SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit
2,403
edits
Changes
Debate:The Groyper Wars (view source)
Revision as of 18:35, January 6, 2022
, 18:35, January 6, 2022no edit summary
::::::::::The Eurasian Heartland strategy was originally conceived as a geopolitical strategy for the British Empire, but has been employed by the US since the end of World War II. The strategy's central premise is that the "Eurasian Heartland," which roughly corresponds to Eastern Europe and the Middle East, is the "pivot region" which determines which countries rule the global arena. If the region ever were to fall under the hegemony of a single power, then so would the rest of the world. This theory is a central theme of Zbigniew Brzezinski's 1997 book "The Grand Chessboard." In that book, he states that the top priority of American foreign policy is to maintain its status as the sole global superpower, which requires a policy of doing whatever is necessary to prevent the emergence of a hegemon within the Heartland, or as he calls it, the "Eurasian ''Balkans''." He identifies seven countries as being capable of producing "geopolitical thrusts" which would disrupt to such a policy: China, India, Iran, Pakistan, Russia, and Turkey. In addition, he lists Ukraine as a potential seventh disruptive force. Do you notice a pattern here?--[[User:Geopolitician|Geopolitician]] ([[User talk:Geopolitician|talk]]) 18:38, January 5, 2022 (EST)
::::::::::The Eurasian Heartland strategy was originally conceived as a geopolitical strategy for the British Empire, but has been employed by the US since the end of World War II. The strategy's central premise is that the "Eurasian Heartland," which roughly corresponds to Eastern Europe and the Middle East, is the "pivot region" which determines which countries rule the global arena. If the region ever were to fall under the hegemony of a single power, then so would the rest of the world. This theory is a central theme of Zbigniew Brzezinski's 1997 book "The Grand Chessboard." In that book, he states that the top priority of American foreign policy is to maintain its status as the sole global superpower, which requires a policy of doing whatever is necessary to prevent the emergence of a hegemon within the Heartland, or as he calls it, the "Eurasian ''Balkans''." He identifies seven countries as being capable of producing "geopolitical thrusts" which would disrupt to such a policy: China, India, Iran, Pakistan, Russia, and Turkey. In addition, he lists Ukraine as a potential seventh disruptive force. Do you notice a pattern here?--[[User:Geopolitician|Geopolitician]] ([[User talk:Geopolitician|talk]]) 18:38, January 5, 2022 (EST)
:::::::::::I assume the pattern is they all have nuclear weapons. Israel also has nuclear weapons and is easily capable of a disruptive geopolitical thrust. They're right in the centre of that region (the heart of the Heartland). But I don't think the U.S. needs to maintain hegemony over any part of the world besides the U.S. ---[[User:BernieandTrumpFan|BernieandTrumpFan]] ([[User talk:BernieandTrumpFan|talk]]) 20:44, January 5, 2022 (EST)
:::::::::::I assume the pattern is they all have nuclear weapons. Israel also has nuclear weapons and is easily capable of a disruptive geopolitical thrust. They're right in the centre of that region (the heart of the Heartland). But I don't think the U.S. needs to maintain hegemony over any part of the world besides the U.S. ---[[User:BernieandTrumpFan|BernieandTrumpFan]] ([[User talk:BernieandTrumpFan|talk]]) 20:44, January 5, 2022 (EST)
::::::::::::First off, I need to correct a mistake I made in my last post. When I said "Eastern Europe and the Middle East," I actually meant "Eastern Europe and Central Asia." [https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9c/Heartland.png/500px-Heartland.png Here] is a map of the Heartland (or the "Pivot Area") as defined by the term's inventor, Halford Mackinder, for reference. And [http://orientalreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/EB_map.jpg here] is a map of the Heartland (or the "Eurasian Balkans") from Brzezinski's book, for further reference. Both of those maps have the center of the Heartland being somewhere in the western part Central Asia, either in Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, or Uzbekistan.
::::::::::::Anyway, the common denominator between the "geopolitical thrust" countries is that all three of the American foreign policy establishment's major enemies -- China, Iran, and Russia -- are among them (again, I agree that China is an enemy, but not Iran and Russia). This is consistent with a claim Brzezinski makes in his book that a Sino-Iranian-Russo alliance is the most "dangerous" possible alliance combination among the "geopolitical thrust" countries. In his words:
:::::::::::::''"Potentially, the most dangerous scenario would be a grand coalition of China, Russia, and perhaps Iran, an “antihegemonic” coalition united not by ideology but by complementary grievances. It would be reminiscent in scale and scope of the challenge once posed by the Sino-Soviet bloc, though this time China would likely be the leader and Russia the follower."''
::::::::::::Additionally, Brzezinski states that the only alliance combinations anywhere in the world that would be even more "dangerous" for the US would be a Russo-EU alliance and a Sino-Japanese alliance. Now, wait a minute. Wouldn't preventing those alliances serve as a justification for our ongoing meddling in Europe and East Asia? Hmmm...--[[User:Geopolitician|Geopolitician]] ([[User talk:Geopolitician|talk]]) 13:35, January 6, 2022 (EST)