Citat:
Ursprungligen postat av
Harald.Guldhatt
Alla europeiska länder borde lämna NATO och skapa en ny allians utan USA.[/QUOTE
Frågan är väl då hur avskräckande det skulle bli helt på egen hand.
Att ha USA i ryggen gör en enorm skillnad.
Jag citerar rysk ideologi av A. Dugin för att visa deras syn på geopolitik.
Ryssland vill vara en stormakt utan att behöva lyda varken Kina eller USA.
Det är en del av deras strategi med Ukrainakriget, att hävda sig militärt och få en fördelad maktstruktur som de kallar multipolär värld. Nu när Trump kanske på allvar
slutar backa upp Europa så ser vi i punkterna att Ryssland inte respekterar länder eller unioner som inte klarar av att försvara sig. Precis som vi såg med Ukraina, eller ett EU utan USA.s militära styrka i ryggen.
"Eurasianism" är ett annan viktigt begrepp, Ryssland vill bli ett imperium där Europa ingår i bästa fall. Man måste lära känna sin fiende om man ska kunna besegra honom.
Citat:
1. The multipolar world is a radical alternative to the unipolar world
(existing in fact today), in that it insists on the presence of several
independent and sovereign centers of global, strategic decision-making
on a planetary level;
2. These centers should be sufficiently equipped and independent materially
to have the possibility to defend their sovereignty on a material level in
the face of the invasion of a probable enemy, as a model of which we can
take the most powerful force in the world today. This demand amounts to
the possibility to oppose the material, military, strategic hegemony of the
US and NATO;
3. These centers of decision-making are not obligated to recognize as a sine
qua non Western norms and values (democracy, liberalism, the free
market, parliamentarism, human rights, individualism, cosmopolitanism,
etc.) and can be entirely independent of the spiritual hegemony of the
West;
4. The multipolar world does not propose a return to a bipolar system, since
today there exists neither strategically nor ideologically a force capable
of opposing alone the material and spiritual hegemony of the
contemporary West and its leader, the US. There must be more than two
poles in a multipolar world.
5. The multipolar world does not consider serious the sovereignty of
existing nation-states, so long as it is declared on a purely legal level and
is not confirmed by the presence of sufficient military, strategic,
economic, and political potential. To be a sovereign subject in the 21st
century, the nation-state is no longer enough. Under these circumstances,
only an aggregate or coalition of states can have real sovereignty. The
Westphalian system, continuing to exist de jure, no longer reflects the
real system of international relations and should be reconsidered.
6. Multipolarity is irreducible to non-polarity and to multilateralism, since
it does not locate the center of decision-making (pole) in the authority of
a world government, nor in the club of the US and its democratic allies
(“the global West”), nor in the supranational level of networks, NGOs,
and other civil society actors. A pole must be located somewhere else.
The Theory Of A Multipolar World, Alexander Dugin
