Hostility To Russia is Geopolitical, Not Ideological

No matter what political ideology Russia chooses for itself, the Anglo-American empire, driven by the hegemony of the US Dollar, will ALWAYS see the Eurasian heartland as a space to be broken up, divided, destabilised, and contained.

When the official ideology emanating from Moscow was ostensibly Marxist-Leninist, Western propaganda sympathised with the allegedly oppressed Russian Orthodox church. When Dugin was a dissident against that system, he would have been looked upon with sympathy by the West, as heroically campaigning against a godless totalitarian system.

Today’s Russia under Putin considers Lenin a traitor, upholds the official ‘Khrushchevite’ narrative that the repressions carried out by Yezhov were instigated by Stalin (disputed by any educated ML), while somewhat upholding Stalin as a state-building defender of the USSR who defeated Western German-led aggression in WW2.

Has this radical transformation in state ideology ended Western hostility towards Russia? No. Ideology may change but geography is constant. Russia could embrace LGBT rights, transgenderism, feminism, liberalism, and everything else championed by the West, and it would change nothing. Western hostility would continue.

As I’ve mentioned before, inter-imperialist conflict ENDED after WW2. The world’s empires lost control of most of their colonies, which then forced them to join an alliance of former empires under the leadership of the US, which we call ‘the West’. Those colonies became the postcolonial world, which today comprises most of Asia, Africa, and Latin America.

The West needs to keep the postcolonial world poor in order to uphold the value of the US Dollar, whereas the USSR/Russia does not. What was the cold war arms race? It was the postcolonial world suddenly being equipped with modern Soviet weaponry, thereby raising the price of reconquest for their former imperial masters.

Russia does not even need to be consciously anti-imperialist to perform an objectively anti-imperialist role. Why? Because the interests of Russia and the post-colonial world are complementary. Both have gigantic reserves of natural resources that the West is accustomed to stealing (in the the era of formal empires pre-WW2), or acquiring through trade (in the postcolonial era post-WW2).

You know this view of the world is correct because it’s corroborated by all sides. For example, according to Kwame Nkrumah, revolutionary president of the independent African nation of Ghana, “the countries mainly importing these raw materials are the United States, Western Europe and Japan” whereas “the Soviet Union and the developing countries have at their disposal sufficient quantities of domestic raw materials” (1966).

Similarly according to Walt Rostow, who was an advisor to US President Eisenhower at the time, “if Asian, Middle Eastern and African nationalism exploited by the Soviet bloc becomes a destructive force …[then] European supplies of oil and other essential raw materials may be jeopardised”.

They’re saying the same thing because it’s true, and no amount of whining about how modern Russia is some homophobic, antisemitic, illiberal, fascist oligarchy that has betrayed YOUR precious Marxist ideology by disavowing Lenin & the Bolsheviks, is EVER going to change that.

Left image. According to US geostrategist Nicholas Spykman, the “encirclement of the old world” is the geostrategy of the Anglo-American empire. No matter what ideology fills that Eurasian space, it will be an enemy.

Right image. To the West, Dugin embodies the ideological expression of the Russian counter-strategy, which is that of Eurasian integration, which is why he’s hated by conscious US imperialists and their useful idiots, including many Marxoids.

“Take truth from facts” – Deng Xiaoping

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: