By: Andrés Barrera González, – PhD in Political Science and Sociology, Profesor Titular at the University Complutense of Madrid.
Edited by: Joaquin Flores
The Rise and Transformation of American Militarism and Imperialism after World War Two
Part I: Europe After World War Two
hroughout the 19th century world affairs were dominated by Europe’s great colonial and imperial powers: Britain, France, Austria-Hungary, Germany, Russia, and the Ottomans on the south-eastern fringes of the continent. Rivalry and competition for the world’s resources between the European ‘great powers’ and colonial metropolises reached a peak at the end of the century. And this was the background setting that brought Europe to war and catastrophe during 1914-18. It was the first act in the dramatic demise of Europe’s world hegemony. The second and final act of the fall of Europe as the axis of global power took place during the 1939-45 war, which again had the continent as its main theatre of operations. World War Two caused unprecedented material destruction, and it took an appalling toll in human life. It also led to the first nuclear holocaust, triggered by the arbitrary decision of the government of the United States to test-drop recently built atomic bombs on the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945 [i].
As a consequence of the war, most of Europe (including the Soviet Union) was left thoroughly devastated and worn out; which set the ground for the uncontested hegemony of the United States, given that its territory and economy remained untouched by the disasters of the war. Thus Western Europe became fully dependent, and increasingly subordinated to the United States in all fundamental dimensions: economic, political, and military. A turn of events that was reinforced with the establishment of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization in 1949; namely to counter the perceived-stated threat coming from a former war ally, the Soviet Union, unwilling to yield to the emerging world power configuration headed by the United States. The USA, its Western European ‘allies’ stalking along, thus raised the stakes in its confrontation with the Soviet Union, declaring the inauguration of the Cold War.
The Effectiveness of Soviet Interwar Foreign Policy
oviet foreign policy before the Cold War has contradictorily been described as either being pragmatic and realistic or ineffective and idealistic. The true nature of interwar Soviet foreign policy lies somewhere in between both extreme designations. Although the Soviet Union did bungle some foreign policy priorities as a result of ideology, in others it was more pragmatic and realistic. As with any state’s foreign policy, it sought to advance national interests in a complex international environment. Given the preponderant influence of ideology in the Soviet Union at the time, as well as the unstable international environment in which policy was created, the case can be made that Soviet foreign policy was as successful as it could be within the limits placed upon it. Continue reading →
he recent flurry of writing on Russian politics, nationalism and Alexander Dugin shows the contemptible inability of western savants to apprehend any idea beyond the cliche’s of stagnant neo-liberalism. Worse, “Russia specialists” in academia are now tripping over themselves trying to “analyze” Dugin and the Eurasianist idea. Bereft of the vocabulary to understand the concept, they merely apply fashionable labels from western political thought onto Russia in a pathetic and pretentious attempt to show how “dangerous” such ideas are to “European values.” Continue reading →
Interview of Joaquin Flores, CSS, by Maurice Herman (Morris108)
(video below – 15 minutes)
In this interview, Mr. Flores explains why Vladimir Putin was the most appropriate individual to perform the functions required by the Russian state, through the KGB. He delves into psychological profiling, the pertinent biographical background on Putin which helps to substantiate this, and several of the tasks he was assigned. The following is an adapted transcript. Continue reading →
(Teša Tešanović is a journalist, philosopher, and an organizer of the Serbian Radical Party)
We are joined today by Joaquin Flores from the Belgrade based think-tank, the Center for Syncretic Studies. He is the director of the center, which while is clearly ideologically charged in some way, claims to be neither left, center, or right.
They are producing a combination of orthodox and heterodox material. Today we want to learn a little more about the Center itself and also how they are approaching some of the general economic and geostrategic questions of the day, and also about the Kosovo question in Serbia.