Tuesday, February 25, 2014

Eurasian Union

I’m sorry … what? Eurasian Union? Don’t you mean European Union? Such a question is what I would expect from most people today since it would appear that not many people are even aware that such a thing exists. Kazakhstan President Nursultan Nazarbayev at a 1994 [1] speech at Moscow University first proposed the idea, which is based on European Union integration. In 2011, the presidents of Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Russia signed an accord setting a target of establishing a Eurasian Union by 2015. The agreement included a roadmap for the future integration and establishment of the Eurasian Commission, and Eurasian Economic Space, which began its work in 2012. If realized, the Eurasian Union would comprise a number of states once part of the former Soviet Union: Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan.

Ukraine submitted an application to participate in the Eurasian Union as an observer only, in August 2013. Georgia, while still eying the European Union, said that it will consider the Eurasian Union if Russia will first agree not to drive tanks over the top of Georgian children. But, it would appear that much work has already been done: partial economic integration already exists between Russia, Belarus, and Kazakhstan through a “Customs Union.” Additionally, a number of regional organizations already exist, such as the Union State of Russia and Belarus, the Eurasian Economic Community of Russia, Belarus, and Kazakhstan, the Collective Security Treaty Organization, consisting of Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, and Tajikistan, and the Commonwealth of Independent States which involves most of the countries that were part of the Soviet Union.

The United States appears to oppose the formulation of the Eurasian Union based on the idea that Putin’s scheme is merely an attempt to re-establish a Russian-dominated USSR type union among the former Soviet republics.

Not everyone has this alarmist mentality, however. Some observers claim that the Eurasian Union is no more than a counter-weight to the European Union. Other observers, such as Jonah Goldberg, claim that the Eurasian Union is a counterweight to civility in much the same way the League of Doom is a counterweight to the League of Justice.

According to Timothy Snyder [2], it is fascism, pure and simple.  Snyder has sounded an alarm bell for future generations:

    “The Eurasian Union is the enemy of the European Union, not just in strategy but in ideology. The European Union is based on a historical lesson: that the wars of the twentieth century were based on false and dangerous ideas, National Socialism and Stalinism, which must be rejected and indeed overcome in a system guaranteeing free markets, free movement of people, and the welfare state. Its advocates, by contrast, present Eurasianism, as the opposite of liberal democracy.

    “The Eurasian ideology draws an entirely different lesson from the twentieth century. Founded around 2001 by the Russian political scientist Aleksandr Dugin, it proposes the realization of National Bolshevism. Rather than rejecting totalitarian ideologies, Eurasianism calls upon politicians of the twenty-first century to draw what is useful from both fascism and Stalinism. Dugin’s major work, The Foundations of Geopolitics, published in 1997, follows closely the ideas of Carl Schmitt, the leading Nazi political theorist. Eurasianism is not only the ideological source of the Eurasian Union, it is also the creed of a number of people in the Putin administration, and the moving force of a rather active far-right Russian youth movement. For years Dugin has openly supported the division and colonization of Ukraine.

    “The point man for Eurasian and Ukrainian policy in the Kremlin is Sergei Glazyev, an economist who like Dugin tends to combine radical nationalism with nostalgia for Bolshevism. He was a member of the Communist Party and a Communist deputy in the Russian parliament before cofounding a far-right party called Rodina, or Motherland. In 2005 some of its deputies signed a petition to the Russian prosecutor general asking that all Jewish organizations be banned from Russia.”

So here we go again; the cycle continues. Some on the right are warning that this evolution to yet another Soviet bloc fits the leftist narrative to a tee; they have never seen a form of socialism that they didn’t like—even if it can also be described as bolshevism. Neither is there much difference between National Socialism and Bolshevism; one of the greatest myths of the 20th Century was that fascism and socialism are opposites. It simply isn’t true. And, while some on the left will argue that use of the word “socialist” is only a device to attract trade union support, that most on the left do not embrace totalitarian regimes, it is in my view just another subterfuge. The fact is that all collectivist regimes are rooted in the same nonsense declared by the German idealists of the 18th and 19th Centuries. Differences are entirely superficial.

My gut reaction to this is Que Sera. Russia (and friends) must ultimately do what they believe is in their best interests. I’m not sure how scaring the bejesus out of everyone will further their economic model, but Eurasian Union nations are free to do as they wish. It does remind one, however, that there are consequences to elections —not only here in America, but also in places far, far away.

For the record, I do not think there is much any US president could do to arrest this development, but I think it would be nice to have people inside the beltway who understood the notion of long-term consequences. For example, while George Bush went around flexing his muscle in the Middle East, Vladimir Putin was making regular stops throughout the Middle East arranging alliances, including with Syria and Iran. So one must wonder if Bush’s inane policies helped propel Kazakhstan (70% Muslim), Tajikistan (98% Muslim), and Kyrgyzstan (80% Muslim) into Putin’s camp.


[1] Proving that Bill Clinton was asleep even before the mesmerizing Monic Lewinsky.

[2] Fascism, Russia, and Ukraine, Timothy Snyder 20 March 2014. Timothy D. Snyder is a professor of history at Yale University, holds the Philippe Roman Chair of International History at the London School of Economics and Political Science and specializes in Central and Eastern European history


Impertinent said...

I tend to agree. What's the fuss? If Putin wants to surround himself with all the Muslim "stans" while fighting them in already in Chechnya...let him have at it.

They'll turn on him and drain Russia dry in the process. It's a suicide pact if you ask me. Unless he thinks there's resources that make it worthwhile.

Duckys here said...

For example, while George Bush went around flexing his muscle in the Middle East, Vladimir Putin was making regular stops throughout the Middle East arranging alliances, including with Syria and Iran ...
We haven't?

Saudi Arabia, Israel, Bahrain, the Egyptian military ... a fine group of rogues.

Impertinent said...


Are we still judged by the company we keep? Or those we allow to extort from us?

Waylon said...

There's much more that needs to be seen and understood about these developments across much of the world,including much that's happening in the Middle East and much closer to the borders of Russia than North America. It's becoming more apparent to even the most casual observer that something sinister and huge is afoot.

It's difficult to even know who to believe. But this much should be apparent: The North American media can't be trusted and are so partisan in their views that discovering the truth through this sham is virtually impossible.

The world seems to be setting itself up into distinct blocks. And if it's true that the Russia/Eurasian axis is heading for a nationalist/Bolshevik political tyranny, it's likely a similar end that's being aimed for by the so-called Western block that includes Europe and North America. With the evident current political regimes in most Western "democracies" pushing the envelope for more interventionist centralized government. is there really much difference between either potential warring block?

Then to settle the conflicts, the "final solution": World Government imposed democratically, of course, by the trusty old standby, the darling of the American power elites: The United Nations.

Mustang said...

@ Waylon

I think you are on the mark, but I have a hard time imagining that Russia or China will roll over for the dictates of the UN. Both regard the UN as useful idiots, and they’re right about that. Are we on the road again to another global conflict? Probably.

@ Imp

Even with a strong diplomacy inside the beltway, Russia will do as Russia wants. The Middle Eastern wars have sent us to the poor house. I doubt if we could defend Miami, much less Ukraine or Georgia. I think you’re right about allies of convenience, but at my age, I’m almost at the point of not caring. Whatever happens won’t happen on my watch. And if Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama is the best this country can produce, then we probably deserve whatever happens.

Waylon said...

Mustang, China and Russia likely both recognize that the U.N. is a farce anyway. It's only a tool to assist in imposing and expanding state power over what remains of the "free world", ultimately, assisting bringing forth a "united nations of world government tyranny".

Funny how in the Ukraine events unfold quickly. The president abandons power and supposedly goes into hiding and now appears to be a fugitive from "justice", the old imprisoned leader doesn't cut it now with those destabilizing the country and suddenly $35 billion is needed to get the country back on its feet. Of course, the "loan" comes from the IMF or World Bank.

It's becoming clearer what this charade was all about: bringing that country to its knees and enslaving what remains of a productive people into the fold of debt slavery to taxation of a world body.

Duckys here said...

@Waylon ---
The world seems to be setting itself up into distinct blocks.
They used to be called empires.

Nothing new here.

Impertinent said...


I know first hand that we already lost Miami. So it's too late to defend now.

Waylon said...

They used to be called empires.


Yes, Ducky they were empires back in the day.

Much different now. Bigger plans than just "building an empire", I'm afraid.

You all for centralized global bureaucracy?

Duckys here said...

What we have NOW Waylon is a world wide corporatism.

We are all up for The Full Ayn Rand.

But look over there! Blue helmets come to disarm the gun loons!

Sam Huntington said...

This is the unintended consequence when our educational institutions, from secondary through our colleges and universities, lower their standards. Maybe “affirmative action” wasn’t such a great idea. We have ended up with people in Congress, in the State Department, in the White House, who have no business in positions of power and leadership. They are a dismal people, elected by dismal people. Thus, we should not be surprised when we find ourselves in another global conflict.

Impertinent said...


It was all intended....Alinsky's rules for radicals.

Robert Sinclair said...

In the world of the big boys, you can’t blame Russia for doing what is in Russia’s best interest. Time will tell whether the Eurasian Union is actually in Russia’s long-term interest. I actually believe that Russia is behaving now, as Russia has always behaved. Neither can we fault Russia for taking advantage of a weak USA. Putin didn’t elect Obama, we did. I would be willing to bet that less than 10% of our entire nation even knows about this, or even cares.

Anonymous said...

From Z of GeeeZ:

Robt...you're generous with your 10% number, aren't you.
I will say, however, I think Putin's behaving as Russia's always behaved but, until Obama came in, they weren't quite so obvious about it. Now, who's afraid of US?

SAM: except I don't believe for a minute they're 'unintended' consequences. Alinsky was a planner; ask Hillary.

Mustang; when it comes to the UN's behavior of the United States, I don't believe China or Russia regard the UN as 'idiots,' only very "useful'.

Ed Bonderenka said...

Mustang asked/answered:
"Are we on the road again to another global conflict? Probably."
Let's see, we're reducing the military to pre-war levels.
I wonder what followed those pre-war levels?

Mustang said...

It is customary in democratic countries to deplore expenditure on armaments as conflicting with the requirements of the social services. There is a tendency to forget that the most important social service that a government can do for its people is to keep them alive and free. —Sir John Cotesworth Slessor

I am not convinced that Barack Obama is more concerned about social services as he is about the destruction of the United States of America. One may recall those “fundamental changes” he spoke so eloquently about—or perhaps, read from a teleprompter. Clearly, America’s inability (or its unwillingness) to guide the world toward peaceful pursuits does not, cannot bode well for humankind’s immediate future. As it has been said here so often, this is not the fault of the man whose name is Barack Obama; it is the fault of those who elected him.

Waylon said...

@Z: Now, who's afraid of US?

Now, who's afraid of US? OTTAWA — Hot on the heels of President Barack Obama’s re-election victory, Justin Trudeau’s Liberal leadership team is looking to U.S. Democrats for advice on how to win.

Mitch Stewart, who was the battleground-states director for the Obama campaign, has been sought out to speak to Trudeau’s strategists on Thursday, according to officials with the Trudeau campaign.

Trudeau’s leadership bid is being organized around much of the same strategic goals that drove Obama’s victories in 2008 and this year — rallying support from young people and other progressive-leaning voters who haven’t traditionally cast ballots in elections.


Now that Justin Trudeau has been selected to be head of the Liberal Party of Canada, and he's looking for advice from the brain trust of the Obama election scammers, I'm thinking that maybe there could be some people somewhere that should be afraid, very afraid, of the current version of the United States of America. The country only has just recently gotten out of the deep ditch that his daddy, Pierre Eliot Trudeau, drove the country into. PET was a died in the wool communist and his boys were taught to look to Fidel Castro as "Grandpa".

Anonymous said...

From Z:

Mustang, I SO often get that feeling that we can just tick off REALLY problematic situations Obama's putting us in.
We talk about them here but we should really enumerate them in a list;

-screwing importantallies
-ruining businesses with restrictions/no rules
-Common Core in our schools (even lib teachers are starting to complain)
-insulting people like Putin right before the Olympics
-"you make too much money!"
-"you can keep your doctor"
-the IRS (and please, don't ANYBODY tell me that didn't start high up at the top)
-NSA spying/James ROsens' PARENTS being spied on, even!
-No truth for Benghazi
-buying him hundreds of thousands of guns and ammo...WHY?
-Screwing up our Fast and Furious methodology that was working until Holder didn't understand it and got Brian Terry killed for it
-stirring up racism with the Harvard prof misunderstanding on Obama's part and injecting himself into the Zimmerman fiasco
- etc etc etc

We could all go ON and on...

Kid said...

From watching Russin dash cam videos(utube) (All vehicles in Russia must have a dash cam to get insurance) it is pretty apparent that life there is pretty absurd. Of the several Russian Driving videos I've watched it is apparent that more than a few Russians expose themselves to fast moving traffic for the purpose of ending 'it'.
Also check out the Russian Mail Order Brides and compare that to American Mail Order brides one can find on Russian websites.

The problem is that people who come from such holes of human despair, vote to recreate said despair once they are here in the USA. I've met them from all sorts of places, from Russia, to Indonesia to Guatemala. They vote socialist.

It isn't lost on anyone who observes that America is fat and lazy and Weak as a result, while people who are suffering in other countries are awake, focused, and much brighter than for sure, the youngest few generations in America. They can speak English better than most Americans under 35.

Mix that in a pot and I'd say you have a volatile mixture. Use your own imagination to come to a conclusion, but in my assessment, it doesn't paint a picture of healthy, strong patriotic Americans creating the Shining City on the Hill. You can forget that *. We're Greece, we just haven't defaulted yet.

Won't the parasite nations be in for a big surprise to find an empty husk where they thought was a treasure chest to rob. There is some comfort in that oddly enough.

For those who can stand Extreme Profanity and puppet sex, the movie Team America: World Police paints a fairly sane view of the reality out in the nether regions of our lovely rock. Heh.

Lisa! Where are you Lisa! ha..

Duckys here said...

You tout a piece of sophomoric crap like Team America and call people under 35 dumb?

Or maybe you're younger than I thought.

Kid said...

Showing your lack of sophistication again. And yes, I'm younger than you thought.