Over the past few days, many French citizens have staged a countrywide protest over the heightened taxes that plague many of the country’s poor, as well as the national government’s disinterest in the lower and middle class. Over the course of three weeks, they have gotten the new gas tax suspended and have captured the attention of not only their own leaders and countrymen but of the world. That’s right: the movement has gone international, earning the name “European Spring”.
The protest has reached the ears and hearts of libertarians around the world. As of now, the future of the movement is uncertain, but their actions, solidarity, and results have been impressive, to say the least. If Americans were to follow their lead (just as the French followed the American Revolution with one of their own), many productive changes could occur.
Starting Like the Yellow Vests
One of the perks of the French protest is there were hundreds of thousands of reformists in one area with one common goal: to be seen and heard. The liberty movement in America is a mess with no clear goals or direction.
The Libertarian Party, from the local chapters up to the national organization, need to unite under one banner: change. Whether the change is social or fiscal does not matter; what’s important is that all levels are consistent. A federal legalization of marijuana, prison reform, and lowering of taxes are many popular places to begin, however.
How to Make the State Listen
The Yellow Vests found a great way for those in power to listen: refusal to be ignored. While the destruction of the property of others isn’t ideal (nor in line with libertarian beliefs), marching in large numbers is a good start. Marches on Washington and other state capitals demanding prison reform or drug legalization could do a lot in terms of encouraging change in America.
One major weakness among Americans is their lack of involvement in politics. Many that are knowledgeable neglect to put hands-on effort into the movement. Beginning the protests is the hardest part. Once there is momentum, more people will join in.
Why We Must Strike Now
The Yellow Vests have inspired a resistance in the world, against tyranny and oppression. Now is the time to take action. Now is the time for those who think they can extort us to hear our voices. The country and the world are moving towards authoritarianism at an alarming rate. If we cannot completely stop the government, it is the duty of the people to contain it. This occurs by holding them accountable and making sure they hear the voice of the people.
When all that’s in the media and culture is socialism or neoconservatism, that’s what we get. Libertarians, minarchists, anarcho-capitalists, and all those involved in the liberty movement need to be a part of this. In order to have results, there must be solidarity and unity.
If the people of the United States don’t make changes soon, the country is destined to fall even deeper into authoritarian tyranny. The Yellow Vests are leading the way by standing up for their individual needs and rights, refusing to let the government take advantage of them. It’s in the best interest of all liberty-loving Americans to fight for their rights. Do something today. Make a difference for good.
71 Republic is the Third Voice in media. We pride ourselves on distinctively independent journalism and editorials. Every dollar you give helps us grow our mission of providing reliable coverage. Please consider donating to our Patreon, which you can find here. Thank you very much for your support!
A few weeks ago, NRA spokesperson Dana Loesch tweeted an NBC article discussing the desire of Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA) to take Americans’ semi-automatic rifles from them and criminally prosecute those who refuse to turn in their guns. Swalwell proudly admitted on Twitter that Loesch wasn’t wrong about his intentions. This caused him to get into arguments with people on Twitter where he casually mentioned that if we defied the government and refused to turn in our guns, they could just nuke us into submission. He was, of course, being sarcastic, but it brings light to the fact that many on the Left consider the idea of the people using their guns to rise up and fight a tyrannical government as simply laughable. The government and more specifically the military it commands are just too powerful in their opinion for us to stand a chance. However, this is simply not true. The facts show that the second amendment remains just as adequate a tool for fighting tyranny today as it did when it was ratified in 1791.
A Fight Against Tyranny
The first way the second amendment functions as a tool to prevent tyranny isn’t even that we can use the guns to fight the government. It’s the fact that us having the guns will deter the government from doing anything that would warrant us having to rebel in the first place. Recognizing that guns are an effective deterrent is just understanding human nature. If for some odd reason you were required to rob one of two houses that were identical in every aspect and each had a guy with almost identical characteristics in them, with the only difference being you knew the guy in House A was armed while the guy in House B was unarmed; then it’s an easy choice. You’re going to rob House B. The stats show that at an individual level this is true.
The book,Armed and Considered Dangerous: A Survey of Felons and Their Firearms by James D. Wright and Peter D. Rossi, discusses a 1982 survey of male felons in 11 state prisons which found that 34% were “scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim.” 40% decided against committing a crime because they “knew or believed that the victim was carrying a gun.” And lastly, 69% had personally known other criminals who were “scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim.” This reality was understood by both the men in government who have wanted to preserve the rights of the people and those who have wanted to impose tyranny on them.
James Madison, when talking about the threat of a federal government which wished to usurp state powers and encroach on individual liberties in The Federalist, No. 46, noted the unique “advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation.” Madison knew that Americans would rise to defeat any federal government which wished to impose tyranny, and because of this, the federal government would be unlikely to attempt such things. It was a deterrent that the subjects of Europe did not have, and it showed as their kings trampled on their rights with little doubt that they could get away with it. Not only did Madison, the Father of the Constitution and one of the biggest leaders for freedom and liberty in the history of the world, understand this, but one of the most tyrannical, evil people in the world, Mao Zedong, understood this fact as well.
Mao once said, “Every communist must grasp the truth: Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.” Mao knew that in order to take away his subjects ability to resist as he trampled over their liberties; he needed to be the one in control of the guns. And the results of the two nations Mao and Madison built could not be more different. Madison’s country is the freest, most powerful nation in the history of humanity. Mao murdered 45 million of his own people as he built a nightmare today where the people have little to no rights and China is one of the most evil and dangerous countries in the world. It’s not just the Chinese that were oppressed. The Jews in Nazi Germany, the women in Iran, and even the black people in the United States for most of its history were helpless as their rights were stripped from them because they did not have access to the deterrent we as Americans take for granted or mock today.
While it’s clear having guns is a successful deterrent against government tyranny if, God forbid, we ever had to rebel against our own government, would we be able to put up a fight? Are the liberals right when they say the government would slaughter us? Wars both now and throughout history show us that Rep. Swalwell and his fellow progressives are just wrong and that we could actually put up a fight.
Conservatives often remark when debating the issue of guns that George Washington did not talk with the British. He shot them. And at the time the British had by far the most powerful military in the world. The colonies had farmers and boys in disorganized militias and the ill-equipped Continental Army. Yet the United States won using the ordinary firearms they had at home against the greatest military force of the time. The Civil War also disproves several points made by the Progressives.
The History of Resistance
The first is that Progressives seem to believe that a war now would be the full might of the military striking down a bunch of rebellious civilians, but that’s just not true. In the event of a civil war, it’s reasonable to believe a sizable portion of the military will fight for the rebellion, bringing weapons, tech, and military knowledge and strategy to the rebels. This is seen best by General Robert E. Lee, who was offered the command of the United States Army but chose instead to align himself with the Confederacy. And while the Confederacy lost, it was in no way an easy victory for the Union, as it looked like for a long time the Confederacy may win and, in order to turn the tide of the war, President Lincoln had to play politics at a level no President has yet to equal; General Grant had to use all the resources and men at his disposal, and General Sherman had to light the South on fire with his total war strategy to get them to finally surrender, and it barely worked. But that was before nukes, drones, helicopters, MOABs, chemical weapons, and all the other tools of destruction the government now has at its disposal. But when looking at wars in the modern era, you get the same results.
Since the United States dropped the atomic bomb in 1945, ushering in a new era of warfare in which it reigns supreme, it has been involved in three major wars. The Korean War, the Vietnam War, and the War on Terror. The Korean War was essentially a tie, with the United States-backed South Korea and Soviet-backed North Korea dividing their respective nations at the 39th parallel. But it’s important to understand just why it was a tie rather than a victory for the United States. President Truman fired General MacArthur and did not allow him to pursue more aggressive means of winning the war which included bombing the Chinese. The same President Truman that ordered the atomic bombings of Japan.
The United States held back its power, and it did the same in Vietnam. This was done for a plethora of reasons, mainly to keep up our image at home and abroad. And if nuking communist trying to kill your troops isn’t something most leaders would do, it’s unlikely they’d nuke us. Nukes, if used at all, would be the last result. And the results of such an action would be truly detrimental to the government.
The dictator of Syria, Bashar al Assad, used chemical weapons on his own people and was condemned internationally and now has the most powerful country in the world firing missiles and putting troops into his country. If the United States were to nuke us as Rep. Swalwell said, they would immediately lose international support, and the rebels would pick up lots of support from other countries. Not only that, those on the fence in America about siding with the rebels would be more inclined to join them after watching the government commit such a horrific act. And realistically, even if we did end up getting a Mad King type President in charge who wanted to nuke some rebels, there would likely be more than a few Jaime Lannisters willing to strike him down.
The fighting would likely be contained to traditional warfare, and that’s where we look at the results of the War on Terror. The Middle East had already repelled the Soviet Union, the second most powerful country of the 20th century, and is now taking on the United States. And unfortunately, they have done quite well. It’s been 17 years since 9/11, and al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and ISIS still exist, and while perhaps it could be argued we’ve limited their power and made progress, no one thought it would take this long or go this poorly. They are attempting to outlast us until we give up, and although not certain it seems like they have a chance to win with their inferior weapons and resources.
Looking at history or just the world today we can clearly see the marked effect civilians having or using guns has on governments wishing to impose their power on them, and it is clear Rep. Swalwell and his fellow progressives’ philosophy and agenda on this issue should be rejected, and the second amendment should be preserved.
71 Republic is the Third Voice in media. We pride ourselves on distinctively independent journalism and editorials. Every dollar you give helps us grow our mission of providing reliable coverage. Please consider donating to our Patreon.
The entrepreneurs among us tend to really like Uber. Those that want to revolutionize an aspect of the everyday lives of Americans want to “Uberize” one thing or another. Airbnb became the Uber for hotels. Some have created “Ubers” for anything from dog walking to alcohol delivery (even police, but that’s another future article). All we want to do is make the on-demand version of an aspect of daily life. And it is improving the quality of life in developed countries.
The more “Ubers of things” there are, there more time we can save and allocate towards either leisure or more effective endeavors. But when it comes to politics, Uber did not mark a shift. Sure, there has been political controversy over the legality of Uber in different cities, but that is not altering the political landscape.
But there was an Uber of the political space. There was an organization that truly changed the game and set a new standard for strong political change. That organization was Wikileaks. Julian Assange’s whistleblower outlet was guarded behind layers of code and digital securitizations, ensuring that the political sovereign could not take down the site. Wikileaks was responsible for publishing the Bradley Manning leak – a contemporary iteration of the Pentagon Papers. Its guarantee as a way for whistleblowers to get out their information has proven to be extremely helpful to those who wish to watch the watchers.
So politically, instead of wishing to create an “Uber for X” in the political space, what we should aim to do is create a “Wikileaks for X.” The two organizations parallel one another. They both took the tools of the evolving digital world and applied them to issues that they saw. They shortened the distance between an end and a means to a very high degree. Uber took us from “you will wait around to get a cab and you will get frustrated” to “you will wait for your Uber driver that the community has approved to pick you up.” Wikileaks took us from “the Whistleblower will leak if they think they can avoid the powers” to “the Whistleblower will leak because they can now avoid the powers.” Politics was permanently changed.
So that is the political change we must work to see in the world. Instead of hoping, praying, and cold calling so that Gary Johnson might get 5% of the presidential poll, we need to twist the arm of the political and make them hurt. The fact of the matter is that if real radical change – a transition to a world where status-quo biopolitical control – was possible through conventional political means, it would be illegal. Democracy itself to uphold itself. And under the guise of “equality” and mantras such as “we are the government” it ensures that its rule continues.
The French philosopher Jean Baudrillard tells us:
The liberating practices respond to one of the aspects of the system, to the constant ultimatum we are given to constitute ourselves as pure objects, but they do not respond at all to the other demand, that of constituting ourselves as subjects, of liberating ourselves, expressing ourselves at whatever cost, of voting, producing, deciding, speaking, participating, playing the game-a form of blackmail and ultimatum just as serious as the other, even more serious today.To a system whose argument is oppression and repression, the strategic resistance is the liberating claim of subjecthood. But this strategy is more reflective of the earlier phase of the system, and even if we are still confronted with it, it is no longer the strategic terrain: the current argument of the system is to maximize speech, the maximum production of meaning. (Simulacra and Simulation p.84)
Baudrillard tells us that the political system is designed to absorb the blows of radical change. It will absorb the type of libertarian philosophy wants to throw at it. This leaves the party politics of libertarianism two options – they can go the route of Sharpe and Petersen, staying true to their ideas but falling victim to low polling numbers. This guarantees a loss for the self-declared libertarians (party or not). Or it could leave the core of the philosophy behind, nominating people like Johnson, Weld, and even Romney. Either way, the libertarian ideas lose. Even if the party wins.
Party politics will not work because those who wish to change a system from within will ultimately be co-opted by the system itself. Many think that this is not as much of a problem with the system or electoral politics, but rather a problem of the people. Ludwig von Mises told us that a state cannot exist without public opinion generally supporting it. Libertarians such as Larry Sharpe see this as a reason to go after the “hearts and minds” as a means to gain political support.
This supposes, though, that we can change everyone’s political disposition toward strong libertarianism. The American consciousness has made up its mind. The proverbial American We has made up its mind. It is in favor of the democracy that gradually whittles away at our freedoms. This attitude spawned the recent NPC meme; Americans will go along with whatever the greater consensus is. The NPC’s are essentially Nietzsche’s herd, and many may despair at this thought. But it may instead be a good sign.
It means that we do not need to reach a political “critical mass” as libertarians to take down the state. We only need a few that are able to proliferate in a post-political manner. But more on that later.
The system (both social and political) is capable of absorbing criticism. Direct attacks will not harm the state – rather, they will strengthen it. Baudrillard continues later (technically earlier):
All the powers, all the institutions speak of themselves through denial, in order to attempt, by simulating death, to escape their real death throes. Power can stage its own murder to rediscover a glimmer of existence and legitimacy Such was the case with some American presidents: the Kennedys were murdered because they still had a political dimension. (Simulacra and Simulation p.18)
If libertarians were to do the most explicitly and normatively radical thing, they would get guns and attack the state. They would take up rifles and invade local IRS offices. This would create a catalyst, though, for the state to further its biopolitical control. Unless a critical mass of bodies are thrown at the state apparatus (as Lenin did in 1917) this will prove inneffective and only result in more state control. And if we do look to Lenin’s example, the result of that revolution was not freedom, either.
So how does this tie back into Wikileaks? Neither a radical direct opposition nor a politics of speech and elections will bring forth a libertarian future. But Wikileaks couldn’t be stopped. Even though Julian Assange lives cooped up in the Ecuadorian embassy the site lives on, and just as effectively. Wikileaks still gives whistleblowers a safe haven.
Wikileaks manages to not be a hopeless method of political change as I have described. This is because rather than choosing to look at authority as it commits the act, it commits the act regardless of the authority. The whistleblower chooses to speak the truth in spite of the social authority. They move forward with the act because they can. They do it not in direct opposition of the state – not as an attack per se. Instead, they expose the state, ignoring the authority it has. This attitude of “I will move forward with the act regardless of the state’s existence and what they say about the act.”
This is the Wikileaks attitude that will bring forth political change. Creation of more “Wikileaks of X” is what is going to lay out the blueprints for anarchy that the state cannot take down. Wikileaks is not the only example of this attitude. Two of the other shining examples of anarchism in action are the 3D-printable gun and Bitcoin.
The ghost gun and the liberator are weapons that exist not physically but digitally. Sure, there is the gun itself that can shoot and kill living things, but the more dangerous weapon is the digital file. Because of the nature of information on the internet, these blueprints for 3D-printable weapons will exist for a very very long time. If there is still a need for them, they may outlive anyone reading this article. That is real political change – the politics of guns will never be the same. The idea of “gun control” is now analogous to the idea of “gravity control.” You can regulate and legislate all that you would like, but it will still exist. It is an irreversible fact of political life.
Bitcoin may be even more revolutionary. Although the coin itself is facing a tough time right now, they are far from dead. This is because Bitcoin provides a function that we need desperately – a system of trustable payment outside of the state. Bitcoin meets every standard of a “good money.” The blockchain that Bitcoin is built around guarantees that we can trust any bitcoins we have. Even though the price of bitcoin is slowly declining and will end the year lower than it started (which has happened before, no worries), its ideological value is still strong. To exist, there needs to be demand for it. And as long as there is skepticism over state-produced money and that state’s ability to fund itself period, there will be demand for Bitcoin.
These are the “Wikileaks of X” that are changing the world. I said that I would get back to NPCs, so here I am. The majority of the population will just sit there and live in the world that they choose to live in. Not everyone is going to be a Hoppe or a Rothbard or a Satoshi Nakamoto. Very very few will be. Almost nobody. But we don’t need everyone to be a diehard libertarian radical. Less than 5% of the population carried forth the United States’s incepting revolutionary war.
To end the political world as we know it and create a freer future, we need to build more “Wikileaks for X.” These are going to permanently alter political reality in ways that the status quo deems impossible. But we shall not fear the impossible, because Bastiat told us of that which is unseen.
It is far easier said than done, obviously. It requires a very serious visionary to create the politically impossible, but that doesn’t mean that we should give up. Engaging in what seems hopeless may be the only way to a better future. We as radical libertarians must put our full-fledged support behind these visionaries whenever we find one. In addition, none of us should take up the attitude of “someone else may do it.” We should all become Satoshi Nakamoto’s in our own way because the political transformation does not come forth until each of us takes responsibility.
Get awesome merchandise. Help 71 Republic end the media oligarchy. Donate today to our Patreon, which you can find here. Thank you very much for your support!
The right to revolution is a concept that seems to have its roots at the beginning of time. The first widespread idea of the right to rebel and the overthrow of rulers was started in ancient China. The philosophy was known as the “Mandate of Heaven.” The Mandate can be summed up as: “If a monarch is behaving poorly, then bad things will happen. If bad things happen, then heaven has withdrawn its support and the people may rise up to overthrow the ruler.” This sentiment is mirrored in a more secular way with the idea of the social contract, the idea that we continue to allow ourselves to be ruled as long as the ruler protects our rights. This idea has been promulgated by John Calvin, John Locke and the Founding Fathers of America. The idea of the right to rebellion has been seen all throughout history, but the most successful execution was seen in 1776.
The philosophy of the American Revolution was rooted in the ideals of the age of enlightenment. Thomas Jefferson and other revolutionaries saw the power these ideas had to change not only their country, but the world. Most of the founders were hesitant at the fact of starting their own country and rather sought to reconcile their grievances with the magistrates of Great Britain. It was John Adams, a founder with an ideology leaning towards monarchism, that lead the charge towards a full separation from the island of Great Britain. This idea was deemed radical and the Congress debated the idea for over a year before finally ratifying the Declaration of Independence. Even after ratification, the general populace was against the idea of revolution. Only 25% of the population was active in the fight against Great Britain. The idea of splitting from a government that the majority of people had familial and other ties to was beyond belief. Revolutions can start small but can grow to be an unstoppable juggernaut. The American Revolution was truly started by a small organization known as the Sons of Liberty. This small fraternity was responsible for the Boston Tea party and the opening shots at Lexington and Concord. What the American Revolution exemplifies the best is how successful a small revolution can be. Starting with a small fraternity and ending with an independent nation and a modern day powerhouse.
Another example of revolution is the Easter Rising in 1916 that took place in Ireland. This revolution is different from the American one as it takes place in what is considered the modern day and it is a failed revolution that sparked something bigger than itself. The Easter Rising is rooted in an ancient rivalry between England and Ireland. Dating back to 1169, England tried to exert its dominance over the British Isles, and in particular Ireland. Irish history, as a result of such occupation and colonization, has a history rife with tragedy and turmoil. Irish rebellions stretch back to the first occupation and extend all the way to the 1990s. The true turning point in the same story of a failed rebellion came in 1916.
In the midst of the great war, a small organization of Irish patriots, ranging in ideologies from socialism and monarchists to classical liberals and fascists, planned to rebel against the English crown while it was occupied in the trenches of northern France. The rebellion gathered its strength in secret and trained with what arms it could manage to procure. On Easter Monday, 1916 the small band of revolutionaries struck. They first seized the General Post Office and rose the Irish Tricolor, that continues to be the flag of Ireland to this day. By the end of the week, the rebellion was defeated. All of the signers of the proclamation of the provisional government were executed. The Easter Rising had failed to free Ireland from the British. However, within the next two decades the Irish people would rise up, their eyes opened to the British atrocities. Ireland would become independent in 1937. Throughout the rest of the century beginning in the early 50s and continuing until the late 90s, Irish freedom fighters fought for the freedom of the North and the ability for it to join the Republic of Ireland. The Easter Rising shows how even a failed revolution can lead to an independent nation.
All people that are governed have a right to overthrow their governor if their rights are not protected. In today’s world, we are taxed at a rate unimaginable by the Founding Fathers. We have atrocity after atrocity perpetrated against us. Rebellion does not always have to be with fire and bullets like the Easter Rising and American Revolution, but we cannot continue to allow our rights to be curbed in the name of security and safety. As Thomas Jefferson put it “I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery.” We should all seek such freedom and the ability to decide our own destiny free from intrusion by a government, that may as well be foreign. Revolution can come through the ballot box such as the Civil Rights Movement. Revolution can be peaceful such as Gandhi’s liberation of India. Only if necessary must a revolution be violent. Let us not suffer to be ruled, but to be rulers of our own lives. A revolution is needed to be freed from the bureaucratic quagmire and corrupt governance that plagues this nation.
To support 71 Republic, please donate to our Patreon, which you can find here.
Russia’s geopolitical model is based upon the following main components- Having an impenetrable Tundra, highlands guarding their Southern and South-Eastern border, complete dominance over the Smolensk gate, a lack of a strong geo-strategic player to it’s West, the South-West defended by the Caucasus, and the frozen Arctic blocking any sea access. The end result of this, is Russia being too large to be effectively occupied by an outside power, and making the Eurasian heartland mostly centred in Russia- but there’s a catch.
Russia’s fortress like structure allows it to win the majority of wars it participates in, as well as close to all defensive wars, because of it’s enemy’s core areas being too distant. At first, Russia’s geographic layout may seem perfect, yet it has several drawbacks. Russia has no proper warm sea ports, therefore effectively preventing them from participating in world trade, causing Russia to be forever economically disadvantaged. Because Russia has no warm water ports, sanctions have a diminished effect on Russia. Because of its reduced contact with the global economy, Russia must give up on the Western idea of power through trade, and constantly build up their army. Lastly, this partial isolationism causes them to organize as a very strict hierarchy, with a system in which only strong leaders may preside. These drawbacks restrict Russia’s influence the global political landscape, and Russia must be willing to expand through military force every so often.
It is a myth that the last group to manage to take over of Russia were the Mongols. Historically, Poland seized Moscow in 1610, during the Dimitriads- an era of an interregnum in Russia, when the Tsardom had many potential heirs to the throne. Poland lost control of Russia after about two years due to political feuds within Poland. During the same time, the Swedish empire was just as capable of taking over Russia, and nearly did so too. As we can see, when Russia didn’t fulfill two of the aforementioned geopolitical descriptions- namely having no influence on the West, and no control of Smolensk, it was ready to fall to it’s knees.
Russia fell for a second time 307 years later in the Bolshevik revolution. This time, Russia’s isolation from the West due to its distance failed. This was because Germany was not a perceived threat, much less as a strike from within. As Churchill said, “Lenin was sent into Russia by the Germans in the same way that you might send a phial containing a culture of typhoid or cholera to be poured into the water supply of a great city, and it worked with amazing accuracy.” But things are changing…
Many see global warming as an ecological threat- I am not here to judge them. Is global warming man made? I am not qualified to answer this either. Yet what I am certain of, is that Russia will finally get complete access to the world’s Oceans, if the Arctic melts. This will shake cause a great shift in the geopolitical strategies of nations. Firstly, gaining a huge coastline with possibly key cities for trade with Canada and America for many cheap labour producers in Asia would boost the Russian economy. Secondly, Russia’s North would become arable, allowing farming to be done in more places than just the west. Thirdly, Russia would be susceptible to a large scale invasion from the North. What’s more, it would be able to invade Canada quite easily, causing it to lessen it’s spending on the army, and to increase it on the navy.
As you now see, Russia will be a very good potential ally for any country seeking world dominance. There are three contenders for this position- the USA, China and India. India is unable to help fund Russia’s growth resource-wise because building a highway through the Himalayas/Pakistan would be very challenging. As for China, a land power itself, they are offering Russia the only possible alternative to what global warming would give them- the New Silk road initiative. It would effectively give Russia the benefits of trade, protecting it from attacks from the North, while only limiting it’s potential for invasion of Canada. However, invasion of Canada would only happen for defensive purposes, to counter America’s potential attack on them. The second option, is for America to divide it’s world influence with Russia, possibly along the lines of the former Soviet bloc. This time, Russia would possibly accept the deal struck after the Yalta conference, because it has a better economical model and provides access to the Ocean.
Since even allies must be carefully monitored not to become stronger than their counterparts, both- China and America have schemes to control Russia if either of the party becomes too strong.
Russian policy makers have been trying to decide on which proposal to undertake since the turn of the Putin era. On one side, China’s proposal is safer- yet it would create a rigid, asymmetric economical addiction to China. If China ever gained control of the Oceans, and could trade with Europe whilst bypassing Russia, Russia would suffer. China is already making many African countries their economical fiefs, as well as buying out Ukrainian land, and making Greece a political client of theirs. Greece even votes in China’s favour inside of the EU and NATO.
In case of Russia becoming a global power before China manages to become a maritime hegemony, China has the support of Greece, which would possibly let them block Russian access to the Mediterranean, especially if the lately unstable Turkey was to ever lose Istanbul to them. If this ever happened, America would lose its economic grip on Canada (the USA accounts for 50% of Canada’s imports), whilst China would vastly expand it’s already rapidly growing 17% of imports into Canada, to assure their ability to force Canada to blockade Russia’s new Northern Ocean access. What’s more, China will have enough influence in the world by then to also block the GIUK passage by striking a deal with The British, Danes and Islanders. These three components would again immobilize Russia’s trade, forcing them to comply to any, even territorial changes in favour of China (it’s worthwhile to remember that Northern Manchuria is still occupied by Russia, which isn’t exactly something China likes). However, in return, China has no need of keeping Central and Eastern European countries independent, as long as they get to keep the Russian core area from getting too well connected with the Northern Sea and through it, the Atlantic ocean.
The best chance for China to win over Russia? Stopping America’s ability to prove that it can make Russia rich. How will they do it? By stopping global warming, or at least reducing it drastically. You may not know about this, but the Middle Kingdom is the biggest producer and spender on renewable energy in the world. They are sincerely trying to balance economic growth and global warming regulations. This is being done in an effort to stop Russia from becoming independent, trade-wise. What’s more, China is re-foresting it’s North, planting a “Green Great Wall”. The purpose of the project is to stop the expansion of the Gobi desert (it is, of course a secondary reason to do it, nevertheless), to stop the destruction of Chinese agriculture. This is, to anyone who knows the demographics of China, not something that the Chinese government would care about in itself, at least enough to take such major steps. Ironically, China’s wall of trees is the thinnest in it’s strategically most important regions- the ones bordering the Yellow river estuary, including Beijing, which is full of Han people. Some may say that inner Mongolia is already forested enough, but this would definitely not be true- the region is called “the rusting belt” because of their dying out industries- these people would love to work, and the industry prior had definitely destroyed many forests for the production of goods.
Russia views alliance with America very skeptically. Yet, Russia is historically known for creating alliances to better the motherland. In turn, the USA knows that only a Russia with access to the world’s Oceans would even think of preferring the USA to China. Russia thinks strategically, and knows that spheres of influence are best upheld whilst close to home, so if they had to choose to either divide up America with China, or divide China with America, they’d decide on the latter.
Of course, the USA doesn’t want to let Russia be free to do whatever it likes. Subsequently, the chief strategists in Washington decided to:
1. Destroy potential new silk road routes via destabilizing the Middle-East.
2. Make threats on Tehran, and likely support for any uprising there.
3. Support the Kurdish bid for independence, until realizing that a weaker Turkey would cause a power vacuum in the Caucasus (which Russia would naturally fill in), and potentially make a Chinese controlled Greece stronger.
4. Encourage the creating of the Intermarium- an economic and diplomatic coalition of countries between the Baltic, Black and Mediterranean Seas, with a potentially militaristic edge. This was done to create a possible blockade for the Chinese Silk Road initiative. The best proof for this theory, is that the Intermarium included Ukraine, until Russian separatists rendered it useless for the USA by making it very vulnerable to be cut away from the sea.
It is important to note that there were two main lines of thought before the last presidential election in the USA, in regards to Russia. The first, practiced by Obama and proposed by Hillary Clinton, was what we can call “floppy hostility”, or “the school shooter mentality”. Good examples of this were the cuts in military spending, the drawback from a plan to build an anti-missile system in Poland, yet disagreeing to any proper alliance with Russia. Sequentially, only threats of retaliation were issued after Russian nuisances such as flying over NATO air space- this is why the situation was comparable to a school shooter. Threats are made after many non-lethal attacks from the enemy, after which an out of proportionate blow (the shooting, or in the case of Obama and Hillary a possible war) come. It is very much possible, that because of the Thucydides trap, the Democrat establishment planned to actually go to war with both, China and Russia at the same time, to solve the potential danger via “minimising” damage. How do we know of this? As the Bible says (Mt. 7:15-20), “You will know them by their fruits”- the German government, as well as local governments in major Russian cities asked their citizens to stockpile food and water in November and October 2016. Why? During those months, the American election was around the corner, and Clinton had a 7-8% lead, making her seemingly unstoppable, and with it, world war three.
Like it or not, the President Trump is a very intelligent person- it is impossible to maintain such a good fortune with just sheer luck. Of course, he has his advisors helping him, yet he constantly manages to push his own line of defense against China’s rise- using the method that was used by the USA against the Soviet Union- instead of an open conflict, he wants a geopolitical version of Reagan’s military buildup. This caused the Soviets who wanted to out compete America, to go bankrupt and ultimately collapse.
Using this method, Trump wants to giving all of China’s potential allies better deals. China proposed building a new silk road? Trump gave Central Europe the support for the Intermarium. China proposed being the arbitrator of Israel-Palestine talks? Trump acknowledged Jerusalem as the Israeli capital. China wants a good deal with Duterte? The Trump administration has been trying to schedule Duterte’s visit to the White House since May 2017, and recently had the US Ambassador to Manila said that the US have “strong interest” in pursuing Duterte’s visit to Washington. North Korea is China’s closest ally in East Asia? Trump manages to secure peace talks with Kim Jong Un, and pushes for reunification, just to move the Chinese sphere of influence back to it’s border.
Russia must try to hit the sweet spot in time, right when its and America’s combined strength is still much larger than China’s (and China’s allies). For this reason, America pulled out of the Paris Agreement- to secure that Russia makes its more likely choice, of allying with the US, before China’s tentacles reach too far into Russia’s politics. Is it possible that the federal government planned some wildfires, in order to increase global warming? Who knows. What we do know though, is that interesting times are awaiting us, and ones that are potentially the most influential in history for Russia.
To support 71 Republic, please donate to our Patreon, which you can find here.