Chaitanya Jyothi Museum Opening, 2000

RAMANAM
In the Name of The Father, and of The Son and of The Holy Spirit, Amen.

Countrymen,

ORBIS NON SUFFICIT
SOLUS DEUS SUFFICIT

There follows an edited colloquy in which an interlocutor and I engaged on the subject of a 2016 article by Sergey Lavrov, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation.

The competition on the shaping of the world order in the 21st century has toughened.  The transition from the Cold War to a new international system proved to be much longer and more painful than it seemed 20-25 years ago.

On 03 March 2016, The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation published an article in Russia in Global Affairs magazine by Sergey Lavrov, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, titled Russia’s Foreign Policy: Historical Background.  The article also is published here.  And here it is in PDF:

This article comprises a fine, nay, essential primer for Russian (Rus) perception of history and foreign policy.  Read it for what it says rather than for what one expects it to say, or not say.

It completely supports Three Brothers Doctrine and The Theological Component In The Announcement Of National And Theatre Strategic War To Annihilate ISIL And Salafi Jihad Altogether.

It quotes two famous Russian philosophers and refers to Russian music … unlike American IC and foreign policy blithering blather, which refers to experts.  US policy establishment and media anti-intellectualism debilitate rumination upon USA grand national strategic objectives.

Lavrov’s article has more intellectual horse power than anything from the USA’s so-called foreign policy establishment save work by Codevilla and Hanson, who are considered outsiders by those insipid insiders.

The article shows Russians’ superb, sophisticated ability to thread verbal needles and, e.g., clasp Soviet era activity to the historical Russian bosom.  An epistemological posture Tillich supports.  Also, Lavrov threads subtly saying why socialist collectivism is not historically Russian.

The view that temporarily accepting subjection to Mongolian (Moslem) rule, because Mongols tolerated Christianity, in preference to subjecting Russian Christianity, which was Greek/Byzantine, to Western European Latin Christianity/nations, is new to me, in particular the temporarily part.  I like it.  Makes good sense.  I had not known that and I believe he is telling the truth on that.  Very important.  Shades of defense in depth employed in 1812 and 1941.

Freedom of religion (or not) is always and everywhere the existential base line of human affairs.  In the same manner, the production of freedom is the measure of a religion’s veracity and therefore legitimacy.  More freedom, more veracity, more legitimacy.  Less freedom, less veracity, less legitimacy.  Religion’s very purpose is liberation.

Russia wants to be different from Europe, starting with iteration of Christianity.  That should be ground zero agreement between the Three Brothers: India, USA, Russia.

Lavrov has a salient view/smugness on, effectively, Soviet-ization of Western/Latin Europe post WW II.  He thinks they are schmucks, did not learn the lesson, thought they could do what the Soviet could not to make Communism work.  Arrogant European oligarchic families.

Lavrov’s discussion of Mongols is salient, to include beyond the immediate purview of his discussion (history of Rus).  The Turks, who descend from Mongols, as Moslems were more tolerant of other religions — especially Christianity and Talmudism (Jews) — than European countries were.  This was part of the reason they could maintain a large empire for so long … allowing Christians and Jews a measure of autonomy that, at times, was enough to entice especially Eastern/Orthodox Christians to fight for the Sultan vs. Latin armies.  Sometimes, however, and often, there was compulsion of Christian first-born into the Sultan’s armies.

Turks, though today enormously mixed/multi-ethnic, derive directly from Mongol/eastern nomadic warrior stock, who just happened to have a talent for administration in addition to fighting and pillaging.  Obviously more to it than that — given that the Sultan fights under the banner of Mohammad — but there is that dynamic that Lavrov mentions which is worth noting.

Likely the root of it is a certain wisdom of the Mongol/Turk/nomads that understands their own cultural weaknesses — namely philosophy, mathematics, chemistry, astronomy, industry, agriculture, medicine, etc. — and pragmatically understand that the various European Christians and Levantine Talmudists (Jews) are talented at those things.   So, in the spirit of enlightened self-interest, they allow a level of autonomy for conquered peoples who are natively productive of civilizational essentials — and in fact elevate them to high status within their administrative state.

This is a dynamic mentioned in this essay referencing the Christians and Talmudists (Jews) who kept the various Muslim empires afloat:

In addition, Moslem MENA has depended heavily on Jews and Christians to exist.  They administered bureaucracies, discharged professional services and managed goods and monetary logistics.  Even fought the wars.  Christians and Jews kept the lights on.  Muslim pogroms against Jews and Christians are a species of Muslim suicide.  Even today, Saudi and Gulf State Muslims depend on non-Muslims or all-but-enslaved Muslims to build and operate their countries, even their war machines.  Ditto ISIL.  Salafi Jihad is an Intensive Care Ward, not a Caliphate.

Reference Christians — and Talmudists (Jews) — keeping various Moslem empires afloat: Mongols and descendants no doubt understood the value of Christian cultural produce, but it is also the case that, except when at a distance, intellectually and physically, from proponents of its physical Jihad element, Islam per se discourages cultural produce of a kind needed to maintain a large and peaceful admin state.

Mongols may have understood that also.  For example Mughal India and Moorish Andalusia (southeastern Spain) were fairly prolific in cultural produce, especially Mughal India, and fairly estranged from Jihadist ideologies and geography: Arabia.

Mongols are a creative breed, give them that, or were at least.  And they remain world-players, if less bloodily than before.  And justly proud of their accomplishments.

Update 1: How The West Was Lost

Update 2: Secretary Tillerson Discusses USA Relationship With India

Update 3: Century after revolution, some Russians crave return of tsar

Update 4: A brief correspondence regarding strategic Russia, from the summer of 2018:

One: I just figured it out. They are after Constantinople. That is why they took Crimea.  That is why they are projecting from the east.  That is why they care about access to the Med from Syria.  They are encircling from the east, which is the only way they know how.  Following Catherine the Great’s model.  They are reclaiming their “rights” as the third in the line of Caesars with the Roman Empire as first, then the Byzantium Emperors as the second, and then the Tsar as the third, with Tsar being Caesar.

Two: Nagorno-Karabakh: If I read this accurately, it implies Armenia has force sufficient to keep Azerbaijan from taking Nagorno-Karabakh from its semi-independent governors whom Armenia supports.  If accurate read, I did not know Armenia has that sort of power and Azer does not.  Interesting.  Might also imply Armenia could not oppose Russia using Nagorno-Karabakh to stage at Turkey/Constantinople . . . maybe.

One: I think the read is accurate. Also important is this.

I am pretty sure that is his first foreign visit.  And it says a lot that Putin actually granted him an audience.

I think both Armenia and Azerbaijan are in a tough spot because of Russia, Turkey, and Iran’s interests in Syria; interests that coincide in points.  Neither country is able to play the regional big three off each other the way it seems they’ve done in the past, so I think they are ducking and covering for now.

Russia is still the stronger between her and Iran, though, I think, and not just because of nukes.  Russia also has a land bridge into Iran through Georgia and Armenia, which Iran cannot compare.  Would be interesting to know how South Ossetia and North Ossetia, territories inside Georgia that Russia did not give back to Tbilisi after 2008, played in this game.

Two: Among other things, your analysis implies that Armenia would *welcome* Russia staging through Nagorno-Karabakh against Turkey.

If that is correct, and I think it is, I concur.  And if so, that represents an historic confluence (Russian Greek Orthodoxy and Armenian Orthodoxy) of theological positions in re the Council of Chalcedon (the natures of the Christ).

Politics is theological squabbles by other means.  Never think that arguing over “how many angels can dance on the head” of a pin is an inconsequential, stupid or ridiculous existential/political struggle.   Or just a mind game.  It goes to the very heart of accurate (existentially, phenomenologically) soteriology and political philosophy.

Related: L. Todd Wood: WWIII Anyone? The Crusades Are Returning To Caucasus As Violence Rages In Nagorno-Karabakh

Update 5: Michael Kofman: Raiding And International Brigandry: Russia’s Strategy For Great Power Competition

Update 6: Holmes and Delamer: Mahan Rules

Update 7: Bruce Gilley: The Case For Colonialism

AUM NAMAH SHIVAYA