Russias strange delusions of grandeur

26. März 2024

Huh.

Here are some stran­ge and inte­res­ting state­ments by one Dr. Ser­gei Alex­an­d­ro­witsch Kara­ga­now that make me almost under­stand the cur­rent US posi­ti­on for the first time…

fol­lo­wed by

The first one (Con­fe­rence in 2017) reads like a mad­mans plan of divi­de and con­quer whe­re somehow rus­sia beco­mes the most important decisi­on maker in a glo­bal mili­ta­ry alli­an­ce bet­ween the three major mili­ta­ry super­powers (USA, Chi­na and Rus­sia), then gra­du­al­ly being wil­ling to also invi­te “India and Japan” into their “new­ly foun­ded insti­tu­tio­nal cir­cles”, with this coin­ci­dent­al­ly also beco­m­ing the most important decisi­on struc­tu­re in all of world affairs. The second one (con­fe­rence in 2022) like a plan to over­ex­tend the US, while having about ten mili­ta­ry con­flicts shake out in the near term future.

If this was rus­si­as posi­ti­on in the geo­stra­te­gic talks with the US in Decem­ber of 2021, I - for the first time, unter­stand the US posi­ti­on at tho­se talks.

That said, the second video is full of stra­te­gic back­pe­da­ling and coping nar­ra­ti­ves - that make Kara­ga­novs posi­ti­on sound like “made up on the fly to still somehow fit the situation”.

But a few moti­ves regis­ter as fami­li­ar to me.

First and fore­mo­st Zeihans “Putin is an iso­la­ted mad­man, and they dont have bet­ter per­so­nal on hand, becau­se they never deve­lo­ped their poli­ti­cal class befo­re the cur­rent attempt at a shake­out”, which stran­ge­ly enough is mir­ro­red by state­ments Kara­ga­nov makes on the second panel about, the war being the per­fect time to crea­te the new domestic poli­ti­cal struc­tures, becau­se the rus­si­an socie­ty is focu­sed behind a new natio­na­listic mind­set, and the rus­si­an mili­ta­ry estab­lis­hed as the pathway into rus­si­as future ruling classes.

Which has to be the stran­gest “we can sur­vi­ve this as a nati­on” con­cept I’ve seen in poli­ti­cal decisi­on making in my lifetime.

But then at the same time, this also regis­ters simi­lar to the tro­pe that the all­rus­si­an offi­ciers assem­bly appar­ent­ly hin­ted at (rus­sia get­ting rid of part of its popu­la­ti­on and fin­ding nar­ra­ti­ves of “coping and suf­fe­ring over an exten­ded peri­od of time” for the rest of them, until this shakes out), see:

So dezi­diert nicht -

And at the same time I cant just out­right say that all of this is non­sen­se, becau­se the term “slow, sli­ce by sli­ce mili­ta­riz­a­ti­on of Ukrai­ne” that Cliff Kup­chan, Chair­man of the Eura­sia Group hints at, fits my inter­nal map of the situa­ti­on in Ukrai­ne in the past like a glove. So…

Stra­te­gy in the first video is the dum­best divi­de and con­quer attempt I’ve seen in my life­time? Whe­re rus­sia thought, that Euro­pe would crum­ble under the inter­nal pres­su­re of diver­ging inte­rests, after some key event like the inva­si­on of Ukrai­ne, so now rus­sia could play “stra­te­gic deci­der” in a new­found struc­tu­re with the US, Chi­na, Rus­sia, an over­aged Japan, and Brics Cham­pion India? Which reads like the per­fect mad­mens assem­bly of how to divi­de and con­quer the west to get hege­mo­ny into chi­nas hands quickly.

And the stra­te­gy in the second video might be inter­pre­ted as an “over­ex­ten­ding the US” play with “mul­ti­ple wars that will shake out over the next ten years” while still not see­ing this as an east/west divi­de, but as a north/south powerstrugg­le, from rus­si­as per­spec­ti­ve. With a bunch of coping nar­ra­ti­ves in the­re retai­ning how well ever­ything in Ukrai­ne went, ever­ything con­si­de­red (from a big pic­tu­re view). Which is pro­bab­ly just the usu­al “let me keep my job plea­se” adjus­t­ment the average poli­ti­cal ana­lyst is capa­ble of making at any point in time…

But whats the stran­gest aspect in all of this, is that this makes the cur­rent US posi­ti­on seem like a logi­cal reaction.

So set “over­ex­ten­ding rus­sia” into play on part of the US, then han­ding that over to Euro­pe to main­tain, while focu­sing on Chi­na as the real power rival, becau­se of - I dont know - “all the wars that are yet to take place” that rus­sia appar­ent­ly hints at it wan­ting to “wait out” from its per­spec­ti­ve. And that are powerstrug­gles bet­ween an ima­gi­ned north/south divi­de, which coin­ci­dent­al­ly also coin­ci­des with the wes­tern “demo­cra­ci­es vs. auto­cra­ci­es” nar­ra­ti­ve, which still is com­ple­te­ly idio­tic, taken pure­ly at face value.

This tru­ly feels like the morons time­li­ne of the deve­lo­p­ment of future power­cen­ters, after the wes­tern decli­ne has set in. (In terms of GDP, growth per­spec­ti­ves, and main­tai­ning the key insti­tu­tio­nal powerstructures.)

Huh.

So - how serious do we take that Dr. Ser­gey Kara­ga­nov fel­low, in terms of “spil­ling the beans”, that rus­sia cant wait to beco­me the deci­ding geo­po­li­ti­cal mili­ta­ry deci­der in a set­up that was clear­ly meant to put into place a divi­de an con­quer stra­te­gy to sepa­ra­te Euro­pe from the US?

I mean how sure are we, that rus­sia was just gid­dy to tell us that fever­dream of “beco­m­ing important again” open­ly at a “Dia­lo­gue of Civi­liz­a­ti­ons” con­fe­rence in 2017?

Seems like I’ve got some catching up to do on that Kara­ga­nov fellow.

edit: Wiki­pe­dia hints at him being clo­se to Lav­rov with a source from 2022 being refe­ren­ced, and Putin, while the second video abo­ve indi­ca­tes that he has not direct access to Putin any­mo­re, and appar­ent­ly Lav­rov also isnt part of the inner decisi­on cir­cle in rus­sia any­mo­re. The last part is hear­say I picked up in my rea­ding some­whe­re, but no idea whe­re… So, yeah…

One of his stap­les (“Eura­sia­nism as ideo­lo­gy”) I can see poten­ti­al­ly play­ing out cur­r­ent­ly, but isnt that just the Chi­ne­se poli­ti­cal PR cam­pai­gn in rus­sia anyhow? 😉

On his role in the past, his Wiki­pe­dia states:

Kara­ga­nov, who is known as a clo­se advi­sor to Rus­si­an Pre­si­dent Vla­di­mir Putin, for­mu­la­ted many of the core ide­as that led to Russia’s inva­si­on of Ukrai­ne on 24 Febru­a­ry 2022. One week ear­lier Kara­ga­nov exp­lai­ned that “the situa­ti­on is so dire” that “war is ine­vi­ta­ble”, as Rus­sia could only achie­ve its goals by mili­ta­ry means, sin­ce, unli­ke the United Sta­tes, the domi­nant post-Cold War power, Rus­sia had no poli­ti­cal, cul­tu­ral, ideo­lo­gi­cal or eco­no­mic bene­fits by which to bring other sta­tes under its influence.

Kara­ga­nov lamen­ted that Russia’s neigh­bors gene­ral­ly saw the West as offe­ring more attrac­ti­ve poli­ti­cal and eco­no­mic models, and Rus­sia the­re­fo­re had no choice but to gain their sub­mis­si­on by force.[23]

src: click

Which is the equi­va­lent of the “Putin was afraid of the eco­no­mic deve­lo­p­ment of Ukrai­ne” nar­ra­ti­ve in the west, which sim­ply loo­ked at from an eco­no­mic per­spec­ti­ve, makes no sen­se - in a 30 years timeframe.

While this:

Regar­ding Ukrai­ne, Kara­ga­nov clai­med that it was necessa­ry to sub­due it in order to pre­vent the fur­ther expan­si­on of NATO. As jus­ti­fi­ca­ti­on for an unpro­vo­ked inva­si­on, Kara­ga­nov sug­gested that Ukrai­ne was not a via­ble sta­te any­way, and “most likely, the coun­try will slow­ly dis­in­te­gra­te,” or, alter­na­tively, it will be bro­ken up into smal­ler parts, and “some­thing may go to Rus­sia, some­thing to Hun­ga­ry, some­thing to Poland, and some­thing may remain a for­mal­ly inde­pen­dent Ukrai­ni­an state.”[23] Howe­ver, he has said that “occu­p­y­ing” Ukrai­ne is “the worst-case scenario”.[24]

reads like whats going on today.

edit: Auf der ande­ren Sei­te, hier eine ein­fa­che­re Her­lei­tung, war­um die US sich aus der Ukrai­ne zurück­zie­hen zu wol­len scheinen. 🙂

«Die­ser Anstieg um 3 Pro­zent­punk­te ist sehr gefähr­lich»: Blackrock-Chef Lar­ry Fink sorgt sich um die hohe Ver­schul­dung des ame­ri­ka­ni­schen Staates

Der Chef des welt­gröss­ten Ver­mö­gens­ver­wal­ters sieht in den gestie­ge­nen Zins­kos­ten ein Pro­blem für die Ver­ei­nig­ten Staa­ten. Aber er sieht sein Unter­neh­men auch als Teil der Lösung.

src: click

edit: Es gibt aber natür­lich auch wie­der gute Nach­rich­ten. Der Stan­dard hat soeben her­aus­ge­fun­den, dass fol­gen­des berich­tens­wert ist:

RUSSLAND/UKRAINE

Kreml­spre­cher Pes­kow: Glo­ba­ler Ukraine-Friedensgipfel ohne Russ­land “absurd”

src: click

Man braucht ja den Mob der die Posi­ti­on dass das tat­säch­lich absurd ist in Grund und Boden schrei­en muss.

Und der Ein­zi­ge Grund es nicht als absurd zu bezeich­nen, sind diplo­ma­ti­sche Ver­su­che des Wes­tens Chi­na und Indi­en gegen Russ­land zu “pivo­ten” - die im Ramen die­ser “Glo­ba­len Ukraine-Friedensgipfel” ange­sto­ßen wer­den. Was man so hört.

Komisch eigent­lich, dass die FIFA Selen­skyj dafür nicht vor dem WM Fina­le Wer­bung machen hat lassen.

Absurd gera­de­zu.

Die­se ver­schla­ge­nen Rus­sen schon wie­der, bis zur FIFA reicht ihr lan­ger.. Pass.









Hinterlasse eine Antwort