Moscow Speech 2007

Military Cooperation between Western Europe and Russia
It is easy to talk about cooperation but what would be concrete measures we should take?
What is the most URGENT danger Europe is facing ??
- The massive pressure against Russia's borders !!!
- The forgotten ethnic war in the east !!!!!

Russia needs help:
- Russia's border is the longest in the world.
- Russia's border is a land border infiltration is easier.
- Border areas are already populated by non-Russians, which is why it is easier for infiltrators to get over and and blend in.
- Larger and larger areas are in danger of becoming base areas for further infiltration. These areas can very soon be DE FACTO beyond the control of the Russian state. The presence of the state in these areas can sooner than we think be only a facade while the actual power is in the hands of ethnic mafia and family/clan net works.

At first the mushrooming infiltrator communities will be considered as "part of the system" since they do not openly declare that they want to break away - until the day comes when there is no system left.

Russia's unique problems: Vast land, difficult terrain, no natural barriers, reliable population only a thin cover - especially in the periphery > guerilla like infiltration is easy.

The most succesful invasions to Europe have always come from the east!!!
Our/Russia's worst problem:
1) Dwindling demographics
2) Biggest population explosion in human history taking place in the muslim world and China.
3) Economical and enviromental pressure forces people to abandon their homes
> Pull and push effect against our borders.

The situation is very much as the same as in the ancient Rome when the borders experienced a prolonged demographic pressure from the periphery.
A psychological problem:
To fight back the infiltrating masses is a war of wills.

Two factors struggle:
1) Our will to ward off the avalanche of the infiltrators and our preparedness to use what ever means necessary to achieve this goal.
2) The desperate determination of the poor masses to find a new home and a better life at any cost.

Bottom line is this:
The poor masses are coming anyway no matter how we turn them away at the border, they will always find a crack in the fence - therefore we must be emotionally and morally prepared to physically deal with the infiltrator communities and the infiltrating population.

Our greatest enemy is our humane benevolence and compassion since they render us defenceless at the face of rapacious desperate masses.

Special problem: Expulsion or even harsher methods of dealing with the infiltrating populations will undoubtedly lead in to reprisals by the governments whose citizens we are facing at our borders. We may assume that the harder the struggle becomes and the harder our measures get the harder the reprisals will get as well. We have to accept that defending our/Russia's border will undoubtedly make us very unpopular.
Western Europe's advantage
Densely populated > immigrants cannot hide behind great distances and difficult terrain.
Densely populated > overcrowding becomes acute more quickly.
The decline of Europe's indigenious population is not quite as steep as Russia's - yet.
Europe's sea borders are easier to defend - once there is the will to do so.

What does Russia need then in her struggle, what can Europe give her?
Men?
Steel?
Fortifications?
Will?

As I already pointed out our and Russia's greatest problem is the declining demographics.

European population was expanding ever since the black death. Since late 14.th century European population grew the same rate as the masses in the developing world today. European surplus population colonized the large parts of the planet and provided the labour for the industrial revolution.

But above all else the ever growing population was the raw material that was needed for the endless wars in Europe. Without population growth the large scale wars would have been impossible.

Just imagine how quickly after the WWI Europe was demographically ready for the WWII and how quickly the massive population losses of the WWII disappeared as the birth rate sored right after the war.

But now everything has changed - we are in decline and those over whom Europe used to rule are expanding.

The biggest problem at the moment is not yet that we don't have enough young men - we could still raise huge armies if we wanted to. The biggest problem is emotional: If we don't have big enough surplus of restless young men ready for adventurtes and to risk their lives we are in danger of turning emotionally in to societies of old women. Emotionally our societies are in danger of losing the inner pressure that is needed for outward expansion or just to keep borders where they are now. Our enemies on the other hand have plenty of these reckless lads who are right now looking for new territory to conquer, battles to win and women to impress.

The great question is - can we over come the disadvantage of declining demographics through our superior military technology and organizational skills.

The answer in my opinion is YES - provided that we make a use of this one advantage as soon as possible because one day even that won't be enough.

We must break the vicious cycle of declining demographics but demographic changes come very slowly at first and we can't wait for decades so we must attack as long as we still have strength to do it.

In my opinion due to the dire demographic crisis in Russia Europe must provide Russia with troops to help her defend her and our borders.

Does Russia need steel then?

The answer is no. Russia has a vast and highly developed arms industry that can easily provide Russia with all the necessary weapons. The war against the infiltrators will be also be a low tech war rather than a high tech war. To crush the infiltrator masses and their base areas within Russia requires more will and brutality than sophisticated technology.

Does Russia need fortifications. The answer is no. The war against the infiltrators will be a highly mobile war, a war where we must be the aggressor, constantly on the offensive. If we start hiding behind fortifications we admit that we can't control the situation, by showing fear we would then be admitting defeat.

In my opinion what Russia needs the most right now is will. Will to defend her borders at any cost by any means. Pan-European forces standing side by side with their Russian brothers would undoubtedly boost the morale in Russia to do what must be done so that Europe can live.

Protecting the actual border is not enough though. Active defence means that the first measures take place already beyond the border. Euro-Russia has vital interests to protect in Central Asia and Caucasus - oil and gas reserves.

USA has understood this as well which is why it tries desperately to spread its influence in this region.

Is USA then a credible competitor to Euro-Russia. The answer is NO. The pitiful forces USA manages to send to this area will not be able to control it if the US led system is challenged.

USA is plagued by its geographical position, how can it maintain a believable military force in this area from the other side of the world. For us both Caucasus and Central-Asia are right next door, logistically it would be easy to maintain considerable military forces in this region but for USA it could turn into a night mare.

Controlling Caucasus and Central Asia poses a psychological problem for USA as well. Since USA has only military and economic interests to protect in this region it could be very difficult for the American public to accept casualties in case protecting these interests leads into a conflict with local insurgent groups.

For us the case is very much different since Euro-Russia has much larger issues at stake in Caucasus and Central Asia - we will be defending the very excistence of our civilization. - Never mind the oil, Europe's first line of defence is in Samarkand.

Meddling in the complex affairs of Caucasus region and Central Asia could very well turn into one of those cases where Americans burn their fingers as they over extend their military strength and due to bad planning start to act like a bull in a china shop.

So when the going gets tough the Americans usually get going - but we don't have that option. And there lies our strengh, our strategic advantage.

A word of caution:

Central-Asia will most likely turn into a hotbed of violent conflicts in the future and the reason for this negative development is once again over population. The massive growth of the Central-Asian population and the resulting enviromental crisis will create tremendous social pressures, which propably will lead into civil wars, religous fundamentalism and chaos. Due to oil and gas resources the economies of the Central-Asian have undoubtedly grown - unfortunately the population growth strips the results of the economic growth and leaves many people actually poorer than they originally were.

Secondly as the economic situation becomes more dire the legitimacy of the local governments will be challenged. Unfortunately for us most of the current governments in the region that are willing to cooperate with Russia (Euro/Russia some day) are thoroughly corrupted and undemocratic which means that it will be fairly easy for muslim fundamentalists to challenge them as the social pressures mount.

Since Europe's first line of defence is in Samarkand and due to the oil and gas resources it is absolutely vital that we manage to maintain a system of loyal political allies in this region. However we may be walking into a trap, which will be like Afganistan, only ten times bigger this time. We may start off by supporting in an increasing scale friendly governments plagued by civil war and terrorism but end up being stuck into an impossible complex situation. The situation in Central-Asia may one day tie us into a gridlock and to open it we may have to consider a massive invasion.
This is a problem we must deal with since we cannot accept that "Afganistan" would one day reach the northern border of Kazakstan because that would threaten Euro/Russian life line to Eastern Siberia.


Frontpage