Why can’t Russia and the US get along?
The cold war is over. Russia is no longer a superpower. With the exception of a severely outdated stockpile of nuclear warheads, a military that has not re-tooled for modern warfare since the end of WW2 and an economy that is 1/10th the size of the US, it poses no threat to the US, yet it is and always has been the main enemy of the US, even over 30 years after the fall of the Berlin Wall.
Of course the West says that Russia is an autocratic State, effectively led by a dictator that regularly flouts UN rulings, ignores human rights and ignores the sovereignty of smaller nations. This is meant to justify sanctions and a generally adversarial posture in international affairs.
But this logic is inconsistent. The US has been closely tied to many other countries that fit similar descriptions. The Chinese are unapologetically authoritarian. I suspect there is not even a word for human rights in Chinese, and if there was, the only people that know it would be in prison. They stake territorial claims over smaller countries such as Taiwan and regularly harass other smaller nations with interests in the South China Sea. Yet the Chinese have, since 1992 (when they joined the WTO) until recently been given a free pass and have become the main trading partner of most of the West because of their low labour manufacturing costs. And the Chinese are not the only example. The US partners with the Saudis for oil. There is no shortage of oppressive authoritarian dictators with whom the US has partnered with. Yet Russia seems to be where the US draws the line. Why? A sudden attack of conscience? Racism against Slavic peoples? I think not.
The geographic pivot of history and its impact on US foreign policy
An article submitted to the Royal Geographical Society by Halford John MacKinder in 1904 called ‘The Geographic Pivot of History’ advanced the argument that over 50% of the world’s resources (mainly food, fresh water, timber, iron, coal and oil) are concentrated in an area called ‘the Heartland’. This Heartland was mostly identified as the territory of what later became the USSR, plus pockets of China, Iran, Pakistan and Afghanistan. This argument was further expanded in MacKinder’s book "‘Democratic Ideals and Reality”. The argument was essentially distilled as:
“Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland;
who rules the Heartland commands the World-Island [being Afro-Eurasia];
who rules the World-Island commands the world.” — Mackinder, Democratic Ideals and Reality
The USA was identified as an outlying island. Effectively a place which can competently hold civilization, but in the scheme of grand strategy, ultimately of little significance unless it can find a way to control the Heartland.
While the theory itself lacks a great deal of nuance and many have pointed out its flaws, it nonetheless carried weight because it clearly showed a picture of what constitutes national interest - geographic control over areas rich in resources for one’s own and preventing any one power from controlling larger resources.
To this end, it is of little surprise that the US was reluctant to engage in the Great War or WW2, joining WW1 in 1917 and WW2 in 1941. The Heartland was being weakened. Why help strengthen it if the US is on the periphery? It was only because of Germany’s resumption of attacks on passenger and merchant ships (including US ships) in WW1 and the Pearl Harbour attack in WW2 that prompted US involvement in the world wars. In other words, it was only when US strategic interests were threatened that the US got involved - not some misplaced US-European camaraderie, nor ideological alignment.
NATO, global institutions and the Warsaw Pact - the beginning of the cold war
After the end of the second world war, Europe, including Eastern Europe was decimated. The US was the only country in the world that did not fight on its own soil (except Pearl Harbour) and had largely in-tact military infrastructure. The US loaned billions to European countries to help rebuild and, through the Bretton Woods Conference created global institutions effectively controlled by the US. Namely, the World Bank (then called the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development) and the IMF.
But why? Why would a country like the US decide to lend billions to Europe when it had already twice demonstrated that it couldn’t care less about Europe’s fate provided that US strategic interests were not threatened?
The answer is that the US saw opportunity to enmesh itself into the World Island and compete for the Heartland. The US agreed to rebuild Europe and facilitate globalization by protecting sea trade in exchange for an alliance against the dominant power in the Heartland - the USSR. This was the basis for the creation of NATO. In response, and unsurprisingly, the USSR signed a treaty with most countries east of the Berlin Wall.
The creation of NATO upset the traditional geopolitics of Europe where historically France and Russia (and to some extent the UK) banded together to contain Germany. Instead, all countries West of the Berlin Wall were containing Russia.
This is the series of events that triggered the adversarial relationship between the US and Russia, but it is not significant in a historical explanatory sense anymore. The cold war is over. It is significant because it identifies the divergent interests between the countries in the Heartland and everyone else that remain to this day. It is the plays on the geopolitical chessboard that can be read by reference to those interests. Knowing these interests helps us to separate fact from propaganda in reading the news and predicting future events that may affect us personally. It also serves as a check on our own political beliefs because we become self-aware that each country’s culture, media and education system are ultimately designed to serve that country’s national interests.
US opportunism and NATO expansion
Since German reunification and the collapse of the USSR, NATO has expanded rapidly eastward from the original border in West Germany, reaching as far as Poland, the Baltic countries and, most recently, Finland, with an application pending from Ukraine, around 200km south of Moscow.
This is not a coincidence. The geopolitical interest of the US is to ensure that no one country controls the Heartland, and that any country in control of the Heartland remains weak.
Prior to the collapse of the USSR, there was an agreement to avoid conflict between the Warsaw Pact countries and NATO that NATO must not expand past the Berlin Wall. The dissolution of the USSR, arguably made NATO obsolete. The Heartland was fragmented and poor. The US’ nominal goals were nominally achieved. While George H.W. Bush assured Mikhail Gorbachev that NATO would not expand past Germany in an effort to finalise the end of the cold war, the former Warsaw Pact countries were betrayed by eventual NATO expansion. These betrayals were tolerated largely because at the time, Russia had no serious prospect of doing anything about them short of starting a nuclear war.
But the betrayals were inevitable. Having succeeded in destroying the country that held most of the Heartland (the USSR), the US became hell-bent on realizing its ultimate geopolitical aim: ensuring that any country that would rise up in place of the USSR would remain perpetually weak, preferably fragmented and unable to capitalize on the vast resources it controlled. This is the fundamental reason for NATO expansion.
Allies of the US often bemoan US involvement (and often their own involvement at the request of the US) in foreign wars. The Gulf wars. Iraq. Afghanistan. There is no shortage of examples. However, these wars are a product of the US attempting to contain the Heartland, and in exchange for their allies’ cooperation, the US provides all of the financial infrastructure (acting as the global reserve currency and being primary backer to the IMF, World Bank, WHO and other international organizations) and the world’s largest blue water navy to facilitate globalization and prosperity in the west. Indeed, Henry Kissinger called the US aircraft carrier – key to its blue water capability, “100,000 tonnes of diplomacy”. It is guns for butter. This is the nature of pax Americana.
The Heartland’s response
The 1990s and 2000s demonstrated that the US had solidified its interest in controlling the World Island, and therefore, the Heartland. I have written much about the US’ geopolitical interests but little of Russia’s. Russia’s geopolitical interests is to strengthen the Heartland.
After losing hundreds of millions of people (mainly men) over two world wars, Russian demography collapsed. The sheer scale of the USSR and now, Russian Federation is so large that it hosts nearly 200 ethnicities speaking over 100 minority languages, 35 of which are considered official. It is no surprise that such a country that has poor infrastructure, cannot use almost half its land mass due to freezing conditions in half the year and is in constant direct contest with a formidable Western alliance resorts to forceful authoritarianism. It is simply the only way to hold the Heartland together.
Indeed, the reason for the scale of the country is that with the limited exception of the Ural Mountains, the whole country is flat with few geographic borders. Few large bodies of water beyond the Caspian and Black Seas, few large rivers and mountain ranges that would make it militarily defensible. This is why Russia must constantly have an expansionist foreign policy. Its giant land mass is simultaneously its greatest strength and weakness. It is simply too large to defend all borders of the country. Breaking up the Russian Federation won’t help either – there are simply no choke points to make any new state defensible.
A map of key chokepoints that Russia seeks to push out to made by Peter Zeihan is a good guide for Russia’s predicament:
It is for this reason that historically Georgia, Ukraine, Turkey, Iran, Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, Poland and the Baltic countries are constant flash points for Russia. They were flashpoints that preceded Putin. They even preceded the USSR. They are prospective choke points that Russia can use to effectively guard its borders. At the height of the USSR, it controlled all of them. Now, it controls almost none due to the success of NATO.
The war in Ukraine
The war in Ukraine is the natural consequence of NATO expansionism. From the orange revolution in 2004 to the toppling of Russia-aligned President Yanukovych in 2014, Ukraine has become more aligned to Europe (and, by proxy, NATO).
Western media will have you believe that the Revolution of Dignity in 2014 was the result of a popular uprising from people that were sick of corruption and wanted true democracy. Russian media will have you believe that it was a coup d’etat sponsored by the US intelligence services.
Regardless of which story you believe, the fact remains that in response to Ukraine switching to side with the West, Russia sought to secure its core interests in the area immediately in response - Crimea and the port of Sevastopol. The only year-round port that can service the Russian navy and the basis for any power projection in the mediterranean.
‘Separatists’ in Donetsk and Luhansk also decided to take over the regions and support Russia. The west will have you believe that this was a Russian backed coup d’etat to secure core oil mining interests in the Heartland. The Russians will have you believe this was a popular uprising by ethnic Russians against a Ukrainian government that no longer supported them by joining the west.
See a pattern? Media merely serves as a tool of propaganda. The best explanation for a turn of events is simply to look at the underlying interests that are being pursued by the most powerful players involved.
The securing of interests by Russia was piecemeal. Eventually, in February 2022, Russia launched an invasion of Ukraine. Again, Western media will have you believe this is an attempted annexation of a free democratic country against international law. Russian media will have you believe it is to stave off a neo nazi insurgency in Southern Ukraine while protecting ethnic Russians from unwarranted Ukrainian aggression along with reverting to Russia’s historical interests in central Ukraine in accordance with Putin’s long-winded speech on the matter (I am yet to actually meet anybody that has followed the whole thing from start to finish).
Regardless of the propaganda, Russia has made a geopolitical ‘move’ to secure the Heartland. In particular, to prevent passage by NATO troops over the Carpathian Mountains if war should ever arise. The territory of Ukraine and Belarus provide Russia with ‘strategic depth’ to fend off attacks. Indeed, this is how Russia has fought off European invaders since the time of Napoleon - by leaving hundreds of kilometres of scorched earth that is near impossible to resupply, particularly in the cold winter. Failure to secure Ukraine would mean that Russia would be strategically lost before any war with Europe even began. Imagine NATO troops crossing the Carpathian mountains without losing a single person and having only 200km flat land between them and Moscow across a massive border. Russia’s war in Ukraine was a ‘forced move’ on the geopolitical chessboard.
A deeper and even more cynical level of analysis (albeit speculative) was that this was planned by the US. The US knew that Russia would never tolerate Ukraine being part of NATO or even friendly to the west, and it did courted Ukraine in order to create a bloodbath for the Heartland. Men within the Heartland are fighting each other on opposite sides, shedding military and future economic capability from it (less people means less GDP). In this, the clear winner is the US and its allies. Zelensky’s Ukraine is an inducement for Russia to enter a new conflict which is equivalent to the catastrophic failure in Afghanistan in the 1980s that precipitated the fall of the USSR. But this last piece is all speculation and conjecture.
Trump and Chi-na – a new adversary
China controls slivers of the Heartland (mainly Tibet), but in substance, it is a neighbour to the Heartland and not the Heartland itself. Since 1992 when it joined the WTO, it became the manufacturing hub of the West. Cheap labour in exchange for access to global markets was the nature of the deal. Of course its Communist authoritarian government with one of the worst human rights track records in the world was ignored. In a contest between hard interest and soft perceptions of justice, it is interest that usually prevails.
Since then, China has become the second largest economy in the world with substantively the same business model. Hundreds of millions of people were taken from the countryside and pushed into industrial centres to manufacture goods that supplied the west. A middle class emerged. People got rich.
In 2016, along came Trump. Trump’s strategy was to court those who were impacted by China’s rise. American manufacturing – the white working class. To them, Russia did nothing wrong. It even espoused working class values they could relate to – God, the family, the nation. But Chi-na?
Chi-na took their jobs away. It destroyed their entire way of life. This was Trump’s pitch. Of course he did this in a variety of ways but from a foreign policy perspective, it was his pivot to entering a trade war with China and away from contesting the Heartland (which he likely viewed as an expensive folly). It is for this reason that he threatened to withdraw from NATO and other international institutions of which the US led order has been the backbone for 70 years.
It is no surprise that the US intelligence community was in uproar against Trump. He was planning to upend the core US foreign policy goals that all administrations had worked toward since the second world war, all to court his voters. For them, he was acting against national interest.
Over the course of four years of Trump, there was clearly internal compromise – NATO and global institutions continued to function, albeit with diminished US support. But the Overton Window had shifted. In 2016 the presidential candidates debated over whether China is a partner or a threat. In 2020 the debates from a foreign policy perspective (assuming one could follow them) were about which candidate was more anti-China. The Democrats recognised that the $300 billion trade war with China that Trump started was not going to go away quickly and that the largest voting bloc in the US agreed with the idea that China was a threat and not a partner. This is why from a foreign policy perspective, Biden has changed little since he took over from Trump – straddling a compromised stance with Russia and continuing the trade war with China.
In parallel to the political theatre of US presidents, other tensions have been brewing. It is no secret that China is contesting the South China Sea. This is done partly for its resources but also partly for China to become independent of the US in the facilitation of globalization and trade infrastructure (including military). This is what the belt and road initiative is all about. It is why BRICS exists (of which China is a part) – to create an alternative to US trade infrastructure by supplanting it with trade infrastructure (like a reserve currency) backed by the Heartland. It is also why China is aggressively trying to build a blue water navy to rival the US and why China needs to ‘reconcile with’ (see also: annex) Taiwan – it needs to break through the First Island Chain to effectively compete with the US and Japan to ensure that it is capable of ceasing its reliance on US (and allies) military assets to protect Chinese sea trade.
These tensions have been building for such a long time that both China and the US have released military white papers that practically set an ETA for a Taiwan invasion between 2027 and 2030.
The Holy Land and Iran
In 1948 Israel was created as a sovereign state to the chagrin of all of its neighbours and especially the Arab residents of the land prior to the UN endorsed partition plan – their descendants are now collectively known as ‘Palestinians’.
Regarding to who is the rightful owner of which parts of the land, I respectfully defer to this clip from a movie called Seder Masochism, by a Jewish animator, Nina Paley. Both reasonably historically accurate and (more importantly) accurate in pathos - all characters are singing the same song.
Rich in oil, Iran is proximate to the Heartland and occupies a strategic interest near Russia across the Caspian Sea, bordering Armenia, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan and Afghanistan – all chokepoints that Russia seeks to control per my analysis above. It is no wonder that the US tried to impose a government on Iran via the 1953 coup d’etat – an arrangement that ultimately fell through in 1979. Nor is it any wonder that two Gulf wars ensued thereafter. Unfortunately, because of Iran’s location and resources, it is not a country that can abstain from a choice of whether to be allied with the US or the Heartland. Since 1979 it has grown closer and closer in its relations with the Heartland.
Israel is the US counterpoint to Iran. In effect, Israel is a funded US military base in the region and in exchange, the Jews get to keep their statehood and have backing from a member of the UN security council, making them almost impervious to international action.
Israel’s history has been tumultuous with wars and intifadas a regular occurrence and strain on the state and people. Much of this has been caused by pan-Arabism, which is the self-interest of Israel’s neighbours to push out US influence (to strengthen their near oligopoly on oil) disguised as quasi nationalist ideology.
The Abraham Accords sought to break through the ideology of pan-Arabism. The idea was to establish a trading corridor between India (and all connections to it) and the Mediterranean Ocean via Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Israel. It was clear the financial incentives were there for all sides. To do this, the Saudis (and several other Sunni countries) would need to recognise Israel and dramatically soften relations. A condition of the deal for the Saudis was furtherance of the two state solution between Israel and the Palestinians.
A deepening of ties between the Sunni states and Israel would be a dramatic geopolitical loss for Iran. Iran’s fear would be that, over time, the Sunnis and Jews would become a security bloc to contain Iran, much like the Quad has become an eastern version of NATO to contain China.
In response to this threat, an Iranian backed group (Hamas) attacked Israel in the manner that it did last year, which, given the timing of Israel’s most hard right government ever (which essentially considers that annexing territory is more valuable than the Abraham Accords to Israel) resulted in a war that makes the two state solution all but a distant memory. The Abraham Accords are on ice (if not dead).
Interest and propaganda
The above overview of key world events is illustrative of the fact that one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter. Which facts are reported and how they are reported depend on interest. Reality and opinion depend on perspective. In authoritarian countries where media is controlled by the state, there is effectively but one perspective - that of the state. As a result, as a citizen, it is often quite easy for one’s perspective to be aligned to national interests. It is also much harder for foreign propaganda to induce a person to perceive the world (and eventually, act) contrary to state interests.
In a ‘free’ society like the West, media is far less controlled. As a result, there are a diversity of perspectives adopted in the media. Some may be well intentioned but misguided, others may be funded by foreign interests while others still are direct foreign propaganda. If you don’t believe me, take a look at Al Jazeera’s reporting on the Israel-Gaza war as opposed to say The Jerusalem Post, and if you want to see real state funded propaganda in action, take a look at RT News - the Russian propaganda news channel. The amount of cognitive dissonance required to process much of it is simply stunning. All are accessible in Australia.
But this does not mean that ‘free’ countries do nothing to contain propaganda. It is simply that control is more subtle. A quote from the prelude to George Orwell’s Animal Farm encapsulates a key argument from Noam Chomsky’s masterwork ‘Manufacturing Consent’:
“Unpopular ideas can be silenced, and inconvenient facts kept dark, without the need for any official ban. Anyone who has lived long in a foreign country will know of instances of sensational items of news – things which on their own merits would get the big headlines – being kept right out of the British press, not because the Government intervened but because of a general tacit agreement that ʻit wouldn't doʼ to mention that particular fact. So far as the daily newspapers go, this is easy to understand. The British press is extremely centralised, and most of it is owned by wealthy men who have every motive to be dishonest on certain important topics. But the same kind of veiled censorship also operates in books and periodicals, as well as in plays, films and radio. At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed that all right-thinking people will accept without question. It is not exactly forbidden to say this, that or the other, but it is ʻnot doneʼ to say it, just as in mid-Victorian times it was ʻnot doneʼ to mention trousers in the presence of a lady. Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with surprising effectiveness. A genuinely unfashionable opinion is almost never given a fair hearing, either in the popular press or in the highbrow periodicals.” - George Orwell’s proposed preface to Animal Farm, 1945
In the same vein, when Chomsky was interviewed on the matter by a British journalist, the journalist became offended, thinking Chomsky accused him of not expressing his own genuine ideas, to which Chomsky said he had no doubt in the journalist’s authenticity, but if the journalist believed something other than what he did then Chomsky would be being interviewed by someone else.
All this is to give you, dear reader a gentle suggestion: be aware of what your interests are. If they are your nation’s interests, then be aware of those too. When you read something, care less about the facts (you won’t know what really happened anyway - though when publications with oppositional interests report the same thing, it probably happened), and care more about who benefits from adopting the perspective presented.
The essence of propaganda is to cause people to act against their own interests. After all is said and done, query whether your thoughts and your actions serve your interests. Because if they don’t, and you instead find yourself trying to justify opinions by reference to abstract concepts like justice or truth, you’re probably serving someone else’s interests. Don’t be a sucker.