The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Alfred McCoy Archive
Trump’s Trade Czar, the Latest Architect of Imperial Disaster
Five Academics Who Unleashed the “Demon” of Geopolitical Power
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

As Washington’s leadership fades more quickly than anyone could have imagined and a new global order struggles to take shape, a generation of leaders has crowded onto the world stage with their own bold geopolitical visions for winning international influence. Xi Xinping has launched his trillion-dollar “Belt and Road Initiative” to dominate Eurasia and thereby the world beyond. To recover the Soviet Union’s lost influence, Vladimir Putin seeks to shatter the Western alliance with cyberwar, while threatening to dominate a nationalizing, fragmenting Eastern Europe through raw military power. The Trump White House, in turn, is wielding tariffs as weapons to try to beat recalcitrant allies back into line and cripple the planet’s rising power, China. However bizarrely different these approaches may seem, they all share one strikingly similar feature: a reliance on the concept of “geopolitics” to guide their bids for global power.

Over the past century, countless scholars, columnists, and commentators have employed the term “geopolitics” (or the study of global control) to lend gravitas to their arguments. Few, though, have grasped the true significance of this elusive concept. However else the term might be used, geopolitics is essentially a methodology for the management (or mismanagement) of empire. Unlike conventional nations whose peoples are, in normal times, readily and efficiently mobilized for self-defense, empires, thanks to their global reach, are a surprisingly fragile form of government. They seem to yearn for strategic visionaries who can merge land, peoples, and resources into a sustainable global system.

The practice of geopolitics, even if once conducted from horseback, is as old as empire itself, dating back some 4,000 years. Until the dawn of the twentieth century, it was the conquerors themselves — from Alexander the Great to Julius Caesar to Napoleon Bonaparte — whose geopolitical visions guided the relentless expansion of their imperial domains. The ancient Greek historian Plutarch tried to capture (or perhaps exaggerate) the enormity of Caesar’s conquest of Gaul — a territory that comprises all of modern France and Belgium — by enumerating the nine years of war that “took by storm more than eight hundred cities, subdued three hundred tribes, and fought pitched battles… with three million men, of whom he slew one million… and took as many more prisoners.”

In his own account, however, Caesar reduced all of this to its geopolitical essentials. “All Gaul is divided into three parts,” he wrote in that famous first sentence of his Gallic Wars. “Of all these, the Belgae are the bravest, because… they are the nearest to the Germans, who dwell beyond the Rhine, with whom they are continually waging war; for which reason the Helvetii also surpass the rest of the Gauls in valor, as they contend with the Germans in almost daily battles.” When those formidable Helvetii marched out of their Alpine cantons to occupy Gallic lowlands in 58 BC, Caesar deployed geopolitics to defeat them — seizing strategic terrain, controlling their grain supplies, and manipulating rival tribes. Instead of enslaving the vanquished Helvetii as other Roman generals might have, Caesar, mindful of the empire’s geopolitical balance, returned them to their homelands with generous provisions, lest the German “barbarians” cross the Rhine and destabilize Gaul’s natural frontier.

In more modern times, imperial expansion has been guided by professional scholars who have made the formal study of geopolitics a hybrid field of some significance. Its intellectual lineage is actually remarkably straightforward. At the end of the nineteenth century, an American naval historian argued that seapower was the key to national security and international influence. A decade later, a British geographer observed that railroads had shifted the locus of global power landward into the interior of the vast Eurasian continent. In the succeeding century, a succession of scholars would draw on these two basic ideas to inspire bold geopolitical gambits by Nazi Germany, Cold War Washington, post-Soviet Russia, and even Donald Trump’s White House.

There is, in fact, a common thread in those disparate scholarly lives: in each case, the study of geopolitics seemed to change the trajectory of their careers, lifting them from the margins of society to the right hand of power. There, at moments when the empire they lived in was experiencing a crisis, their unconventional, even eccentric, ideas won influence — often in what would prove in the long term a nightmarish fashion.

Over the last century or so, while the actual application of such thinking regularly proved problematic at best and genuinely horrific at worst, geopolitics would remain a seductive concept with a persistent power to entice would-be practitioners. It would also prove an enormously elusive style of thinking, making it difficult to distinguish between the banal and the brilliant, between the imperially helpful and the imperially devastating.

Charting the interplay of land, people, and resources inside any empire, much less in a clash between such behemoths, is impossibly difficult. Admittedly, geopolitics in the hands of a grandmaster has, in the past, led to the crushing of armies and the conquest of continents. But seemingly similar strategies have also produced searing defeat and disaster. Caesar’s deft geopolitical balancing of Gaul and Germany on the fulcrum of the Rhine survived for some four centuries; Napoleon’s similar attempt lasted all of seven years.

Telling the difference, in the historical moment, is a daunting task and one that hasn’t turned out well in the last century. With that in mind, let’s now approach the careers of five modern “grandmasters” of geopolitics with an appropriate skepticism.

America’s Strategic Visionary

In 1890, as the industrial boom of the Gilded Age prepared the nation for a debut on the world stage, Captain Alfred Thayer Mahan, arguably America’s only original strategic thinker, published his famed Influence of Seapower Upon History. In it, he argued that naval power was the determining factor in the fate of nations. Born at West Point, where his father taught military tactics to Army cadets, Mahan came to the study of strategy almost by birthright. After graduating from the Naval Academy and having an indifferent career at sea, he became the head of the Naval War College in 1886. There, he developed novel geopolitical ideas that would revive a stalled career.

By analyzing sea power through a wide range of factors, including the defensibility of ports, national technological prowess, and the nature of good government, Mahan would produce the first serious study of geopolitics in the guise of a guide to naval strategy. In the process, he became an international celebrity, influencing admirals from London to Tokyo and inspiring leaders worldwide to join a naval arms race that would drain their treasuries to build costly battleships. The admiral who headed Germany’s navy, for instance, distributed 8,000 copies of Mahan’s history in translation and in the process won passage of the country’s first naval bill in 1898, funding his fateful challenge to British sea power.

As Europe’s empires continued to spread globally in the 1890s, Mahan’s prolific prose persuaded Washington that national defense required the creation of a genuine blue-water navy and bases in both the Caribbean and the Pacific. So important were such bases for the nation’s defense that, as Mahan gravely concluded, “No European state should henceforth acquire a coaling position within three thousand miles of San Francisco” — a distance that encompassed the Hawaiian Islands, soon to become U.S. possessions.

Like many advocates of geopolitics to come, Mahan would use seemingly precise strategic concepts to project his country’s current position into a murky future. As his geopolitical principles took physical form after 1898, they would produce an indefensible string of bases stretching across the Pacific from Panama to the Philippines.

Following his doctrine, the Navy ordered Admiral George Dewey’s squadron to seize Manila Bay during the Spanish-American War of 1898, which he did by sinking the Spanish fleet. Within five years, however, Japan’s stunning victory over the Russian fleet in the Sea of Japan forced Washington to withdraw much of its navy from the Western Pacific. In 1907, President Theodore Roosevelt began building a new Pacific bastion at Pearl Harbor in Hawaii, not in Manila Bay, saying that the Philippines, by then an American colony, is “our heel of Achilles.” Making matters worse, the Versailles peace settlement at the end of World War I conceded the Mariana Islands in the Western Pacific to Japan, allowing its navy to block the sea-lanes from Pearl Harbor to Manila Bay — a geopolitical reality that would doom General Douglas MacArthur’s Philippine command to a searing defeat at the start of World War II.

At that war’s end, however, Washington finally resolved this geopolitical conundrum by conquering Japan and building a chain of more than 100 bases from that country to the Philippines, making the Pacific littoral the strategic fulcrum for the defense of one continent (North America) and dominion over another (Eurasia).

Sir Halford Propagates Geopolitics

Little more than a decade after Mahan wrote his influential studies of seapower, Sir Halford Mackinder, head of the London School of Economics (LSE), published a seminal article that shifted the focus of geopolitics from sea to land. Writing in 1904, as the 5,700 miles of the Trans-Siberian Railway was still being built from Moscow to Vladivostok, Mackinder argued that future rail lines would knit Eurasia into a unitary landmass that he dubbed “the world island.” When that day came, Russia, perhaps in alliance with another land power like Germany, could control Eurasia’s sprawling “heartland,” allowing “the use of vast continental resources for fleet-building, and the empire of the world would be in sight.”

This path-breaking analysis came at a fortuitous time in Mackinder’s academic career. After teaching geography at Oxford for 10 years, he had failed to win a professorship and his marriage collapsed. At this low ebb in his life, he tried to establish himself as an exploratory geographer by making the first recorded ascent of Mount Kenya. Using the “moral suasion of my Mauser” rifle to force his 170 African bearers to “obey like the faithful dogs they are,” Mackinder moved through the famine-stricken foothills leading to that mountain by extracting food from hungry villages at gunpoint. Then, in September 1899, at the cost of 10 porters shot and many more whipped for “malingering,” he traversed glaciers to reach the summit at 17,000 feet. His triumph before a cheering crowd at the Royal Geographical Society in London was, however, marred not by his treatment of those bearers but by his failure to bring back significant findings or scientific specimens.

So, in yet another career change, Mackinder joined the LSE where he produced that influential article on geopolitics. At the end of World War I, he turned it into a book that contained his most memorable maxim: “Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland; Who rules the Heartland commands the World-Island; Who rules the World-Island commands the World.”

Mackinder’s expertise in imperial geopolitics helped launch his political career, including gaining him a seat in Parliament. In 1919, amid the turmoil of the Russian revolution, Britain was shipping arms to anti-Bolshevik forces there under General Anton Denikin. At Winston Churchill’s behest, the cabinet then appointed Mackinder as a special high commissioner for southern Russia. In a unique test of his “heartland” theory, Mackinder made an abortive attempt to rally the Czarist forces by meeting General Denikin inside his railcar in the Caucasus to propose an alliance with Poland and promise a mass evacuation in the event of defeat. Upon return to London, ignoring the general’s role in slaughtering some 100,000 Jews, Mackinder recommended recognizing his government and providing aid — advice the cabinet quickly dismissed.

From that brief moment at the apex of power, Mackinder soon fell into obscurity — losing his seat in Parliament, retiring from the LSE, and settling into a sinecure as chairman of the Imperial Shipping Committee. Were it not for the surprising later appeal of his ideas in Nazi Germany and Vladimir Putin’s Russia, his name would have been largely forgotten.

The Sorcerer’s Nazi Apprentice

As the Versailles peace conference of 1919 stripped Germany of its colonial empire and placed its Rhineland frontier under foreign occupation, Karl Haushofer exchanged his general’s baton for a geography professorship at Munich University. There, he would apply Mackinder’s concepts in an attempt to assure that his fatherland would never again engage in the sort of strategic blunders that, in World War I, had led to such a humiliating defeat.

While Mackinder himself was courting the powerful in postwar London, Haushofer was teaching geopolitics to future top Nazis in Munich — first to his graduate assistant Rudolf Hess (later to become the deputy Führer), and then to Adolf Hitler himself while he was writing Mein Kampf during his incarceration at Munich’s Landsberg Prison in 1924. Both Haushofer and his son Albrecht, who would train Nazi diplomats in the geopolitics of European conquest, were later rewarded with influential positions in the Third Reich. By dressing the British don’s idea of the Eurasian heartland as the pivot of world power in the local garb of Lebensraum (or “the Greater German Reich’s dazzling ascent by war… for extension of its living space”), Haushofer helped propagate an enticing logic of expansion that would send Hitler’s army on the road to defeat.

In 1942, Hitler dispatched a million men, 10,000 artillery pieces, and 500 tanks to breach the Volga River at Stalingrad and capture Russia’s heartland for lebensraum. In the end, the Reich’s forces would suffer 850,000 casualties — killed, wounded, and captured — in a vain attempt to break through the East European rimland into the world island’s heartland.

Appalled by the attack on Russia, Haushofer’s son joined the underground’s attempt to assassinate Hitler and was imprisoned. Before he was finally shot by the SS (on the day the Allies captured Berlin), he would compose mournful sonnets about geopolitical power, which he saw metaphorically as buried deep under the sea until “my father broke the seal” and “set the demon free to roam throughout the world.” A few months later, Karl Haushofer and his Jewish wife committed suicide together when confronted with the possibility that the victorious allies might prosecute him as a senior Nazi war criminal.

The Liberator of Eastern Europe

As the United States recoiled from its searing defeat in Vietnam, Zbigniew Brzezinski, an émigré Polish aristocrat and autodidact when it came to geopolitics, went from teaching international relations in New York to being President Jimmy Carter’s national security advisor in Washington. There, his risky geopolitical gambits gained an attentive audience after the Soviet Red Army invaded Afghanistan in 1979.

As an intellectual acolyte of Mackinder, Brzezinski embraced his concept of the Eurasian heartland as the “pivot” of global power. But in marked contrast to Mackinder’s failure in southern Russia in 1920, Brzezinski would prove adept at applying that geopolitician’s famous dictum on the dynamic that tied Eastern Europe to Eurasia’s heartland. (In the end, however, his Afghan moves would help give rise to Osama bin Laden, al-Qaeda, the 9/11 attacks, and the never-ending war on terror of this century.)

Wielding a multi-billion-dollar CIA covert operation in Afghanistan like a sharpened wedge, Brzezinski drove radical Islam deep into the heart of Soviet Central Asia. In the process, he drew Moscow into a debilitating decade-long Afghan war, so weakening it that Eastern Europe would finally break free from the Soviet empire in 1989. Asked about the enormous human suffering his strategy inflicted on Afghanistan and his role in creating a militant Islam hostile to the United States, he would remain coolly unapologetic. “What is most important to the history of the world?” he responded in 1998. “The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the Cold War?”

In retirement, Brzezinski resumed his study of Mackinder’s theory, doing a better job as an armchair analyst than he had as a presidential adviser. In a 1998 book, he warned that dominance over Eurasia remained “the central basis for global primacy.” To control that vast region, Washington, he insisted, would have to preserve its “perch on the Western periphery” of Europe and hold its string of “offshore bases” along the Pacific littoral. Should these conditions change, he predicted with some prescience, “a potential rival to America might at some point arise.”

Putin’s Geopolitical Visionary

In the aftermath of the Soviet Union’s collapse, a Russian rightist ideologue, Alexander Dugin, would revive Mackinder’s ideas yet again to promote expansion into Eurasia. In the process, he would become “a major influence” on Russian President Vladimir Putin.

In the 1980s, as the Soviet Union was beginning to unravel, Dugin was still moving in Moscow’s bohemian circles as a dabbler in the occult and a fringe member of the “ultra-nationalist and anti-Semitic organization Pamiat .” After the Soviet collapse, he became chief ideologue for an eclectic alliance of patriotic and punk-rock groups called the New Bolshevik Party, serving as its candidate for a seat in the 1995 Duma legislative elections and winning just 1% of the vote.

At this political nadir for both him and his country, Dugin recycled Mackinder’s long-forgotten writings in a 1997 bestseller, The Foundation of Geopolitics: Russia’s Geopolitical Future. As his book moved into its fourth printing and he “became a pole star for a broad section of Russian hardliners,” he began teaching geopolitics to military officers at the General Staff Academy, later lecturing on it to elite students at Moscow State University, and anchoring Landmarks, a weekly television show on the subject. In those years, Moscow bookstores even opened special sections for geopolitics, the legislature formed a geopolitics committee, and the Russian leadership began to embrace Dugin’s vision of expansionist nationalism.

Drawing on Haushofer’s German writings, he argued that Russia should become a Eurasian bastion against “the conspiracy of ‘Atlanticism’ led by the United States and NATO… aimed at containing Russia within successive geographic rings” of the former Soviet republics. To achieve the destiny envisioned by Mackinder, Russia needed, in Dugin’s view, to dominate Eurasia — annexing Ukraine, conquering Georgia, incorporating Finland, and bringing the Balkan states (Serbia, Romania, and Bulgaria) under its rule as an Orthodox “Third Rome.” To advance such ideas, Dugin founded the Eurasia Youth Union of Russia in 2005, first to serve as “human shields” to fight against the Orange revolution in Ukraine and later to counter the “degeneration” caused by American cultural influence.

For the past decade, he has been a forceful advocate for Russian expansionism. During that country’s war with Georgia in 2008, he was photographed with a rocket launcher in South Ossetia and quoted in the national press calling for its annexation. After serving as “the brains behind Vladimir Putin’s wildly popular annexation of Crimea” in March 2014, Dugin embraced the Russian minority in eastern Ukraine, prodding the Russian president to openly support their separatist militia.

While advocacy of aggressive geopolitics has given Dugin significant political influence and Putin unprecedented popularity in Russia, it is still unclear whether in the long run such expansionism, in defiance of international norms, will prove a geopolitical masterstroke or a diplomatic debacle.

The Geopolitics of Trump’s Trade War

Most recently, a dissident economist and failed California politician named Peter Navarro has parlayed his hostility toward China into the role of key architect of Donald Trump’s “trade war” against Beijing. Like his Russian counterpart Alexander Dugin, Navarro is another in a long line of intellectuals whose embrace of geopolitics changed the trajectory of his career.

Raised by a single mom who worked secretarial jobs to rent one-bedroomapartments where he slept on the couch, Navarro went to college at Tufts on a scholarship and earned a doctorate in economics from Harvard. Despite that Ivy League degree, he remained an angry outsider, denouncing the special interests “stealing America” in his first book and later, as a business professor at the University of California-Irvine, branding San Diego developers “punks in pinstripes.” A passionate environmentalist, in 1992 Navarro plunged into politics as a Democratic candidate for the mayor of San Diego, denouncing his opponent’s husband as a convicted drug-money launderer and losing when he smirked as she wept during their televised debate.

For the next 10 years, Navarro fought losing campaigns for everything from city council to Congress. He detailed his crushing defeat for a seat in the House of Representatives in a tell-all book, San Diego Confidential, that dished out disdain for that duplicitous “sell out” Bill Clinton, dumb “blue-collar detritus” voters, and just about everybody else as well.

Following his last losing campaign for city council, Navarro spent a decade churning out books attacking a new enemy: China. His first “shock and awe” jeremiad in 2006 told horror stories about that country’s foreign trade; five years later, Death By China was filled with torrid tales of “bone-crushing, cancer-causing, flammable, poisonous, and otherwise lethal products” from that land. In 2015, a third book turned to geopolitics, complete with carefully drawn maps and respectful references to Captain Mahan, to offer an analysis of how China’s military was pursuing a relentless strategy of “anti-access, area denial” to challenge the U.S. Navy’s control over the Western Pacific.

To check China, the Pentagon then had two competing strategies — “Air-Sea Battle,” in which China’s satellites were to be blinded, knocking out its missiles, and “Offshore Control,” in which China’s entire coastline was to be blockaded by mining six maritime choke points from Japan to Singapore. Both, Navarro claimed, were fatally flawed. Given that, Navarro’s third book and a companion film (endorsed by one Donald Trump) asked: What should the United States do to check Beijing’s aggression and its rise as a global power? Since all U.S. imports from China, Navarro suggested, were “helping to finance a Chinese military buildup,” the only realistic solution was “the imposition of countervailing tariffs to offset China’s unfair trade practices.”

Just a year after reaching that controversial conclusion, Navarro joined the Trump election campaign as a policy adviser and then, after the November victory, became a junior member of the White House economic team. As a protectionist in an administration initially dominated by globalists, he would be excluded from high-level meetings and, according to Time Magazine, “required to copy chief economic adviser Gary Cohn on all his emails.” By February 2018, however, Cohn was on his way out and Navarro had become assistant to the president, with his new trade office now the co-equal of the National Economic Council.

As the chief defender of Trump’s belief that “trade wars are good and easy to win,” Navarro has finally realized his own geopolitical dream of attempting to check China with tariffs. In March, the president slapped heavy ones on Chinese steel imports and, just a few weeks later, promised to impose more of them on $50 billion of imports. When those started in July, China’s leaders retaliated against what they called “typical trade bullying,” imposing similar duties on American goods. Despite a warning from the Federal Reserve chairman that “trade tensions… could pose serious risks to the U.S. and global economy,” with Navarro at his elbow, Trump escalated in September, adding tariffs on an additional $200 billion in Chinese goods and threatening another $267 billion worth if China dared retaliate. Nonetheless, Beijing hit back, this time on just $60 billion in goods since 95% of all U.S. imports had already been covered.

Then something truly surprising happened. In September, the U.S. trade deficit with China ballooned to $305 billion for the year, driven by an 8% surge in Chinese imports — a clear sign that Navarro’s bold geopolitical vision of beating Beijing into submission with tariffs had collided big time with the complexities of world trade. Whether this tariff dispute will fizzle out inconsequentially or escalate into a full-blown trade war, wreaking havoc on global supply chains and the world economy, none of us can yet know, particularly that would-be geopolitical grandmaster Peter Navarro.

The Desire to be Grandmaster of the Universe

Though such experts usually dazzle the public and the powerful alike with erudition and boldness of vision, their geopolitical moves often have troubling long-term consequences. Mahan’s plans for Pacific dominion through offshore bases created a strategic conundrum that plagued American defense policy for a half-century. Brzezinski’s geopolitical lunge at the Soviet Union’s soft Central Asian underbelly helped unleash radical Islam. Today, Alexander Dugin’s use of geopolitics to revive Russia’s dominion over Eurasia has placed Moscow on a volatile collision course with Europe and the United States. Simultaneously, Peter Navarro’s bold gambit to contain China’s military and economic push into the Pacific with a trade war could, if it persists, produce untold complications for our globalized economy.

No matter how deeply flawed such geopolitical visions may ultimately prove to be, their brief moments as official policy have regularly shaped the destiny of nations and of empires in unpredictable, unplanned, and often dangerous ways. And no matter how this current round of geopolitical gambits plays out, we can be reasonably certain that, in the not-too-distant future, another would-be grandmaster will embrace this seductive concept to guide his bold bid for global power.

Alfred W. McCoy, a TomDispatch regular, is the Harrington professor of history at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. He is the author of The Politics of Heroin: CIA Complicity in the Global Drug Trade , the now-classic book which probed the conjuncture of illicit narcotics and covert operations over 50 years, and the recently published In the Shadows of the American Century: The Rise and Decline of U.S. Global Power (Dispatch Books).

(Republished from TomDispatch by permission of author or representative)
• Category: Foreign Policy, History • Tags: China, Donald Trump, Geopolitics, Russia 
Hide 97 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. joun says:

    Dugin, regardless of what minor success he had ten years ago, is not influential in the Kremlin. He did not orchestrate Russia’s absorption of Crimea. Simple strategic needs demanded that Crimea be absorbed, and a flawless Russian execution of an ambitious plan won the day.

    Peter Navarro is correct w/r/t China. Our trading relationship with China has been a disaster for our economy (to which I mean our ability to have an economy absent financial shenanigans) and USG has effectively funded China’s rise. There is no strategic benefit to offshoring productive capacity. I don’t really care if Navarro has failed at other tasks in his life. He is correct on this one.

  2. we can be reasonably certain that, in the not-too-distant future, another would-be grandmaster will embrace this seductive concept to guide his bold bid for global power.

    Damn! Sounds just like me.

    Anyway, the US has made a lot of mistakes. It transferred much of its manufacturing base to China and much of its technology. The Chinese see a chance to break away from the US economically and in technology.

    The US invested in China’s future. China invested in its future. Which is why China has a future.

    China 2025:

  3. Sean says:

    And no matter how this current round of geopolitical gambits plays out, we can be reasonably certain that, in the not-too-distant future, another would-be grandmaster will embrace this seductive concept to guide his bold bid for global power.

    In fact the idea of not fighting would seem to be the the dominant theory; military officers spend hardly any of their career actually fighting and the Western elites cannot remember what a successful major war looks like any more. If it is so certain that war must come, that rather suggests it is not due to obeying deluded leaders and a malevolent meme, but rather a fact about the way the world can work to bring about what everyone is trying to avoid, like traffic jams.

    An entity that embarks on a future war of global conquest will have to see starting it as a way to improve its position, and in a multi polar world that is very unlikely for any country . A superpower is hardly going to get far enough ahead of the others in weapons tech to think a blitz option, whereby it can attain objectives immediately and thus with a high degree of confidence, is feasible.

    My bet is machine general uber–intelligence, surely here in our lifetime, would have the means (nano tech weapons several generations in advance of current state of the art) to take out all of humanity. If a super rational computer does decide to exterminate all of humankind, Professor McCoy will doubtless think it must have been infected with pernicious geopolitical human ideas, because aggressive war for the prize of ultimate power (or ultimate security against one’s own termination) is a perpetual caprice: never rational.

    • Replies: @Counterinsurgency
  4. Sean says:
    Seeing geography as a decisive factor in the course of human history can be construed as a bleak view of the world, which is why it is disliked in some intellectual circles. It suggests that nature is more powerful than man, and that we can only go so far in determining our own fate.

    Splitting the globe into ten distinct regions, former Sky News Diplomatic Editor Tim Marshall redresses our techno-centric view of the world and suggests that our key political driver continues to be our physical geography. Beginning with Russia (and its bewildering eleven time-zones), we are treated to an illuminating, border-by-border disassembly of what makes the world what it is; why, for instance, China and India will never fall into conflict (the Himalayas), or why the Ukraine is such a tactical jewel in the crown.With its panoptic view over our circumstance, Prisoners of Geography makes a compelling case around how the physical framework of the world itself has defined our history. It’s one of those books that prompts real reflection and one that on publication absolutely grasped the imagination of our customers, ensuring it as a guaranteed entrant to our 2016 Paperbacks of the Year.

    ‘One of the best books about geopolitics you could imagine: reading it is like having a light shone on your understanding.’ – Nicholas Lezard,

  5. @joun

    “There is no strategic benefit to offshoring productive capacity. ”
    Quite right. However – that horse has long bolted. And now, playing catch-up, the US is employing the crudest of methods: tariffs & military bullying (& God help us all, kidnapping).
    Unfortunately, circumstances demand a radical & imaginative response…& even harder, a realisation that the horse has bolted.

    • Agree: Ilyana_Rozumova
  6. Anon[275] • Disclaimer says:

    Dear Mr. McCoy:

    Now that you’re here, you should read the Saker more. I’ll pose this question though, If Russia and China are hell bent on imperial expansion, why don’t they show any interest in Mongolia? Fertile land, rich mineral resources, a tiny population incapable of resistance…it would be a no brainier. The reason they don’t is because they are not imperial powers. Also, is empire a good thing? In every historical example it has followed the same pattern and failed. Civilisations however endure through the ages.

  7. Anyone stating that Zbigniew Brzezinski’s creation of al Qaeda led to the 9/11 attacks while writing about geopolitics has seriously undermined his own credibility. I would suggest the reading of a couple of related articles right here at The Unz Review including the one by Ron Unz and if possible, correcting this before the article is widely read.

    • Agree: Digital Samizdat
    • Replies: @SunBakedSuburb
    , @Anon
  8. Puzzled says:

    “…Vladimir Putin seeks to shatter the Western alliance with cyberwar…” was where I noted this essayist is a fool and stopped reading. Russians! Russians! Russiand everywhere!


    • Agree: Herald, Alfred
  9. Anon[275] • Disclaimer says:

    McCoy understands why the empire is failing and wrote this insightful essay on why.

    But since then has gone on to muse how it might be extended. My argument is that the Empire does not serve the American people and is leading to the destruction of the republic and the American people. The sooner it ends the better, and if Trump can speed up its demise, then he is our guy.

    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
  10. A very interesting article, for me, but, I suppose, for quite other reasons than most here expect.
    The essence of interest is in the last two paragraphs.
    In the first of these two those men are mentioned who by geopolitical ideas caused world wide disasters.
    If they did, I do not know.
    The question ‘did Napoleon make history or did history make Napoleon’ still is a difficult one among historians, and will remain difficult, is my idea.
    The man not mentioned in this paragraph is Hitler.

    Then we get the ominous last paragraph, someone grabbing world wide power for geopolitical reasons, a great menace.

    The essence of good propaganda is not telling lies, but telling just half truths.
    Not mentioned is that the area that now is Germany for maybe hundreds of years could not feed the population, had to import food.
    In order to be able to import one must export, a country with not enough agricaltural production naturally must export industrial products, to fabricate these one needs raw materials.

    Not for nothing both WWI and WWII had geopolitical causes, German economic expansion to the SW and E, economic expansion that threatened, in the British view, the autarcic British empire.

    The implication of the last paragraph for me is clear, beware of the next Hitler.
    If the author has someone in mind who will unleash the last world war is not clear to me.

  11. @Anon

    Russia no interest in Mongolia.
    Interesting, that obviously western media fail to show huge Russian made exploration vehicles that can go anywhere, snow, rivers, morass, lakes, ice.

  12. Miggle says:

    So, why does China show any interest in Tibet? It’s really part of Mongolia.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @foolisholdman
  13. Dungo jay says: • Website

    Can anybody tell me what the hell mccoy is talking about ?

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @peterAUS
  14. @Sean

    It’s interesting, to me at least, that the USA had exactly enough conventional and nuclear forces to destroy all opposition in 1946, and that, instead, it demilitarized its society (that’s one of the reasons that the much maligned “people who think they are White” don’t resist) and relied on strategic ranged weapons and token “tripwire” forces to deter the USSR.
    The USSR had pretty much used up its military age manpower by the end of WW II, something that would cripple it up to the present. It had stolen the “atomic secret”, but changing that to an effective nuclear force during a war with the US would have probably have been impossible. The Germans lacked long range bombers, but the US did not. As for causus belli, at that point the Federal Government could have said just about anything and would have been believed.

    I’m not quite sure what that means (peaceful and moderate nature of the Anglo Saxon establishment back then after the death and destruction by WW II, or disorganization after FDR’s death, or attempt to suppress popular sovereignty, or Divine Intervention to save humanity, or . . .), but it means something.


  15. @Puzzled

    See Copley’s _Art of Victory_, section on “managing enemies”. Copley implies that cohesive societies that seek victory over all other societies can’t have it, because a cohesive society must have enemies, invented or carefully preserved if necessary.
    Perhaps that’s what the Russia affair is about. If so, its not working. It’s like the Federal German republic trying 90 year old people who were drafted as teenagers to be concentration camp guards in late WW II, when the Reich was scraping through the bottom of the manpower barrel, or like the British digging up Cromwell’s bones (see Wikipedia, “Oliver Cromwell”, section: “Death and posthumous execution”). Not convincing.


  16. Biff says:

    Alfred McCoy isn’t the exact polar opposite of Bill Kristol who is wrong about everything, but McCoy does have a pretty good track record of being mostly correct about the issues he covers, nevertheless, he still reads like an opinion column. He also seems bonded by how he sees the American empire being some sort of force of benevolency when it acts and reacts in the same manner as any other empire that’s come and gone – and of course he loathes the idea of the next empire simply by default(they’ll brag about freedom too Alfred).
    And of course, in the realm of geopolitics, he never really mentions the bastard child; which leaves a gaping hole in his analysis.

    My guess is McCoy’s basically on the right track. Not exactly, but he’ll get you out of the woods.

  17. Herald says:

    Spot on. The reference to Russia waging cyberwar was an early warning that reading this long article would be a waste of time.

  18. Alfred says:

    For the past decade, he has been a forceful advocate for Russian expansionism

    It gets a bit boring reading about how aggressive Putin is and how he wants to reconquer all the territories that were voluntarily given up by his predecessors.

    How exactly would Russia benefit by reaquiring the Baltic States or Poland?

    These countries are on life-support. Poland get $20bn annually in direct and indirect subsidies from the EU.

    As for Ukraine, what possible benefit to Russia would it be to have an extra 35 million people who are broke. Ukrainians today spend half their income on food – and that in a country with a very cold winter.

    Let’s not forget that there would not have been a “Berlin Crisis” if Stalin had not given parts of Berlin to the USA, the UK and France. Can you imagine the USA doing something similar?

    This whole article is a real let down. I am disappointed. I guess every barrel has to have a rotten apple or two.

  19. Jayzerbee says:

    I would add that in my life, Henry Kissinger was the other supreme geopolitical theorist who attempted to establish a multipolar geopolitics over a bipolar one. Keep in mind that it was he who essentially argued that China must be recognized in order to blunt the USSR. Nixon thus became the one who opened China to the US, so that in theory the world was to be divided into the Russia pole; the China pole; the American/NATO pole, and the “Third World” pole. With a dash of Mahan added to the mix, all would be balanced and stable, or so Kissinger argued. Hmmmm, maybe not!

    • Replies: @densa
  20. onebornfree says: • Website

    “Chain chain chain, chain of fools”

    Also, perhaps read “Hormegeddon” by the great Bill Bonner:

    Regards, onebornfree

  21. Anonymous[349] • Disclaimer says:

    Are you for real? Have you looked at where these two respective areas are geographically? Hell, their borders aren’t even adjacent.

    As for China’s interest in Tibet: what was once’s part of the Empire will always be part of the Empire. Tibets been part of the empire twice now, first under Genghis’ Yuan Dynasty and again during under the Qing. That simple fact means from now until the sun goes supernova, for China to be considered unified, Tibet must be a part of it. No ifs or buts.

    That’s not to mention the strategic considerations of occupying the high ground vis a vis the sub-continentals as well as the area being the source of several great rivers. You’d have to be a madman to give that kind of advantage up.

    • Replies: @Reuben Kaspate
  22. @Anon

    My argument is that the Empire does not serve the American people

    What empire ever served the people ?
    None, in my opinion, the people served the empire, that is, the ruling class of the empire.
    Ghandi was of the opinion that the people of India, forgot the number, 100 million or more ?, served 400.000 rich Britons.
    The Roman empire, I’d say 1% rich, 99% poor.
    The tsarist empire, not much better.
    The German empire again the exception, nowhere else at the end of the 19th century were common people in comparable living conditions.
    The EU empire, EP members tax free incomes of some € 200.000 a year, plus an extravagant pension system.
    Verhofstadt, additional income, not tax free, of at least € 450.000 a year.
    Declarations, Schulz has been accused of spending € 700.000 in a year, among other things he liked a glass of wine.

  23. When it suits their purpose, writers on economics–I won’t call them Economists–praise the tiger-like speed and agility with which Capitalism responds to the vagaries of pressures and demands that arise in world markets. But when they’re engaging in public relations we get this:

    “Despite a warning from the Federal Reserve chairman that “trade tensions… could pose serious risks to the U.S. and global economy,” ….. Whether this tariff dispute will fizzle out inconsequentially or escalate into a full-blown trade war, wreaking havoc on global supply chains and the world economy

    which throw a protective cloak over a poor, picked-upon capitalism which is, apparently, incapable of getting out of its own way.

  24. Disappointing read. No, there is nothing to suggest that Dugin has any influence on Putin. No, there is no Russian cyberwar. Putin’s aims are Russia’s recovery from the disasters of communism (a road to a blind alley as he has called it) and defending Russia against NATO’s expansion, colour revolutions and numerous false accusations.
    Beijing is the place to look today for big strategic thinking.

    • Agree: Giuseppe
  25. SteveM says:

    Vladimir Putin seeks to shatter the Western alliance with cyberwar, while threatening to dominate a nationalizing, fragmenting Eastern Europe through raw military power.

    Agree. Absolutely a crock of sh*t. Putin/Russia in concert with China seeks to establish a pan-Eurasian economic architecture based on trade, not on wasteful military conquest.

    E.g., Putin knows that the first time the Russian oil/gas pipelines to Europe are shut down for ham-fisted political reasons would be the last. Because the Europeans would find of other sources and shut out Russia as being an unreliable business partner. Moreover, Russia is now the largest exporter of wheat and is developing export levels of production in soybeans and pork. You can’t sell to countries that you have wrecked militarily.

    It’s the U.S., not Russia that is playing the 800 pound Global Cop Gorilla with its war-mongering, economic warfare and global subversion.

    Like Puzzled, when I read that stupid, irrational line by Alfred McCoy, I simply stopped reading. Because nobody that dense about obvious geo-political reality deserves to be read.

  26. Disappointing read. No, there is nothing to suggest that Dugin has any influence on Putin.

    No kidding. This is what happens when you get your Russian news from the Times and the Beeb. I mean, if Dugin were such a Kremlin favorite, how could he have lost his job at Moscow State University? You’d think he could just pick up the phone, call ‘Uncle Vova’, and get his job back!

    Of course Putin is a Eurasianist, but that’s not because Dugin told him to be one. It’s because every Russian ruler has been a Eurasianist for centuries now. Why? Just look at a map: Russia is located in Eurasia. Would we therefore expect the Russians to be Pan-Africanists or something else? Naturally they’re going to be Eurasianists. They learned long ago that if they don’t dominate Eurasia, somebody else will–and that will cause security problems for Russia. I can’t say I hold that against them. It’s not as though the US would take kindly to some foreign empire coming on over to the Western Hemisphere and setting up shop, say, in Latin America. In fact, just consider how Washington reacted when the Soviets concluded an alliance with Cuba. There was no talk about the ‘sovereignty of small nations’ coming from the wallscreen then!

    • Agree: niceland
  27. @joun

    What financial shenanigans? And how has the US effectively funded China’s rise? And how do tariffs destroy China ? (tariffs are like shooting yourself in the foot)

    • Replies: @Ilyana_Rozumova
  28. @Anonymous

    Tibet is the Achilles Heel of China… it’s there where the over confident Middle Kingdom will die the death of a thousand paper cuts!

    • Replies: @Escher
    , @denk
  29. @Anon

    Fertile land? Are you out of your freaking wits, Anon [275]? You can’t grow shit in Mongolia!

    • Replies: @Anon
  30. My prediction for 2019: America will remain the hyperpower for the nex 81 years; thereafter, I couldn’t give a schitt!

  31. @therevolutionwas

    Analysis of US investment in China would explain a lot. It is zero? I do not think so!!!!!!!!!

    • Replies: @Sean
  32. Beware of self-styled strategic thinkers attempting to revive flagging careers and gain influence.

  33. The foreign policy has been controlled by the Zionists for over 100 years since the Zionist creation of their privately owned unconstitutional FED and IRS and thus has been the catalyst for the wars that America has been forced into for the profit of our Zionist controllers!

    Zionists are Satanists who wreck and murder and provoke violence and destruction on the nations of the world in their goal of a satanic demonic NWO!

    Read The Controversy of Zion by Douglas Reed and The Committee of 300 by Dr. John Coleman and The Protocols of Zion and check

    • Replies: @Taxhonestyguy
  34. Agent76 says:

    The cause for poverty is located at the Pentagon because they own the national debt! When if ever will the Joint Chiefs be put on trial for these treasonous Wars and lost trillions?

    December 24, 2013 The Worldwide Network of US Military Bases

    The US Military has bases in 63 countries. Adding to the bases inside U.S. territory, the total land area occupied by US military bases domestically within the US and internationally is of the order of 2,202,735 hectares, which makes the *Pentagon* one of the *largest* landowners worldwide.

    Dec 21, 2013 Black Budget: US govt clueless about missing Pentagon $trillions

    The Pentagon has secured a 630 billion dollar budget for next year, even though it’s failed to even account for the money it’s received since 1996. A whopping 8.5 trillion dollars of taxpayer cash have gone to defence programmes – none of which has been audited.

  35. Sean says:

    Professor McCoy seems to think that the US is not engaged in geopolitical aggression if it does not treat China as an enemy, but actually treating China as no threat is a type of aggression against Russia. President Jimmy Carter issued a presidential order for US officials to facilitate trade with China, presumably under the influence of his foreign policy adviser Brzezinski. Obviously American help for China was aimed at the USSR to give it a growing threat from China. This kind of encirclement was also found in Europe when France loaned Russia huge sums for railroads with military purposes, and then inveigled Russia into something very like an alliance. Britain completed the encirclement. No border was crossed but Germany had lost the First World War before it began. The next world war was not much different.

    Long before all this Britain had sustained Prussia, the militaristic core that Germany was to coalesce around.
    The Anglo-Prussian Convention was agreed on 11 April 1758 between Great Britain and the Kingdom of Prussia formalising the alliance between them that had effectively existed since the Convention of Westminster in 1756. The two states agreed not to negotiate a separate peace.[1] Britain promised to pay the Prussians a subsidy in gold (£670,000 a year, larger than any wartime subsidies Britain had previously given to an ally

    Before that the Dutch, perhaps the first modern nation-state (certainly the country with the first joint stock company) competitive advantage and success had created a naval superpower.

    The Dutch, under nominal command of Willem Joseph van Ghent and Lieutenant-Admiral Michiel de Ruyter, over several days bombarded and captured the town of Sheerness, sailed up the Thames estuary to Gravesend, then sailed into the River Medway to Chatham and Gillingham, where they engaged fortifications with cannon fire, burned or captured three capital ships and ten more ships of the line, and captured and towed away the flagship of the English fleet, HMS Royal Charles.

    Politically, the raid was disastrous for King Charles’ war plans[1] and led to a quick end to the war and a favourable peace for the Dutch. It was one of the worst defeats in the Royal Navy’s history,[1]

    Britain responded with the The Acts of Trade and Navigation that regulated English ships, shipping, trade, and commerce between other countries and with its own colonies. As the Dutch comparative advantage was frozen out, their military aggression declined with it. America sitting on its hands while China becomes a giant Hong Kong and countries all over Eurasia fall under its sway would by likely to lead to a very nasty war that America would loose and loose badly. It is better to try now to stop China growing that big and dangerous by declining to trade with them under conditions that will inevitably make them grow too large to fight. Will trade barriers to China work well enough? Probably not because they are past the lift off stage now (Carter did too good a job), but it is worth a try.

    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
  36. wayfarer says:

    There is opportunity for an American renaissance and really the only practical solution for its people – that is to swiftly and decidedly push its pathetic government aside – and begin rapidly re-educating, re-training, re-tooling, and re-building a next-generation manufacturing base.

    The Next Manufacturing Revolution is Here

  37. @Desert Fox

    The IRS is not unconstitutional!
    This theory is the bane of Tax Honesty! It was the flawed theory that motivated the failed court challenges against Obamacare!
    The IRS and the US Individual Income tax is perfectly constitutional, it is being collected in a deceptive fashion. During the Obama care State AG challenges, I heard one State Attorney General say there are three types of taxes: Direct, Indirect and Income. This nonsense is what fuels the growth of federal government through the unconstitutional collection of the tax.
    The 16 Amendment did not create a new kind of UN-apportioned Direct Tax. A federal tax is still constitutionally a direct tax, which must be apportioned according to representation in House. There are also indirect duties, imposts and excise authorized under the Constitution. The Supreme Court has stated this many times, but after World War II the “Voluntary Victory Tax” was converted by deception into a mandatory tax. The Supreme Court still pays lip service to this, but refuses to grant certiorari to mostly pre se litigants attempting to challenge the unconstitutional collections.
    The US Individual Income Tax is an indirect excise tax. It is a tax on privileged transactions. IOW, it is a tax on the exploitation of a federal privilege for profit. Working for a living in the common, ordinary occupations of life is NOT a privilege, but a right.
    Fortunately, in 2003 a libertarian in Michigan named Pete Hendrickson published a book called “Cracking the Code” now in its 17th printing. Ron Unz should archive this book! The proper way to defeat the IRS is not in the courts, but administratively through the tax return process. Tens of thousands have received full refunds of withholdings, State and Federal, by filing educated returns.

    • Replies: @Desert Fox
    , @onebornfree
  38. Everything about this CIA agent’s history lesson sounds fake. The blood sucking military runs the White House. ISIS or ISIL or whatever the CIA calls itself today poses no threat. Poor General Kelly, one of the generals who let 911 happen, is probably going to be promoted to Bechtel. I say poor because he’s only worth about $5 Million, which is a low figure for the super rich who own the military industrial complex.

  39. @Sean

    ” Prussia, the militaristic core that Germany was to coalesce around. ”
    The militaristic fairy tale again.
    Why was Germany seen as militaristic ?
    Quite simple, Von Moltke organised an efficient military staff, efficient in planning.
    The Prussian army was the first to make extensive use of railways, first time after the French 1870 attack.
    Very capable people, Germans.
    Red Army use of railways even in 1941 was a mess.
    The GB preparations for the occupation of neutral Norway in April 1940, also a mess.
    Pity quoted book is in German and with gothic letters, Ludendorff shows with extensive map material how the Germans in WWI fought a two front, sometimes even three front war.
    Just possible through detailed transport planning.
    Erich Ludendorff, ‘Meine Kriegserinnerungen 1914 = 1918’, Berlin, 1918

    • Replies: @Sean
  40. renfro says:

    To the author

    Its not necessary to use 3/4 of your essay as a history lesson before actually addressing the subject of your title.

  41. Lin says:

    As I said before, rhetorics such as ‘USG has effectively funded China’s rise’ are just over-exaggeration if not BS. Facts:
    –Foreign investments only constitute a small % of Chinese domestic investment,
    –The majority of foreign Investment in china are NOT from US.
    –Total investment in China in recent years amount to $trillions per year
    If one cares to examine the major industrial sectors in China , like hi-speed rail, steel, photovoltaic panels, electricity, energy,.. automobiles… Only in the auto sector the americans have a sizable role because the yanks want market access.

    • Replies: @Ilyana_Rozumova
  42. jim jones says:

    China is currently engaged in driving every foreigner out of the country:

  43. 5371 says:

    Numerous historical howlers in this piece.

  44. @Lin

    Never have seen such a nonsense like your comment. Not only must be a huge US investment in China in sectors of exporting manufactured goods, but most of the knowledge came from US.

    After all those years still China can make only shitty steel.

    • Replies: @slorter
    , @Puzzled
    , @Anon
    , @Lin
    , @Escher
  45. densa says:

    Thank you! Can’t leave out Kissinger and understand China.

    (Anyone else getting a 1 comment per hour for simply trying to ‘agree’?

  46. we can be reasonably certain that, in the not-too-distant future, another would-be grandmaster will embrace this seductive concept to guide his bold bid for global power.

    my take is that we are in the end game of imperialism. the western empire is in terminal decline and there will be more empires. from the evidence Russia and China, having learned the lessons of a few thousand years of experience are not seeking for empires.

    empires, traditional ones, are now altogether too costly, especially approaching their end. the world wont tolerate that anymore. the credit empire is working so far but the people have cottoned on to that. to end global banking power simply take over the banks, and recuse all debt for they were fraudulently accrued.

    all banking will then by need be worker co-ops able to deal with all the financial services required by conglomerates required

    the capitalists will probably try a desperate military gambit to try maintain their empire but that wont work. they are already outgunned…unless they decide to take the world down with them.

    but I don’t think we will have to worry about such trade ‘grandmasters’ farting around with the world for too much longer. the end of imperialism will make such work redundant

    and if the democracy does not replace capitalism and the elite wins, it’s a Brave New World we looking at. Brilliant geneticist bent on engineering humans. brilliant mind controllers, psychiatrists and such would be useful job qualifications to have, not trade specialist.

    Brave New World also makes the trade ‘genius’ redundant

    • Agree: Digital Samizdat
  47. Anonymous [AKA "anon16"] says:
    @Dungo jay

    Grandthinking smartass in court is a bane.

  48. peterAUS says:
    @Dungo jay

    Can anybody tell me what the hell mccoy is talking about ?

    I’ll try:
    “Empires are BAD”.

    He is in a bind. At one hand he admits:

    The practice of geopolitics, even if once conducted from horseback, is as old as empire itself, dating back some 4,000 years.

    but, he does not like it.

    He wants people in power , instead of doing what they’ve been doing since the dawn of history, to do something else. He appears not even sure what that something else could be.

    So, he produces that convoluted article above. We read it, post comments and all good.

  49. Agent76 says:

    December 31, 2018 War is Good for Business and Organized Crime

    Afghanistan’s Multibillion Dollar Opium Trade. Rising Heroin Addiction in the US Afghanistan’s opium economy is a multibillion dollar operation which has a direct impact on the surge of heroin addiction in the US.

    June 10, 2014 Drug War?

    American Troops Are Protecting Afghan Opium. U.S. Occupation Leads to All-Time High Heroin Production

  50. slorter says:

    Actually your comment needs inspection right up to the shitty steel sentence ! The United States created its own problems and that is what empires eventually do!

    Where does the knowledge of Empires come from! They acquire it just like everybody else does!

  51. Puzzled says:

    That is why we taught koreans to make good steel. ☹️

  52. niceland says:

    It’s always fun to read articles and history. This article was fun and perhaps thought provoking. But at least some parts of it make no sense to me.

    Take for example the “heartland” theory. Yes it probably made sense over a century ago when strategist -always looking in the rear view mirror- judged the situation based on the Roman empire or Napoleons conquest. And their thoughts grounded in traditional territorial wars.

    Today with nuclear weapons, fast long range missiles and in very different economic reality, I don’t think the “Heartland” is the key to control the world, Eurasia, Europe or indeed anything else than possibly the “Heartland” it self. Control from the Heartland over nuclear France or the U.K?

    Annexing small part of land on your own borders whose inhabitants overwhelmingly welcome you with open arms, like Russians did in Crimea, is totally different from conquering unwilling, hostile neighbors. The latter is extremely costly and difficult exercise with just about zero upside but gaping black hole on the downside. Remember Afghanistan or Iraq or Vietnam? So the former isn’t indication of the latter!

    I dont’t see anything that supports the theory the Russians are playing by the book of the Heartland theory. In current political situation it’s outlandish idea. Perhaps the idea is to paint Russia’s leaders as lunatics?

    Yes the Russians are probably engaged in cyber-war. They seem to have the Russian troll farm in St. Petersburg – as reported by European media it’s amateur operation costing perhaps few million dollars per year with 80 people from the unemployment list’s hammering on laptops working shifts creating and nurturing social media accounts. No experts in politics or advanced computing in sight, no supercomputers, artificial intelligence. Like I said, amateur operation hardly indicating state-sponsored efforts.

    Place this against the U.S. – NSA – on record for what seems to be global surveillance having tapped the phones of U.S. European allies heads of states like Angela Merkel -among other things- with it’s budget of $80 billion per year. Similar amount to the total Russian defense budget. Then there is the CIA and other “three letter organizations” in the U.S. and similar operations in the U.K. I think this is David against Goliath struggle and the latter is doing most of the beating.

    The press? R.T and few other outlets versus the western MSM who has in recent years acted like a pack of rabid dogs against Russia. Investigative journalism into international affairs is replaced by publishing official statements and “analysis” from “experts”. This is war propaganda – nothing less. And the Russians are playing desperate defense most days.

    This madness is driving Russia into coalition with China and creating all sorts of totally unnecessary tensions. Forcing them to avoid the US dollar and so forth. How any of this supports western interests, or the interests of U.S. or U.K. citizens is a great misery. One thing is certain – this is self-destruction policy for the U.S. in the long run. This is what happens when the lunatics take over the asylum.

    Thankfully Vladimir Putin seems to be extremely capable and stable person – not likely to fall into temptation of hitting back with horrible consequences for world peace.

    Happy new year everyone!

    • Replies: @Puzzled
  53. JLK says:

    It was a nice history essay, but there isn’t much of a logical relationship between Mahan, Haushofer, et al. and the present trade confrontation.

    Navarro appears to have the full support of Silicon Valley, Boeing and our other high tech exporters. On the other side is Wall Street and possibly British interests. For all of the hullabaloo about Trump violating the law against private citizens conducting foreign diplomacy when he was President-elect, the Wall Street crowd appears to have transgressed much further:

    Navarro tells Wall Street ‘globalist billionaires’ to end ‘shuttle diplomacy’ in U.S.-China trade war

    It seems the New York banks would gladly trade the SV engineering jobs for a bigger share of the China banking business, a la the Cleveland and Detroit auto industry jobs of the past.

    A possible break with Britain is something even bigger to watch, as their involvement in China is even more finance-related.

    • Replies: @Escher
  54. Anon[131] • Disclaimer says:

    The US accounts for only 2.4% of China’s foreign investment in 2017. From 2000 to 2017, the US invested total of 852 billion in China. To give you a better perspective, Luxembourg in 2017 alone invested 410 billion in the US. The combination of Japan and Canada’s investment in the US in one year – 2017 is more than the US investment in China in 17 years.

    • Replies: @JLK
    , @Ilyana_Rozumova
  55. JLK says:

    The US accounts for only 2.4% of China’s foreign investment in 2017. From 2000 to 2017, the US invested total of 852 billion in China. To give you a better perspective, Luxembourg in 2017 alone invested 410 billion in the US. The combination of Japan and Canada’s investment in the US in one year – 2017 is more than the US investment in China in 17 years.

    Most of the FDI in China is structured through Hong Kong, so those figures could be deceiving.

    Hong Kong has always been and continues to be the preferred jurisdiction for structuring both China inbound and outbound investments. Last year, close to 72% of investments into China were through Hong Kong, which far exceeded direct investments into China by any other country.

    If we take a look at the Santander report on Hong Kong FDI, most of it seems to come from the British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands (both offshore banking locations, with the funds coming from who knows where) and the UK.

  56. onebornfree says: • Website

    Taxhonestyguy says: “…The 16 Amendment did not create a new kind of UN-apportioned Direct Tax. A federal tax is still constitutionally a direct tax, which must be apportioned according to representation in House. …”

    All well and good, except for the unfortunate fact that the 16th amendment was never ratified by enough individual states in 1913 . 🙂

    Regards, onebornfree

  57. Puzzled says:

    Click farming is not cyber-war. All evidence points to the supposed russian cyber-warriors being for-profit click farmers. Absolutely apolitical.

  58. @Anon

    Thank you very much. You are serious person.
    852 billion is not much.
    But the bulk of US investment in China went there through years of Reagan Bush #1 and Clinton administrations. After year 2000 Chinese were capable to build their industries on their own.
    At the end of Carter years I have noticed feverish takeovers of companies and creation of corporations. Also I did notice strong advertisements for foreign investments.
    My conclusion is that those were the beginning years of out flowing of US capital.

    • Replies: @Lin
  59. Anon[638] • Disclaimer says:
    @Reuben Kaspate

    I’ve been the length and breadth of the country. Much like Saskatchewan and Alberta. But they are herders not farmers.

  60. @NoseytheDuke

    Brzezinski and his comrades in the Carter-era NSC and CIA were not only funding and coordinating the Afghan insurgence against the Russian invaders; they also fanned the flames of jihadism amongst the Islamic populations in central Asia along the USSR’s southern border. But I agree that al Qaeda, like the Muslim Brotherhood, is a front to mask CIA-MI6, Israeli, and Saudi operations. Mr. McCoy has written a couple of important books depicting the night-side of the American empire — The Politics of Heroin in Southeast Asia (1972) and A Question of Torture (2006) — but it is not a surprise that he holds a conventional view of the 9/11 event.

  61. Mr. XYZ says:

    Didn’t you hear? Russians are responsible for the failed corn harvest in Iowa! /s

  62. Sean says:
    @jilles dykstra

    Hegel thought that Prussia was the perfect state. Given its situation, Prussia may have been just clearly seeing what it had to do. We tend to think that war and militarism is some kind of political mistake, but as humans we do not actually know what perfect non-anthropomorphic rationality is.

  63. Anon[926] • Disclaimer says:

    Is that because you believe that any rational person should have come across and accepted enough evidence that the destruction of the WTC buildings was by controlled demolition, from which it follows that there was much more to it all than in the official version? Even so, did the 19 flying Arabs not at least think they were being organised by Al Qaeda? Presumably you don’t deny that there were Arab highjackers involved even if only set up by others?

    • Replies: @NoseytheDuke
  64. Lin says:

    Never have seen such a nonsense like your comment.
    “Not only must be a huge US investment in China in sectors of exporting manufactured goods, but most of the knowledge came from US.”
    China has been under severe tech sanction from US
    Why don’t you give me some figures and list of technology from US?
    (being said, I could list tech transfer from japan(continuous steel casting is a prime example) and USSR (a long list, including Mig 15 fighter) )

  65. Lin says:

    My goodness, it must be fun to pull something from air, thin or hot
    “But the bulk of US investment in China went there through years of Reagan Bush #1 and Clinton administrations”
    The reality is the opposite of what you said:
    US investment in china per year before 1990 was negligible and average about 5 billion/yr from 1990 to 2005

  66. @Anon

    Well you’ve answered your first question yourself so perhaps you should have a go at the other two by asking yourself. Did al Qaeda have the means to stage drills to confound NORAD? By what means did al Qaeda bring down WTC7? The one that Silverstein stated that “We had to pull it”. Did al Quaeda have the means to filter and screen media reports and then control the narrative onwards? Did they arrange for the prompt removal and destruction of evidence? Did they also have the wherewithal to control the farcical investigation?

    Some excellent information can be found on the matter in articles and comments right here on this website if you are serious about learning more, but I very much doubt that that is your purpose in asking.

    Have a nice day.

    • Replies: @Anon
  67. Escher says:

    Then something truly surprising happened. In September, the U.S. trade deficit with China ballooned to $305 billion for the year, driven by an 8% surge in Chinese imports — a clear sign that Navarro’s bold geopolitical vision of beating Beijing into submission with tariffs had collided big time with the complexities of world trade.

    I thought that surge was a short term phenomenon from people rushing to import goods before the tariffs took effect.

  68. Escher says:
    @Reuben Kaspate

    I don’t know if that is accurate. Unless the recent silence out of Tibet is due to effective suppression of news, I hear the younger generation of Tibetans is significantly sinicized and hooked to the blandishments of modern consumerism, with no interest in breaking off from China.

  69. Anon[926] • Disclaimer says:

    I see you don’t deny that Arabs highjacked the planes. Whatever your point is about NORAD doesn’t seem to have any bearing on that.

    You raise the subject of WTC7 but doesn’t that create a problem of fitting into any intelligible plan? I mean, Larry Silverstein hadn’t even upped the insurance as he had on WTCs 1 and 2. And why should Larry Silverstein be taken, if guilty, to be so dopey as to admit something wicked when he referred to “pull[ing] it”? Isn’t it perfectly consistent with trying to describe the decision made when it seemed too dangerous or futile to keep fireman on the job fighting the fire?

    • Troll: NoseytheDuke
    • Replies: @NoseytheDuke
    , @Sam J.
  70. Escher says:

    Didn’t the Chinese supply the girders for the new bay bridge?

  71. Escher says:

    Don’t agree. The giant Silicon Valley companies are probably too afraid of the huge (potential) China market to support tariffs.

  72. @Anon

    You’re off-topic here sport, read the articles on the subject and the comments and ask your silly questions there.

  73. denk says:

    To cut a long story short…..

    Once upon a time, the mob waylaid China, pumped it full of drugs, followed with a savage beating and left him for dead.

    It took four centuries for China to partially recover, but just when it tries to stand up, the mob descended on him again.
    This time, they wanna make sure China will never be able to stand up again.


  74. @Miggle

    There is also the certainty that an “independent” Tibet would have a US military base in it before you could say “Freedom and Democracy.”

  75. joe webb says:

    ho hum…nothing new here, move along.

    Joe Webb

    • Replies: @denk
  76. denk says:
    @Reuben Kaspate

    All the sinophobes here say its Da Jews that make them do all those shitty stuffs.
    Are you guys the mastermind behind capers like this, ?

    ‘After the uprising failed, the Tribune reports, the Dalai Lama went into exile in India where the CIA set up and trained the Tibetan contra army.

    The Tribune writes that “Air Force pilots working with the CIA” asked potential recruits one question: Do you want to kill Chinese? ‘

  77. denk says:
    @joe webb

    Yeah, another mob shake down on the Chinese,
    they’ve been doing this for centuries , nuthin new here.

  78. gT says:

    Nice article, I think it was Genghis Khan who said that one must judge advisors by their results. Looking at the 5 “advisors” mentioned in the article, Mahan came up with his sea power strategy after the British empire had already proved it with Britannia rules the waves, so his contribution was a bit belated and the battleship era was soon to come to an end. The aircraft carrier or more precisely air power now has the edge over traditional naval vessels.

    Haushofer, and therefor Mackinder, was a complete disaster, look where his advise got Hitler.

    While I like Dugin and agree about taking Finland, Georgia and Ukraine back into Russia since they were part of the Tsarist Russian empire previously, forget about the Baltics (Romania and Bulgaria), those people are retards, best left the hell alone. Poland is the most retarded. Serbia has always been a natural ally of Russia, and was not part of the traditional Tsarist Russian empire, so Serbia should be left as is.

    Since Dugin’s ideas might be influenced by that disaster Mackinder its best to go real slow here, safer to stick to just the former Russian empire territories which were conquered by the Tsars.

    I’d give credit to Brzezinski for the tactic of getting other idiots to fight battles the US would rather not lose manpower in, such as in Afghanistan where the Taliban won. But his tactics failed miserably in Syria and Iraq where ISIS has basically been eradicated. So Brzezinski’s tactics, previously successful, have now been successfully countered.

    With Navarro the trade war / sanctions seems to have jolted China but have had minimal impact on Russia, other than decreasing Russian GDP a bit. Its a bit too early to judge Navarro’s tactics by the results.

    • Replies: @gT
  79. gT says:

    whoops, Balkans and not Baltics, my bad.

    • Replies: @denk
  80. denk says:

    So its not the Jews who want you to do all those shitty stuffs after all ?

    You claimed the INdians need your help to defend against China.
    Please show me one instance of Chinese
    threat/aggression against your Indian cousins .
    just one !

    While we’r at it, you might as well show me one instance of Chinese threat/aggression against murikka, just one !

    • Replies: @gT
  81. Sam J. says:

    ”Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland; Who rules the Heartland commands the World-Island; Who rules the World-Island commands the World.” –Sir Halford Mackinder, 1919

    This has changed. The true strategic place of control now is space and low Earth orbit. If you control that you can throw down rocks from orbit at such a speed as to be equal to bombs. The Chinese great silk road high speed train system could be pulverized to dust in no time if you control low Earth orbit. Their built up Island system is just a set of stationary targets.

    What would it cost us to build a space system so that we could cheaply get to Earth orbit and control it? A lot less than controlling all of Eur-Asia I bet.

    The fuel cost to get to space if the system is reusable is minimal. Roughly the same as flying from San Fransisco to Australia.

    Sam J. ‘s theory of the control of Earth. “Whoever controls low Earth orbit controls the planet.”

    • Replies: @denk
  82. Sam J. says:

    What you’re trying to do is the same tired worn out tactic of confusing any and all situations by bringing up all kinds of complexity and irrelevant nonsense Jews always do. Won’t work for 9-11. You screwed up.

    WTC7 fell the same speed as a rock dropped in air. For the building to fall the same speed as the rock, because gravity operates exactly the same on both masses, the support for building 7 MUST have been the same as it was for the rock…air. Just air. Well we all know the building wasn’t floating in the air. The only way it could fall as it did, as fast as a rock dropped in air, is if the support below it was demoed or removed in some way. Arabs, no Arabs, insurance, no insurance, all irrelevant. There is no other explanation. Forget all the rest. The speed of the fall of Building 7 shows it was demoed.

    For more info look at a site by some engineers that lay out the evidence.

    • Replies: @Anon
    , @onebornfree
  83. Anon[896] • Disclaimer says:
    @Sam J.

    You are not up to date. There were two supplementary official reports which dealt with WTC7 and they showed or purported to show that the building fell in two different phases at two different speeds (I.e. acceleration wrt to gravity speed). Moreover your experts have only ever been a tiny fraction of the architects and engineers who might have some relevant expertise and, after the usual business of signing up mates and the young and enthusiastic it is notable that they haven’t gained any respectable support, or indeed significant numbers of willing signatories, for years.

    Also…. WTC 7 is bad for most conspiracy theories because it would be bad for their plans which depended on the US getting upset with ME Arabs. You need to establish some very very strong motive to demolish WTC7 and take the chance that it couldn’t be linked to the attack on the Twin Towers.

    • Replies: @Sam J.
    , @Sam J.
  84. onebornfree says: • Website
    @Sam J.

    Sam J. says: “WTC7 fell the same speed as a rock dropped in air. For the building to fall the same speed as the rock, because gravity operates exactly the same on both masses, the support for building 7 MUST have been the same as it was for the rock…air. Just air. ”

    Sam, this will be probably be hard for you to even fairly consider. let alone ever believe, but all of the videos showing the collapse of WTC 7 are fakes, that is, they are all CGI creations fabricated before 9/11 and then aired as live footage by the MSM:

    The same is true of the only plane strike aired “live” that morning [Fl. 175 into WTC2] , and of the 2 main tower collapses supposedly shown “live”. All CGI.

    And let’s not forget, the WTC complex consisted of 7 buildings.

    Therefor, on 9/11, 2 planes are supposed to have completely destroyed not just 3, but 7 buildings in total.

    regards, onebornfree

    • Replies: @Sam J.
  85. denk says:
    @Sam J.

    The Chinese great silk road high speed train system could be pulverized to dust in no time if you control low Earth orbit. Their built up Island system is just a set of stationary targets.

    As if we really need more proof,
    white trash supremacists like this are the scourge of the world.
    May be white genocide isnt such a bad idea after all.

    At least this one doesnt blame it all on da Jews.

    • Replies: @Sam J.
  86. Sam J. says:

    “…You are not up to date. There were two supplementary official reports which dealt with WTC7 and they showed or purported to show that the building fell in two different phases at two different speeds…”

    More Jew smoke and mirrors and outright lies. In the link I provided is the multiple falling rates deal. The Jew pretends that this somehow explains away the Jew attack but in actuality it makes it worse. The Jew attack is more specifically documented. The multiple rates confirm the free fall speed where the building is ONLY held up by AIR as it falls to the ground. No support at all.

    This is the “Big Lie” technique. It’s frequently attributed to Hitler and it’s quoted in such a way that Hitler is said to recommend it,”…If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed…:. In reality Hitler was talking about Jews using this “Big Lie” technique and how the Jews did this frequently. Such liars the Jews are they even twist the “Big Lie” onto someone else.

    Fortunately for us we don’t have to 100% depend on the lie organs of the fake news anymore.

  87. Sam J. says:

    Most likely denk is just another Jew Hasbara. Stirring up trouble between Chinese and Whites this time.

    “…As if we really need more proof,
    white trash supremacists like this are the scourge of the world.
    May be white genocide isnt such a bad idea after all…”

    As if geopolitical theorizing is “white trash supremacists”. I guess Sir Halford Mackinder was a “white trash supremacists” too.

    I noticed you said the Chinese made no such threats but we know that’s a lie.

    The real strategic issue the US has, and indeed the world, is how to get rid of the Jews. Peacefully if we can get it but they need to go no matter what. This constant attacks on everyone. This constant corruption of nations where they then use the military resources of the nation to attack others like, the British in China and now the US in the middle East due to the Jew 9-11 attack. What ever we do we need to get rid of the Jews. We can see that any decent relationship with China will need first, to get rid of the Jews so we can judge this relationship by it’s real merits and not the Jew fog of fake news.

    And yes, I do blame the Jews.

    • Replies: @denk
  88. Sam J. says:

    “…but all of the videos showing the collapse of WTC 7 are fakes, that is, they are all CGI creations fabricated before 9/11 and then aired as live footage by the MSM: …”

    I’m not saying there are not fake videos but the two you posted don’t convince me even remotely that the footage they showed was fake.

    Even if it was faked it proves that building 7 fell the same speed as a rock, meaning it had no support when it fell, so if they faked it…they screwed up big time. If they say,”it really didn’t fall like that”, then they have to say the video was faked. Either way…the Jews did 9-11.

    Really all you have to know about 9-11 to know it was a Jew hit was that WTC7 fell with no support. To do so, without demo, the whole building would have had to been so hot that the steel columns would have had to have been boiled away by the heat. Well we know this is a lie. The building was not a blast furnace. Even blast furnaces don’t boil away steel. The fire would have had to have been many, many times the heat in a blast furnace used to make steel. It’s just nonsensical. The Jews did 9-11.

    I expect any day now the Jews will start blaming Russia for 9-11.

  89. Sam J. says:

    “…WTC 7 is bad for most conspiracy theories…”

    Yeah it sure is. They fucked up and made it plain they blew these buildings up.

  90. gT says:

    This sucks, my previous comment didn’t make it through, and all I was doing was drawing attention to a certain deficiency in the Chinese male anatomy.

    • Replies: @NoseytheDuke
    , @denk
  91. @gT

    Are you sure that this is the right website for you?

  92. denk says:
    @Sam J.

    *As if geopolitical theorizing is “white trash supremacists”. I guess Sir Halford Mackinderwas a “white trash supremacists” too.*


    This is hilarious,
    Halford Mackinder was the mother of all WTS !

    Chinese dont spend their work day ‘theorising’ [sic] how to vaporise somebody’s real estates.

    Decent guys like John Pilger dont do that either.. But Pilger and his peers are kinda like endangered species these days/

    *I noticed you said the Chinese made no such threats but we know that’s a lie.*

    So why dont YOU give me ONE example , ?

    I can show you tons of fukus assaults/threats/provocations at China’s doorstep,

    Exhibit 1
    *US military to taunt China
    by Chalmers Johnson, Los Angeles Times

    July 15, 2004


    From the archives, June 30, 2004:
    U.S. plans huge show of force off coast of China Quietly and with minimal coverage in the U.S. press, the Navy announced that from mid-July through August it would hold exercises dubbed Operation Summer Pulse ’04 in waters off the China coast near Taiwan.*

    Operation Summer Pulse? How about Operation WWIII?

    =Tess Ellis=
    This will be the first time in U.S. naval history that seven of our 12 carrier strike groups deploy in one place at the same time. It will look like the peacetime equivalent of the Normandy landings and may well end in a disaster.

    At a minimum, a single carrier strike group includes the aircraft carrier itself (usually with nine or 10 squadrons and a total of about 85 aircraft), a guided missile cruiser, two guided missile destroyers, an attack submarine and a combination ammunition, oiler and supply ship.

    Normally, the United States uses only one or at the most two carrier strike groups to show the flag in a trouble spot. In a combat situation it might deploy three or four, as it did for both wars with Iraq. Seven in one place is unheard of.

    Operation Summer Pulse ’04 was almost surely dreamed up at the Pearl Harbor headquarters of the U.S. Pacific Command and its commander, Adm. Thomas B. Fargo, and endorsed by neocons in the Pentagon. It is doubtful that Congress was consulted. This only goes to show that our foreign policy is increasingly made by the Pentagon.*

    Somebody should do an autopsy on Chalmers Johnson.

    *We can see that any decent relationship with China will need first, to get rid of the Jews so we can judge this relationship by it’s real merits and not the Jew fog of fake news.*

    These is a partial list of elected leaders bumped off by CIA/RAW.
    For fukus, Panda huggers are punishable by death .

    Thaksin Yingluck of Thailand,
    Gould Whitlam of Oz,
    Kevin Rudd of Oz,
    PM Hatoyama of Jp,
    SK prez Park Geun-hye
    Prez Rajapaksa of Sir Lanka,
    PM oli of Nepal,
    King Birendra of Nepal,
    PM Thinley of Bhutan,
    PM Rajiv Ghandhi of India,
    Prez Sukarno of Indon,

    And yes, I do blame the Jews.*

    All the pioneers of Pax murikka are WTS,…

    Sir [sic] YOunghusband, [knighted for his attack on Tibet 1903]

    Halford Mackinder, [mother of all WTS]

    George Kennan, [zero tolerance for peer competitors of fukus]

    Zbig, [father of AQ]…

    Practically all the rabid neocons/sinophobes I encounter here are whiteys…jimjones, caldre, blair mountain war, gt, joe webb, johan ricke, quartermaster, attilaC, republic, zman, sean, , stand d mute…….,too long a list, these are the ones I can recall offhand,
    tip of an iceberg/

  93. denk says:


    Just LIke I say, with you and your ilks, who needs the Jews ?

  94. What did Goethe say ?

    ” Man merkt die Absicht , und wird verstimmt ”

    I have seldom read such a HEAP of PROPAGANDA GARBAGE as above Article by a US Professor named McCoy ( is he really a “professor” ? .. If so makes one wonder ! )

    First of all .. the writer does not appear to be aware of the FACT that Great Britain has been a JEWISH PAWN since 1695 and its Policies have been directed by the necessitites of that JEWISH RULING OLIGARCHY .

    Secondly , the Author does not appear to be aware , that the USA equally has been RULED by a predominantly JEWISH OLIGARCHY since 1913 .. at latest … and that US Policies , just like the British have been directed at serving the Interests of this nefarious CLAN.

    Ofc the Author thinks greatly about Alfred Thayer Mahan Whose strategies secured the ZIO GLOBALIST TRADING EMPIRES Including instigating both WW 1 as well as WW 2 because their Global Trading Empire was THREATENED . ( there are many Atrocities based on these megalomaniac Oligarch instigated US policies .. I can name as an example .. the US massmurder of Millions of Phillipines in order to secure that forward Military base)

    A Trading Empire where the financing MODEL was based on Power to create FICTIONAL Money out of thin air and then charging Interest on these FICTUOS THIN AIR Monies …with payment of Interest and Principal based on TAX EXPLOITATION of the Common People … just like it is … today !

    Hallford Mackinder the Author dismisses even if the chaps ideas have formed the basis for 2 World-wars … Wars NOT instigated by those the Author postulates … no exactely the OPPOSITE Side … Ecactely because these EVIL and EXPLOITATIVE Powers realized the TRUTH in Mackinders Analysis …and contrary to what the Author claims Mackinders Ideas have never “ sunken down in obscurity “ .. as much as the Author would like –on the contrary .. which this deceptive Propagandist later has to admit , when discussing Brzinsky . What the Author also totally omits is .. that Mackinder exactely was PART of that CABALE which has caused the world so much misery , death and grief . The rticle was published 1905 ..I believe .

    The Author gives himself completely away with a set of unsubstantiated CLAIMS : “General Anton Denikin… slaughtering some 100,000 Jews “ What is the SUBSTANCE of such oft repeated JEWISH Propaganda Claim?

    Or another unsubstantiated propaganda claim “Hitler dispatched a million men, 10,000 artillery pieces, and 500 tanks to breach the Volga River at Stalingrad and capture Russia’s heartland for lebensraum “

    UTTER BULSHIT … and to me as an INFORMED European it sounds like straight OUT OF THE Mouth of Ilya Ehrenburg , the Jewish Bolshevik propaganda artist during and after WW 2

    Hitler wanted to defeat JEWISH BOLSHEVISM who had attempted to subdue Germany in several blody coups ( financed and organized by Bolshevik Sivjet ..just like in Spain ) as well as USURIOUS and EXPLOITATIVE JEWISH CAPITALISM which had fleeced Germany down to the Bone.

    He did NOT want to conquer Russia or East Europe . He wanted to regain ancient German Lands which had been stolen at the JEWISH CONTROLLED Versailles Treaty .

    That’s why MILLIONS of East Europeans and Russians fought together with Germanys armies during WW 2

    The Author states Karl Haushofer and his Jewish wife committed suicide together when confronted with the possibility that the victorious allies might prosecute him as a senior Nazi war criminal.

    How strange .. the Geopolitical Analyst who had inspired Hitler had a Jewish Wife and they lived peacefully and unharmed together in National Socialist Germany , but had to commit suicide when their Allied enemies , the “ liberators of the Jews” , were about to conquer Germany. The author in fact tends to become farsical in these passages

    This pocket Analyst further claims Brzinsky drove the Sovjet into its defeat… again the author does not know WHAT broke the SOVJET GULAG STATE … I can tell him : it was because it lost its RULING JEWISH ELITES … because the Russians and East Europeans KICKED THEM OUT .. as they had tired of the MASS EXECUTIONS and the Jewiah NOMENCLATURA Life style … therefore the JEWS fled their Atrocities , and they fled to the West ,where they claimed to be “ VICTIMS of the SYSTEM “ … when the truth was THEY HAD BEEN THE SYSTEM… and when they disappeared ..all 3 millions of them .. the BOLSHEVIK CONTROL and SURVEILANCE SYSTEM broke down .. and Russia could be reborn again .

    And in all this the Author discloses for the informed and intelligent reader WHO he really is .. and what his real AGENDA is :


    But I will in the next few lines make absolutely CLEAR what really is the AGENDA .and in such a manner that everyone immediately realizes the TRUTH of what I say. It is based on SIMPLE FACTS everyone in some minutes can verify.

    Russia and Europe together have a Population over 1 BILLION People … approximately 3 times as many as in the USA.

    Basically the overriding Culture is similar…

    The Populations are well educated , disciplined and hard working .

    It is an area characterized by unsurpassed Infrastructure , Industrial Capacity and Educational levels.

    Together they have all the necessary raw materials and lands for Food production

    They have plenty of Water , the miracle molecule of Life

    Combined they own the biggest chunk of Global Capital as well as Gold.

    TOGETHER Europe and Russia needs NO ONE .. It needs no new Vasals .. It is entirely selfsufficient and satisfied just to be ITSELF , having all the Potential for development needed as well as ample Space for its People.

    And it has the Populations and Military Industrial Capacity necessary to defend it self ! … Against anyone !

    EUROPE is THE PRIZE currently fought about .. even if this is not mentioned in any Publication or by any Politician.

    And it is fought about to such a degree that the ZIO GLOBALIST CARTEL is willing to DESTROY it .. if it does not fold under its Domination … because such a Creation would immediately spell the END of the ZIO GLOBALIST EMPIRE .

    And exactely THAT is what we are witnessing

  95. ” Cheap goods –always– imply injustice on one end or the other ”

    ” To idle a man is to murder him seven fold. ”

    ” It is with LENT money that EVIL is mainly done – –
    ————————————- – – and –ALL– unjust war [ aka genocide ] protracted. ”
    John RUSKIN

    USURY –abolished– our republic in 1933.

    RED CHINA set up and transfer treason’s been pulled off –in broad daylight–
    without so much as a speed bump.

    And in 2020 ? – – -there is NO good in the goods – -and the money itself is debt paper – -is USURY
    — — is POISON.

    ————————————— – – MONEY STRIKE 2020 ! – – ————————————-

Current Commenter

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone

 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenting Disabled While in Translation Mode
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Alfred McCoy Comments via RSS
The unspoken statistical reality of urban crime over the last quarter century.
The Shaping Event of Our Modern World
Becker update V1.3.2
Analyzing the History of a Controversial Movement
The JFK Assassination and the 9/11 Attacks?