Who Lost Eurasia?
Item 1: The strategic doctrine known as “Eurasianism” calls for the Kremlin to achieve global dominance by uniting a Moscow-headquartered totalitarian “heartland” bloc consisting of Continental Europe, the former Soviet Union, and a revived Persian empire against the “rimland” West.
Item 2: The Assad regime, backed by a partnership of Russia and Iran, has been bombing and terrorizing millions of Syrians to flee their homes to Europe.
Item 3: As these refugees flood into Europe, they are stoking the political fortunes of national socialist parties in most central and western European nations.
Item 4: The national socialist parties being lifted to power by the refugee issue are strongly supportive of Eurasianist ideology and Kremlin foreign policy, including the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
Question 1: Is there any relationship between Items 1,2,3, and 4, above?
Item 5: At the time that President Barack Obama took office, Iran was bracketed by large U.S. military forces in Afghanistan and Iraq, which constrained and threatened its regional power. Obama has chosen to remove those forces.
Item 6: In 2010, the Iraq election was won by a moderate secular coalition. The results, however, were set aside by the Iran-backed Maliki regime. The Obama administration supported this Iranian coup in Baghdad.
Item 7: The Obama administration has refused to take effective action to stop the Russia-Iran backed Assad regime from bombing and terrorizing millions of Syrians into fleeing as refugees into Europe.
Item 8: The Obama administration has defied Congress and American public opinion to sign a treaty that will give the Iranian regime $150 billion to expand its regional power and develop atomic bombs.
Question 2: Is there any relationship between Items 5,6,7,8 an items 1,2,3,4, above?
Item 9: The Kremlin has made clear its desire to use its control of natural gas supplies to dominate Europe.
Item 10: Green parties controlled by and vocally backed by Moscow have campaigned hard to ban fracking in central and western Europe, thereby preventing the Europeans from developing their own gas supplies.
Item 11: The government of Angela Merkel has moved to ban fracking and nuclear power in Germany, thereby increasing Germany’s dependence on Russian natural gas.
Item 12: The government of Angela Merkel, following her predecessor, Gerhard Schroeder, has opened the Nord Stream pipeline, giving Russia the option to continue to collect gas revenues from Germany and Western Europe while cutting off gas supplies to Poland and Ukraine.
Item 13: Following his term as chancellor, Gerhard Schroeder was made Chairman of Nord Stream, and was invited to Vladimir Putin’s birthday party last year.
Item 14: There is significant evidence that Angela Merkel was once an agent of the East German secret police, or Stasi.
Item 15: Despite a massive domestic natural gas glut, the administration of Barack Obama has chosen to block the establishment of liquid natural gas export terminals whose operation would relieve Europe’s critical dependence on Russian natural gas.
Item 16: The Obama administration has chosen to shut down America’s coal-fired power plants, thereby diverting American natural gas away from competing against Russian gas on the world market.
Question 3: Is there any relationship between Items 9,10,11,12,13, 14,15 and 16 and Item 1, above?
Item 17: The Obama administration has reneged on America’s Budapest Memorandum pledge to defend Ukraine’s territorial integrity.
Item 18: The Obama administration has cut U.S. troops in Central Europe down to 30,000 men, and evacuated nearly all American tanks.
Item 19: The Schroeder and Merkel governments have gutted Germany’s military, reducing its forces from 12 divisions to 3.
Item 20: The British have withdrawn all of their forces from Central Europe.
Question 4: What is the relationship between Items 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21, and Item 1, above?
I leave it to the reader to divine what possible connection all of these disparate developments might have, to determine their likely combined outcome, and to decide for himself or herself to what extent intentional design plays in the unfolding historical tragedy, as opposed to sheer folly.