on Westphalian principles and controlled by the 

Eurasian great powers China, India and Russia. Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran and the United Arab Emirates joined BRICS

on January 1, 2024. To date 15 more countries have formally applied to join.

Finally, in your new book you say that a new Westphalian world order is reasserting itself, albeit with Eurasian characteristics. Can you explain this in more detail?

We are returning to a Westphalian system based on a balance of power between sovereign states. However, the former Westphalian system was based on sovereign equality among the Western powers while the “barbarians” or “despots” outside the West were not deemed to be qualified for the responsibility of sovereignty. It was a dual system of collective hegemony of the West, with sovereign equality between the Western states. In the new Westphalian system, there are several powerful states that are not Western, with China as the leading economy in the world. The Eurasian powers such as China, Russia, India and others are developing the economic foundations for this system with new technologies, transportation corridors and financial instruments. The Eurasian powers are more prepared to include the Global South as sovereign equals. The Eurasian powers reject the so-called “rules-based international order” based on sovereign inequality, as Western dominance should not be legitimized by a civilized-barbarian or liberal democracy-authoritarian divide.

The Western powers over the past centuries have had an inclination for dominance and empire by controlling limited maritime corridors. Russia’s Eurasianism in the 19th century was a hegemonic strategy by dominating the Eurasian landmass through land corridors, although under the multipolar distribution of power the Russians do not have the capability or intentions to pursue hegemony. Instead, Eurasian integration entails moving from the dual periphery of Europe and Asia, to the center of a new Eurasian construct. Even China as the leading power does not have the capability or intention to pursue hegemony. Countries like Russia are content with China being the leading power, although they would not support China if it demanded dominance and hegemony. The Chinese demonstrate that they are not attempting to limit Russia’s economic connectivity with other states to make itself the only center of power. In the Global Civilization Initiative, the Chinese are also advocating for respecting civilizational differences and that all states have their own path to modernity, which implies that China is not claiming to represent universal values that legitimizes interference into the domestic affairs of other states. The West assumed that the Russia-China partnership was a “marriage of convenience” and that they would clash over influence in Central Asia, but this never happened because neither side demanded hegemony. Instead of sabotaging each other’s relations with the region, China and Russia harmonized their interests in Central Asia. China, Russia, India and other Eurasian powers have different visions and interests in terms of Eurasian integration, but they all need each other to realize their goals and pursue prosperity. Hegemony is not an option. This is a Westphalian system with Eurasian characteristics.

Quoted from:

500 Years of Western Dominance: Is it Coming to an End and What Comes Next?

Felix Abt talks with Glenn Diesen. In: Eastern Angle - March 22, 2024.

 

See also:

Glenn Diesen (2024) - The Ukraine War & the Eurasian World Order. 

Zbigniew Brzezinski (1997) - The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives.

Carl Schmitt (1950) - The Nomos of the Earth in the International Law of the Jus Publicum Europaeum.

On Realism and War with China | John Mearsheimer

Lex Fridman: The communication gap between China and the United States seems to be much greater than that of what was the former Soviet Union and the United States.

 

Mearchiavelli, Machiavelli's revenant.

 

John Mearsheimer: It’s an interesting question. A lot of people describe the Cold War as an ideological competition above all else.

Communism versus liberal democracy or communism versus liberal capitalism, whatever. I actually don’t believe that. The Soviets were realists to the core. Stalin was a realist par excellence, and ideology did not matter much in Stalin’s foreign policy. And if you look at Soviet foreign policy after World War II, throughout the Cold War, they were realists to the core. And in those days the Americans were realists. Sure, a lot of liberal ideology floating around out there, but the Americans were realists. One of the reasons we avoided a shooting match between the United States and the Soviet Union from 1947 to 1989 was because both sides understood the basic balance of power logic.

 

The US-China competition is somewhat different. But first of all, the Chinese are realists to the core. I’ve spent a lot of time in China. I am basically a rock star in China. The Chinese are my kind of people. They are realists. They speak my language. It’s the United States that is no longer very realist. American leaders have a very powerful liberal bent and tend not to see the world in realist terms.

 

That’s fascinating. So the Chinese are pragmatic realists and think of the world as a competition of military powers?

 

Yeah, you are actually right. And I think we will avoid war. The problem with the Americans is, it’s not just their liberalism. It’s the possibility that we will pursue a rollback policy. During the Cold War the American grand strategy towards the Soviet Union was: containment, containment, containment. We now know from the historical record that the United States was not only pursuing containment. We were trying to rollback Soviet power to put it bluntly. We were trying to wreck the Soviet Union. And I would not be surprised moving forward with regard to China if the United States pursues a serious rollback policy.

 

So you’re saying throughout history the United States was always pursuing rollback policies? 

Look, you don’t respect the power of other nations. You fear the power of other nations.

 

Will there be a war with China in the 21st century?

 

I don’t know. But my argument is yes, there will be war with China. 

 

Quoted from:
Lex Fridman interviews John Mearsheimer - Nov 17, 2023. (transcript) (video)

 

 See also:
John Mearsheimer (2001) - The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. 

After Biden's latest Insult Putin still endorses Biden's Reelection

» This is the last existential threat. It is climate. We have a crazy son of a bitch like that guy Putin and others and we always have to worry about nuclear conflict, but the existential threat to humanity is climate, « US President Joe Biden told a small group of influential campaign donors yesterday in San Francisco. Last night the Russian leader responded.

  » Biden is a more experienced person, 

he's predictable, he's an old-school politician. «

Putin did not resort to petty name-calling. Instead he was stating that he was  still right about preferring Biden over Trump and that Biden's fit of temper was actually appropriate as it helps Biden's reelection: » He can't say 'Vlad, good job. Thanks, you helped me a lot.' We understand what's happening domestically in the US, « Putin said. 

 

 

February 21, 2024.

Western Europe could become the new Ukraine | Timofey Bordachev

The real causes of major armed conflicts such as world wars are always linked to socio-economic factors. For the naturally cautious German nation to become a bunch of cannibals, it first had to sink into the economic misery and moral oppression of the 1920s. Before that, demographic growth and the unresolved social problems of industrialization created the necessary mass of people willing to kill and die on the fields of the First World War.

 

 » Both the Minister for Economic Affairs and the Minister of Finance have come to the conclusion

that Germany is no longer sufficiently competitive. It is inconceivable that this will not lead to political changes. «
Christian Lindner, German Minister of Finance, Feb 12, 2024.

In any case, any great aggression against neighbors has required a very large number of poor and morally degenerate people. This is roughly what happened to Ukraine during the 30 years of its failed statehood. In other words, the ability of the Western Europeans to unleash armed aggression against us depends on how their own affairs are going.

This is why, from the Russian point of view, it is now of the utmost importance to observe what is happening in the Western European economies. The irrational policy of sanctions against Russia and the partial breakdown of trade and economic relations between us have already led to serious losses for their business sectors. Added to this are the accumulated domestic problems, competition from American and Chinese companies, and the general recession in the global economy.

 

» Ukraine must win this war. If Putin had his way, this would only be the beginning. « 

 Boris Pistorius, German Defence Minister, Feb 18, 2023.

 

For example, one of the Western news agencies recently published a story about how large manufacturing companies, industry leaders, are leaving Germany in search of more favorable locations and investment conditions. Other major Western European states are going through their own worrying processes. If these economic difficulties begin to erode the established model, the mood of the citizenry may change.

We do not know exactly how Western Europeans will react to the deterioration of their material situation and how long it will take. It is quite likely that the world will not see the practical consequences of this economic decline for another 20-30 years. What is more, we cannot say with certainty that the behavioral algorithms of its inhabitants will be exactly the same as in the first half of the 20th century. History does not repeat itself, which makes thinking about events by analogy a rather dead-end way of understanding what is happening.

Quoted from:
Timofey Bordachev (Feb 15, 2024) - Could Europe become the new Ukraine?

The Rest against the West │ Samuel P. Huntington

The central axis of world events will be conflict between Western and non-Western civilizations, conflict between the West and the Rest. The Rest has now three options:

 

The Rest against the West.

The geopolitics of distributed heartlands.

• Surrender and submission. 
• Isolation and protection of sovereignty and values. The costs are very high. Only few pursue this option.
• Protection and defense of values and sovereign institutions through constant development of economic-military power and through cooperation and alliance with the West's other enemies.

Reference:

Samuel P. Huntington (1993) - The Clash of Civilizations.

 

 Projection from Bharat.

Benjamin Netanyahu, 1990.
 

January 03, 2024.

The man who ruined all the US’s illegitimate plots in West Asia:
Qasem Soleimani, Major General, Commander of 41st Tharallah Division of Kerman Quds Force (1957-2020).
» The world is witnessing an asymmetrical confrontation between two opposing sides, which has displayed the peak of brutality as well as desperation on one side and innocence along with heroic resistance on the other side. With a broader look at the years of confrontation and conflict between Global Arrogance and its vassals in West Asia on the one hand, and the Resistance Front and popular forces on the other hand, there remains no doubt that the astonishing work by Hamas and the residents of Gaza in Palestine are the domino effect of successive defeats of the hegemons and global colonialism in the region. «

See also:

Imran N. Hosein (2023) - The Alliance of Islam and Eastern Orthodox Christianity.

Alexander Dugin (2023) - Fighting The Civilisation Of Dajjal - The Antichrist.

MFA of PRC (2023) - US Hegemony and Its Perils.

The Concept of Distributed Heartland │ Alexander Dugin

The fight to rule Heartland – by Sea Power from without, or in Heartland itself from within – is the main formula of geopolitical history, the very essence of geopolitics. Geopolitics is the battle for Heartland. All schools of geopolitics are founded upon and proceed from this model [...] Just as the multi-polar world arises, so does a contradiction. If we take into consideration only one Sea Power and one Heartland, then when it comes to speaking of a multi-polar world, Russia cannot possibly be the only Heartland. Russia cannot achieve a multi-polar world on its own. In the very least, multipolarity entails four or five of the most important poles in the world. Russia could be the center of this multi-polar world or only one of its poles. But Russia cannot be the only Heartland.

 

 » It is surprising that at the bottom of our politics we always find theology. «
Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, Les confessions d'un revolutionnaire, 1849.

[...] Over the course of numerous discussions, conferences, speeches, lectures, and articles, I have come to the conclusion that it is high time to introduce the notion of an apportioned, or “distributed Heartland.” To this end, I think it is important to attentively examine the German geopolitics of the 1920-’30’s, which proclaimed Germany to be the European Heartland. Of interest to us is not so much Germany itself as the very possibility of considering an additional Heartland [...] A Chinese Heartland is an altogether different question. China, after all, is Rimland, a coastal zone. If we recognize China as bearing the status of a Heartland, then we are recognizing China as an independent strategic space. If we qualify China as Heartland, then we are emphasizing the conservative aspect of China – China as Land Power. But if China declares itself to be a Heartland against Russia, just as Hitler’s Germany declared itself to be the heart of Eurasia against Soviet Russia, then conflict will immediately arise.

If Russia retains the status of an independent pole, then this “distributed Heartland” acquires a completely different meaning. Then it is possible to consider such Heartlands as a Russian Heartland, as in all traditional geopolitical maps as the “geographical pivot of history”, and a European Heartland. We also arrive at considering a Chinese Heartland, and this means that we consider China as a traditional, conservative, independent, and sovereign state as it is today – and it will only become more so in the future. In the very least, it is important to reconcile the Chinese Heartland with the Russian Heartland, and partially even the European Heartland. But even this is insufficient to constructing a multi-polar world. We necessarily have to consider an Islamic Heartland (covering the historical spaces of at least 3-4 empires, stretching from Turkey to Pakistan). The concept of a distributed Heartland can further be expanded to India, and projected onto Latin America and Africa as well.

As follows, there should be an American Heartland in the multi-polar system. We have become too accustomed to thinking in the terms of classical geopolitics that the US and Anglo-Saxon world can only be Sea Power. In a multi-polar world, America will not be able to play this role, its global maritime range will naturally be reduced, thereby changing the very nature of America. As follows, an American Heartland should arise which, in a multi-polar system, should not be seen exclusively as in opposition to other Heartlands. The vote for Trump represented the contours of this American Heartland. If we begin to conceive of Heartland as a distributed type of culture associated with the reinforcement of conservative identity, then “Make America Great Again” is the thesis of an American Heartland. Stop being a Sea Power, and you will be great again.

[...] Distributed Heartland is the imperative of the new geopolitical model, of multi-polar geopolitics. I think that this concept deserves very serious cogitation, pondering, and description. There should be a number of conferences, or an even entire volume devoted to this inevitable question. The efficacy of this concept of distributed Heartland is, in my opinion, extremely important, insofar as the construction of a multi-polar world now demands clearer and more precise roadmaps.

Quoted from:
Alexander Dugin (Mar 14, 2019) - Towards a Multipolar Geopolitics.

 

See also:

Alexander Dugin (2012) - The Theory of a Multipolar World.

Carl Schmitt (1941) - Völkerrechtliche Großraumordnung mit Interventionsverbot für raumfremde Mächte. Ein Beitrag zum Reichsbegriff im Völkerrecht. (Great Space International Law with a ban on intervention by powers alien to the area. A contribution to the concept of empire in international law.)
Carl Schmitt (1940) - Großraum gegen Universalismus. (Great Space vs. Universalism.) 

War And Epochal Global Shift │ Pepe Escobar

  

Reshuffling the inner and the outer rim-lands of the world-island.
All of Halford Mackinder's geopolitical nightmares becoming tangible realities not only in Greater Eurasia
but across all lands still governed by the evaporating Western world order.
The petrodollar monetary system died just lately.

Brazilian geopolitical analyst Pepe Escobar breaks down the epochal implications of the ongoing military conflicts in Ukraine, Syria, Iraq, Yemen and Palestine; he explains the roles and missions of Russia, Iran and China and their leaders; he discusses the rise of Greater Eurasia under the alliance of the three main Eurasian powers; he reports on the drastic and unexpected swift collapse of the Western world order, civilization and hegemony over West Asia due to the waning influence of US neocons as well as due to fundamental US economic, strategic, diplomatic and military failures during the past three decades. The West's former proxy rulers in the Muslim world are shaking in fear. The widely detested opportunists they are, they now all changed sides. 

» The divine providence and mission of Russian President Vladimir Putin as God's chosen instrument and second Dhu al-Qarnayn,
the just conqueror,  lawgiver and savior of the Christian orthodox world and the world of Islam. «

Reference:
Pepe Escobar (Nov 26, 2023) - Gaza changes everything as Russia, China Confront Neocon Agenda for Middle East. (video)

Independent Islamic Republic (Dec 09, 2023) - Putin will establish the final world order for end times

- 2nd age of Dhul Qarnayn begins! (video)

The Haven of Imperial Faith | Shabbir Akhmat

The Islamic state is a manifestation and an instrument of power, the power of the Shariah. It is a theo-nomocracy with God as king or sovereign (malik; Quran:59:23; 62:1). The Islamic state is not a clerical theocracy since classically Islam has no priesthood. (The political office of ayatollah as supreme jurist is a modern innovation and restricted to Shiite theology.) The pursuit of justice is absolute. It transcends the Shariah and reflects the character of God as just master. The Shariah is a means to an end and is judged by its ability to administer justice. As a substantive, humanitarian and universal virtue, justice transcends all legal systems and faiths. For Muslims, it is furthermore a metaphysically absolute ideal ordained by God.

Abu Huraira reported:
The Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, said,
“Verily, everything has a zeal, and every zeal has a time limit.
Whoever does so properly and moderately, then hope for his success.
Whoever does so for people to point at him, do not count him among the righteous.”
Sunan al-Tirmidhi‌ 2453

[...] The Quran’s attempt to sanctify the political dimension of life, its decision to incorporate power into Islam’s originating ideals, explains classical Islam’s tolerant ascendancy and humanity. Rulers enforced the juridical principle of al-dhimmah (the responsibility; Quran:9:8, 10), the protection of monotheistic communities mentioned only once in the Quran along with a single reference to the protection tax (jizyah; Quran:9:29). The principle is enshrined in the Prophet’s practice. He pledged protection and honourable treatment for Jews and Christians. Being a Quranic imperative, the legal protection of Jews and Christians was, for Muslim rulers, a duty, not a merit. Hence we have the haven created by imperial Islam for communities of Jews, Eastern Christians and religious refugees fleeing from a Christian Europe steeped in violently intolerant enthusiasms. When Catholicism was re-imposed in Andalusia, Jews usually preferred migration to Muslim lands. We can imagine their alternative fate if medieval Muslims had abdicated their political obligations by pleading indifference to temporal power. Present Christian and Western unease about Islam as political religion is informed by specifically European experiences of theocratic rule. Just as the Christian experience of religious government has been invariably toxic, the Muslim experience of secular administration, imposed by Western powers, has been even worse. Under the Ottoman regime, the longest lasting dynasty in history and a genuinely Islamic order for all its defects, the Middle East experienced no major conflict for 400 years (from 1517 to 1917). That is the longest period of continuous peace for the holy land. Since 1917, however, secular colonial modernity, imposed in myriad forms, has presided over the unrest for which the region is now a byword.

Quoted from:
Shabbir Akhmat (2010) - Islam as Political Religion. The Future of an Imperial Faith.

 

See also:
Shabbir Akhmat (2015) - Being Human. (video)

The Civilization-State | Alexander Dugin

The special military operation (SMO) is unanimously agreed by competent experts in International Relations to be the final and decisive chord in the transition from a unipolar to a multipolar world [...] The main actor of a multipolar world order is neither a nation-state (as in the realist theory of International Relations), nor a unified World Government (as in the liberalist theory of International Relations). It is the Civilization-State. Other names for it are 'Great Space', 'Empire', 'Ecumenism'.

 

 » Your aim must be to take All-under-Heaven intact.
Thus your troops are not worn out and your gains will be complete.
This is the art of offensive strategy.  «

Sun Tzu, The Art of War.

The term Civilization-State is most often applied to China. Both ancient and modern China. As early as ancient times, the Chinese developed the theory of 'Tianxia' (天下), the Celestial Empire, according to which China is the center of the world, being the meeting place of the unifying Heaven and the dividing Earth. And the Celestial Empire may be a single state, or it may be broken up into its components and then reassembled. In addition, Han China itself acts as a culture-forming element for neighboring nations that are not directly part of China - primarily Korea, Vietnam, the Indochina countries and even Japan, which is quite independent.

The nation-state is a product of the European New Age and, in some cases, a post-colonial construct. The Civilization-State has ancient roots and uncertain shifting boundaries. The Civilization-State sometimes pulsates, expanding and contracting, but always remaining a constant phenomenon. Contemporary China behaves strictly according to the principle of Tianxia in international politics. The One Belt, One Road Initiative is a prime example of how this looks like in practice. And China's Internet, which cuts off any networks and resources that might weaken the civilizational identity at the entrance to China, demonstrates how the defense mechanisms are built. The Civilization-State may interact with the outside world, but it never becomes dependent on it and always maintains self-sufficiency, autonomy and autarchy. Civilization-State is always more than just a state in both spatial and temporal (historical) terms. The Civilization-State may interact with the outside world, but it never becomes dependent on it and always maintains self-sufficiency, autonomy and autarchy.

Russia is increasingly gravitating toward the same status. After the beginning of the SMO this is no longer a mere wishful thinking, but an urgent necessity. As in the case of China, Russia has every reason to claim to be a civilization. This theory was most fully developed by the Russian Eurasians, who introduced the notion of a 'state-world' or — which is the same thing — a 'Russian world'. Actually, the concept of Russia-Eurasia is a direct indication of the civilizational status of Russia. Russia is more than a nation-state (which the Russian Federation is). Russia is a distinct world.

»  The Civilization-State always maintains self-sufficiency, autonomy and autarchy.  «

[…] A multipolar world consists of states-civilizations. This is a kind of world of worlds, a mega-cosmos that includes entire galaxies. And here it is important to determine how many such States-Civilizations can even theoretically exist? Undoubtedly, this type includes India, a typical Civilization-State, which even today has enough potential to become a full-fledged actor in international politics. Then there is the Islamic world, from Indonesia to Morocco. Here the fragmentation into states and different ethno-cultural enclaves does not yet allow us to speak of political unity. Islamic civilization exists, but the question of its assembly into a Civilization-State is rather problematic. Moreover, the history of Islam knows several types of Civilization-States — from the Caliphate (the First, Umayyad, Abbasid, etc.) to the three components of Genghis Khan's Empire converted to Islam (the Golden Horde, the Ilkhan and Chagatai ulus), the Persian Safavid Empire, the Great Mogul state, and finally, the Ottoman Empire. The borders once drawn are still relevant today in many respects. But the process of gathering them into a single structure requires considerable time and effort. The same situation is also true for Latin America and Africa, two macro-civilizations that remain rather divided. But a multipolar world will somehow push integration processes in all these zones.

 

[March 31, 2023]

Russia's New Foreign Policy Doctrine :
(1)   Free from ambiguity and understatement.
(2)   No more compromise.
(3)   Carthage must be destroyed.

Now the most important thing: what to do with the West? The Theory Of A Multipolar World in the nomenclature of theories of International Relations in the modern West is absent. Today the dominant paradigm is liberalism, which denies any sovereignty and autonomy at all, abolishes civilizations and religions, ethnicities and cultures, replacing them by a forced liberal ideology, the concept of 'human rights', individualism (in the limit leading to gender and transgender politics), materialism and technical progress elevated to the highest value (Artificial Intelligence). The goal of liberalism is to abolish nation-states and establish a World Government based on Western norms and rules. This is the line pursued by Biden and the modern Democrat Party in the U.S., as well as most European rulers. This is what globalism is all about. It categorically rejects the Civilization-State and any hint of multipolarity. That is why the West is ready for war with Russia and China. In a sense, this war is already going on in Ukraine and in the Pacific (the problem of Taiwan), but so far with the support of proxy-actors. 

Ejaz Akram, Zhang Weiwei & Alexander Dugin:
» The Westphalian system of the sovereignty of nation-states has long since become obsolete and ceased to function.
In its place will be erected a continental system of ' large spaces' (in the Schmittian sense), where individuals
are integrated in the social whole based on the insoluble bond of kinship and common tradition. « (HERE)

In the West there is another influential school - realism in International Relations. Here the nation-state is considered a necessary element of the world order, but only those who have achieved a high level of economic, military-strategic and technological development — almost always at the expense of others — have sovereignty. While liberals see the future in a World Government, realists see it in an alliance of major Western powers setting global rules in their own interests. Again, in theory and practice, a Civilization-State and a multipolar world are categorically rejected. This creates a fundamental conflict already at the level of theory. And the lack of mutual understanding here leads to the most radical consequences at the level of direct collision.

In the eyes of multipolarity supporters, the West is also a Civilization-State or even two — North American and European. But Western intellectuals do not agree with this: they have no theoretical frame for this — they know either liberalism or realism, and no multipolarity. However, there are exceptions among Western theorists, such as Samuel Huntington or Fabio Petito. They — unlike the vast majority — recognize multipolarity and the emergence of new actors in the form of civilizations. This is gratifying because through such ideas it is possible to build a bridge from supporters of multipolarity (Russia, China, etc.) to the West. Such a bridge would at least make negotiations possible. 

 

Want more war? Have it.
The Rest Against The West.
Russia's FM Lavrov [June 20, 2023] :
» Let NATO fight. Russia is prepared. «
 

As long as the West categorically rejects multipolarity and the very notion of the Civilization-State, the conversation will be conducted only at the level of a clash of rough power — from military operations to economic blockade, information and sanction wars, etc.

Quoted from:
Alexander Dugin (2022) - The Civilization-State.

 

 

See also:

Alexander Dugin (April 07, 2023) - Russia's New Foreign Policy Doctrine. The Concept of Foreign Policy As The Apotheosis Of Multipolarism And The Catechism Of Sovereignty.
Zhang Weiwei, Alexander Dugin & Ejaz Akram (2022) - What is a Civilizational State? (video)

Martin Jacques (2022) - Civilisation-State versus Nation-State (video).

Matthew Kroenig (2022) - Washington Must Prepare for War With Both Russia and China. 
Alexander Dugin (2021) - The Theory of a Multipolar World.

Alexander Dugin (2009) - The Fourth Political Theory.

Alexander Dugin (2005) - Eurasian Mission: An Introduction to Neo-Eurasianism.
Alexander Dugin (1997) - Foundations of Geopolitics: The Geopolitical Future of Russia. 

Bruno Maçães (2020) - The Attack of the Civilization-State.

 Bernard-Henri Lévy (2019) - The Empire and the Five Kings. America's Abdication and the Fate of the World.

TPR (2016) - One Belt, One Road — Eurasian Century Unstoppable.

Zhang Weiwei (2011) - The China Wave: Rise of a Civilizational State.

Ejaz Akram (2009) - Ideals and Realities of Regional Integration in the Muslim World. 

John Mearsheimer (2001) - The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. 

Samuel P. Huntington (1992) - Clash of Civilizations.  

Carl Schmitt (1950) - The nomos of the earth in the international law of the Jus Publicum Europaeum.