What if the Plan Was?
Commentary for 25 February 2018
Russia’s central strategic problem is NATO. Russia must break the back of NATO. But how?
Step One, the Arab Spring: The best attack is always an indirect attack. So Russia began its attack on NATO hundreds of miles away, in the Arab world. Revolution is the perfect strategy for a country like Russia, which is rich in clandestine and criminal resources. (In Egypt's revolution, for example, the first flags raised in protest were red. The green flags only came out afterward.) The Arab Spring revolutions were calculated to shake things up. Islamist and communist forces were initially linked, arm-in-arm. If they failed to get power, the resulting chaos would nonetheless serve other purposes. For example, the civil war in Syria presents a prime example. The Russians, who dominate the criminal underworld, created the transport net for moving millions of Muslim refugees to the heart of Europe. Russian air units carpet bombed Syrian cities and villages, driving hundreds of thousands out of their homes. Next, they salted the fleeing multitudes with military-age men trained as terrorists. Then Europe was hit by a new wave of terror.
Step Two, support the One Common European Home: Gorbachev spoke of the "one, common, European home." Yeltsin also spoke of this. Putin's advisor, Alexander Dugin, built his "Eurasion ideology" around the same basic theme. This is a kind of fake nationalism in which real countries are obliterated and replaced by a new nation called "Europe." Of course, there is no such nation as "Europe." Ironically, the concept of a European nation arose under Hitler's Third Reich, which briefly unified Europe by conquest in the 1940s. The SS flirted with the idea of a United States of Europe, and various political schemes were charted to this end; but Germany lost the war, and nothing came of it. After the war, the Nazi International was (in large part) taken over by Soviet intelligence through the work of high-level infiltrators. Many Germany officials, seeing the inevitable end of the war, became agents of the Soviet side. Hitler was also very clear in his attitude, that if the Third Reich was going down he preferred that the Soviets dominate Europe as opposed to the Americans. (This is almost certainly why Hitler's last great military offensive was launched against American troops, in the "Battle of the Bulge," instead of against the Soviet troops then pillaging and raping their way through East Prussia.) Several decades later the Russians decided to employ the strategy of the Red-Brown alliance. In this way Marxist and nationalist elements could combine forces throughout the continent. There is no real incompatibility between nationalism and socialism if both are ideologically collectivist. Marxists are flexible. They can shape-shift and form variable alliances. Today they align with the liberals and the bourgeoisie, tomorrow they align with the National Socialists. Now watch them make both moves at the same time!
Step Three, use the refugee crisis to fuel a revolution in Europe: In 2014 Russia made a conscious, strategic decision to push Europe toward the right. Muslim immigration was a device to this end. It was important (for Moscow) that the New European right retain elements of anti-Semitism, anti-Americanism and anti-capitalism. It was also important that this New European Right have a favorable view of Russia and Putin.
Step Four, elect right wing leaders friendly to Moscow: The Russian planners wanted to see the election of Marine Le Pen in France. This would have been the first step on the road to the New Europe. Putin could have congratulated Le Pen. Angela Merkel could then have shifted to the right, leading to a massive shift throughout Europe. But Le Pen lost the election.
Step Five, elect Hillary Clinton as U.S. President: What would Hillary Clinton have said about Marine Le Pen? Would she have called her a "deplorable"? Undoubtedly she would have. In that event, Washington would have pushed Paris and (possibly) Berlin into Moscow's open arms. Clinton's warmongering talk of a no-fly zone in Syria, and her anti-Putin diatribes, would have coordinated well with Moscow's plans for a United States of Europe. But this step was thwarted when Donald Trump won the 2016 presidential election.
Step Six, destroy Trump and flood Europe with more Muslims: To put their strategy back on course, Russia must assist the right in Europe even as it assists the left in America. Therefore, we see a major figure on the British left, Jeremy Corbyn, outed as an East Bloc spy. Meanwhile, a right-wing American president is accused of colluding with Russia. Trump's political associates are even indicted for having links to Russia. The Russians must feed the right in Europe as they feed the left in America. They must expose left wing European politicians to scandal even as they expose right wing American politicians to scandal. Russia craves a right-wing Europe as badly as it craves a left-wing America. That is the essence of Moscow's strategy. In this way a split can be generated, and NATO can be broken.
What happens next? The game continues. The strategy plays out. Will the left win in America? Will the European right move toward socialism and Moscow? Will NATO be broken in half?