The Eternal Enemy And NATO's Travails

“The Eternal Enemy” is how some Russian officials refer to Britain, based on nearly two centuries of British efforts—since WW1 in conjunction with the US, the Anglosphere—to bring Russia down. The proximate goal varies with circumstances, ranging from total destruction and dismemberment to destabilizing chaos to subjugation. I’m not sure what the ultimate origins of this obsession are. I suppose, for our purposes, they could be traced to the Crimean War—an attempt to keep Russia blockaded and shut off from the Mediterranean—which happened to coincide with the rise of the British Empire.

Will Schryver today reproduced an interesting quote from Charles MacGregor. Macgregor (August 12, 1840 – 5 February 1887) died young, aged only 46, but he was a major figure in the British Empire in India—there’s even a memorial to him in St. Paul’s Cathedral. Most notably he was at the head of British Intelligence in India for quite a few years:

In 1870, MacGregor founded the United Service Institution of India for the "furtherance of interest and knowledge in the art, science and literature of the Defence Services."^[4] The Institution awards the MacGregor Medal, founded in his memory, in recognition of valuable contributions to military intelligence that are of defensive importance to India.^[5]

MacGregor's The Defence of India (1884) attempted to alert the British public to the geo-strategic importance of India, and the threat posed to British interests by Russia.

Here’s the quote that Schryver cites, which outlines a policy of containing Russia, of constricting Russia, and even of dismembering Russia:

Slavyangrad

"Russia, fortunately, has no allies among its neighbors.

In our opinion, it is necessary to form as soon as possible against Russia a coalition of England, Germany, Austria, Turkey, Persia, Turkestan, Afghanistan and China, offering to each state, as a reward for its help, a known part of Russian territory.

It is subject to serious discussion whether it would not be better in the interests of Austria and Germany to restore the former Kingdom of Poland, with due guarantees, or to create a new kingdom from Russian Poland, Lithuania and Volhynia, attaching to Germany Kurland and Riga, and to Austria Podolia and Romania, or give her a corresponding reward.

The provinces of Karabakh, Talish and Transcaspian region and the right of navigation on the Caspian Sea should be granted to Persia.

We will not be particularly sorry if Persia does not join the alliance, as this will give us the opportunity to reward Turkey, Aderbeijan and Persian Kurdistan.

As for the Caucasus, if all of it is taken away from Russia, as far as the foothills of the northern slope of the ridge, two states should be formed from it, one Christian, consisting of Georgia, Russian Armenia and the Christian peoples of the Caucasus, and the other Mohammedan, consisting of Dagestan, Lezgistan, Chechnya, etc.

The consequence of this will be that the Russian offensive in the East will be delayed for a century.

General Charles Metcalfe Macgregor, chief of British intelligence in India.

Not terribly subtle. It’s possible to see here the seeds for the later (1904) Heartland Theory of Mackinder, which remains central to much of the West’s ongoing geopolitical strategery—all focused on Russia. Here’s a picture of the Heartland or “Pivot Area”:

Later, in 1919, Mackinder summarised his theory thus:

Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland;
who rules the Heartland commands the World-Island;
who rules the World-Island commands the world.

— Mackinder, Democratic Ideals and Reality, p. 150

Any power which controlled the World-Island would control well over 50% of the world's resources. The Heartland's size and central position made it the key to controlling the World-Island.

Control of Russia by the British Empire—or, if you prefer, the coalition headed by the British Empire—was the key to World Dominion. Imagine, if you will, how Russians view the British led coalition that attempted to take control of Russia after WW1 in conjunction with the White forces. Note the heavy British involvement in the Caucasus, where MI6 is still stirring up Azerbaijan and Armenia:

Allied intervention in the Russian Civil War

Interestingly, Mackinder saw two possibilities involving Russia and Germany and both possibilities inimical to British interests, according to Mackinder and like minded theorists of world empire:

Successful invasion of Russia by a Western European nation (most probably Germany). Mackinder believed that the introduction of the railroad had removed the Heartland's invulnerability to land invasion. As Eurasia began to be covered by an extensive network of railroads, there was an excellent chance that a powerful continental nation could extend its political control over the Eastern European gateway to the Eurasian landmass. In Mackinder's words, "Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland."

A Russo-German alliance. Before 1917 both countries were ruled by autocrats (the Tsar and the Kaiser), and both could have been attracted to an alliance against the democratic powers of Western Europe (the US was isolationist regarding European affairs, until it became a participant of World War I in 1917). Germany would have contributed to such an alliance its formidable army and its large and growing sea power.

It follows from these considerations that Britain would be opposed to any Russo-German alliance, but not necessarily opposed to a knock down drag out war between the two nations—one which would leave the British Empire in a world commanding position. WW1 held that promise, but German military might nearly won the day. The necessary result was the creation of the Anglosphere, which greatly aided the rise of Hitler in the hope of directing his efforts into another empire exhausting war with Russia—woops!

After WW2’s failure to sink Russia, American members of the Anglosphere geopolitical fraternity have gravitated toward these theories. For example, the Dutch born Nicholas J. Spykman proposed his Rimland theory that obviated the need to take actual control over Russia, but which does suggest an interest in controlling traditional areas of British adventurism:

It doesn’t take too much imagination—especially given the sketchy nature of the map (what happened to the Caspian Sea?) to see that Ukraine and the Caucasus could be added to the Rimland.

It’s even possible to see Obama’s pivot to Asia as a derivative from the Rimland theory as well as Mackinder’s ideas:

President Barack Obama initiated "Pivot to Asia" meaning US strategic, diplomatic and economic focus on the region. Mackinder's term became a popular buzzword after Obama's Secretary of State Hillary Clinton authored "America's Pacific Century," in Foreign Policy.^[6] Former Chinese State Councilor, Dai Bingguo, suggested to Hillary Clinton: "Why don't you 'pivot out of here?'"^[7] Mackinder did not expect how far his pivot concept would go.

Even Brexit fits into this paradigm, following on from Sir Humphrey Appleby’s famous explanation for why Britain initially joined the Common Market. Remember Mackinder? Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland:

Oliver Rolle

@OliverRolle

No wonder the Brits left the EU. Brits are deeply envolved in trouble creation for the EU. NATO is a British idea to keep the US in, the Russians out & Germany down.

Quote Tweet

Ash Kaira

@ashkairaa

The British Establishment have rallied their dog journalists in the UK to push Poland as a power over France and Germany. As Ive kept saying UK's grip over Europe will be using east Eur v west Eur much more overtly twitter.com/afneil/status/…

7:10 PM · Jul 8, 2023

Now, in light of all the above, M. K. Bhadrakumar has a thought provoking article:

Russia, US exchange glances as Prigozhin heads for Moscow

I find some of MKB’s speculation a bit dubious, but his quote from a recent article by Dmitry Medvedev should have a sobering effect on festivities in Vilnius if any such effect were needed (in addition to spending time in Vilnius, not a well known jet set hangout):

However, what took the breath away is an article on July 2 in the Russian government daily Rossiyskaya Gazeta, titled The Era of Confrontation penned by none other than Dmitry Medvedev, former president and the deputy chairman of the Security Council (post-Soviet Politburo.) Medvedev is anything but a one-dimensional man, as his presidency and his amiable dealings with western leaders showed. Medvedev concluded his essay as follows: 

“Indeed, we are ready to look for reasonable compromises, as the President of Russia has repeatedly said. They are possible, but with the understanding of several fundamental points. Firstly, our interests should be taken into account to the maximum extent: there should be no more anti-Russia in principle, otherwise everything will end very badly sooner or later. The Kiev Nazi regime must be annihilated… What will replace it, we do not know, as well as what will remain of the former Independent (Ukraine.) But the West will have to accept this.

“Secondly, all the hard-won results of the total confrontation should be consolidated in a new document such as the Helsinki Act (1975) … Thirdly, it is likely that a careful reassembly of the UN and other international organisations will be required. It is possible only with full respect for the rights of permanent members of the Security Council…”

“Reasonable compromises are possible”. I haven’t seen the Russian original, but I think a better translation would read something like: “We win, you lose, we dictate terms, you get a few inconsequential bones if you behave.” But that’s what the draft treaties of December, 2021 were basically about, too. Nothing has changed, and certainly Russia sees no reason to back down from its maximalist position.

Meanwhile the junior Anglosphere partner is getting cold feet:

The US is in a quandary, as the Ukrainian offensive on which so much hope was placed, failed to take off. Russian military has successfully thwarted the Ukrainian attacks, inflicting very heavy casualties. At no point during the month-long offensive could the Ukrainian forces get anywhere near the layered Russian fortifications. Around 20,000 Ukrainian soldiers have died so far and a significant portion of the weaponry Kiev received from the West has been destroyed. 

Hundreds of thousands of Russian troops with huge quantities of armour have taken position just across the border with Ukraine, ready for a massive offensive. A big concentration of Russian troops near the northern Kharkov region is ominous. In effect, there is nothing stopping Moscow from vanquishing the Ukrainian military and creating new facts on the ground. 

That may explain the reassuring words of Sullivan at the press briefing: “The President has been very clear from the very beginning of this conflict about two things that have been unwavering. First, the United States is not going to war with Russia in Ukraine. And second, the United States is not providing weapons to Ukraine to attack Russia. We do not encourage or enable attacks on Russian territory from Ukraine… (these) “two fundamental precepts have been true from the start, they remain true today, and they will be true tomorrow as well.”

However, there is no consensus within the alliance about the way forward. Indeed, the despondency is showing, as recriminations amongst NATO allies are surfacing. Biden vetoed the candidacy of British Defence Secretary Ben Wallace as the next NATO secretary-general. The UK’s hawkish line causes uneasiness in Washington. (See Biden to walk diplomatic tightrope at NATO summit but it’s getting more complicated, Politico, July 8, 2023)

Elsewhere, embittered Ukrainian officials are complaining that they have been had. The US’ Baltic allies and Poland are in distress, too, while western Europe is descending into crisis. The turbulence in France may spread. 

Sullivan’s “reassuring words”? What happened to “as long as it takes”? Those “reassuring words” look like CYA words to me—keeping the exit unobstructed if rapid egress becomes advisable.