I'm inclined to extend this analogy a little further when it comes to the US versus the Russians in strategic terms: it's more like chess players versus checkers players. But still, this graf is pretty priceless:
Chess players think in terms of interaction of pieces: everything on the periphery combines to control the center of the board and prepare an eventual attack against the opponent's king. The Russians simply cannot absorb the fact that America has no strategic intentions: it simply adds up the value of the individual pieces on the board. It is as stupid as that. But there is another difference: the Americans are playing chess for career and perceived advantage. Russia is playing for its life . . .
I'm not a huge fan of Spengler, but still, that last sentence really does sum it all up: for the Russians it is life and death. For us, it's just our 'checkers' and hey, 'king me version' of empire building. There really are no vital interests at stake.
And let me add, that Spengler's thesis that Russia's pending demographic collapse is behind Russian revanchism is very plausible. The decline in Russia is palpable. It is extreme. Men who are 59 die on a regular basis, women live a few years longer. The birth rate is negative. Women who have four or five abortions are routine, after all, the burden of caring for a child in modern Russia is intense. The life is, well, it ain't so grand, oil wealth notwithstanding. My former sister-in-law was given several thousand dollars for her two children. To you and I a couple of grand might not be much, but in Russia it's enough to buy a small flat. Reminds me of Augustus Caesar urging young Roman men and women to have children, lots and lots of children.
So, why not set up a chess game that adds 22 plus million Russians to your country at some point? Make sense to me.
Moreover, I can't argue with this logic:
The place to avert tragedy is in Ukraine. Russia will not permit Ukraine to drift to the West. Whether a country that never had an independent national existence prior to the collapse of communism should become the poster-child for national self-determination is a different question. The West has two choices: draw a line in the sand around Ukraine, or trade it to the Russians for something more important.
And that would be Iran, proliferation itself and possible craziness coming out of Pakistan.
One thing I would love for Spengler to elaborate on more is how the conflict in Georgia has hurt Israeli interests. I don't necessarily disagree, I just want to know how he comes to that conclusion. I have my ideas but I'd prefer to hear his first.
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 22
S-P, what happened? Who bought her children and why? Good Lord...
Am I right about that Sean-Paul?
:O)
It’s contingent upon the decision makers to recognize reality and truth through the pretense of any perceived or significant so-called change for the better.
There is no magic wand or pill to make things better. Change for the better will only come when we the people of the world put aside our differences in exchange for the positive things and needs we all have in common. With truth there comes trust and a new beginning would be at our doorstep with unlimited possibilities.
I hope you are right about that! Whew...that would be a relief. I thought he was trying to say she was desperately poor and...well, you know.
That whole area is full of people who hate each other - sometime one village to the next. I admire any of you all, including most the author, trying to tell us about this.
I have no clue and am pretty sure our state dept does not either.
I also did not get the impression children were being sold - language is funny, is it not?
Now I am wishing I'd read that twice before posting!
I don't disagree with your assessment that China has designs on Russia's sparsely populated Eastern provinces. All the more reason to have a strong Russia that can fight on our side, no? Why piss them off? Just give them a little, as giving them a little help us more in the long-term, wouldn't you agree?
To take this a bit further, let's review history a little: why did America fight two world wars in the twentieth century? It had nothing to to with being the Arsenal of Democracy or to fight the War to End all wars. That was rhetoric. We fought two wars to forestall one thing from happening: That no single power dominate the Eurasian landmass. If one could, the they could marshall all the resources of it and attack us here and defeat us, our oceans notwithstanding. It's the same principle that applied to England's balance of power politics in Europe for 200 years: that no one power control all of Europe, because if one did it could take England out. So, the key issue for American policy makers is to remember this cardinal rule: nations don't have permanent friends, they have permanent interests. Would you not agree?
So, applying this would predicate that having a strong Russia is in our LONG TERM national interests. Not an overpowerful Russia, by no means at all. Russia must be shown there are limits. But, at the same time, a crushed and further balkanized Russian federation is NOT in our interests. Not at all.
That being said, I have a couple questions for you regarding the thesis word a.) have you been to Russia? B.) have you studied Russia and/or Russian? C.) Are you aware of the massive demographic issues Russia faces? Because if you were (and you might well be, I am not assuming anything) I believe you might find his thesis at the very least 'plausible.' And that, in the end is all I said. I didn't say I bought the thesis, or believed it, or was drinking the kool-aid on it, simply that it has some merit. Lastly, I would note that it is not my description of chess I am highlighting in my post. It is a quote, which is clearly set off in blocks, and linked back to the original source.
As for the squares I have going into round holes, perhaps you could enlighten me as to what those are? I am interested to know what you think.
"nations don't have permanent friends, they have permanent interests"
Gather Broadcasting: Have it your way
This takes you in the back door. If you’ve already been, don’t click again.
New York times want's Russia to seem complex and desperate for abandoing communism, it makes the New York Times communist ideals seem more interesting and sound.