Beyond Ukraine: America's Coming (Losing) Battle For Eurasia | WHAT REALLY HAPPENED

Beyond Ukraine: America's Coming (Losing) Battle For Eurasia

Authored by US Army Major Danny Sjursen (ret.) via AntiWar.com,

Academic historians reject anything smacking of inevitably. Instead they emphasize the contingency of events as manifested through the inherent agency of human beings and the countless decisions they make. On the merits, such scholars are basically correct. That said, there was something – if not inevitable – highly probable, almost (forgive me) deterministic about the two cataclysmic world wars of the 20th century. Both, in retrospect, were driven, in large part, by collective – particularly Western – nations’ adherence to a series of geopolitical philosophies.

The first war – which killed perhaps nine million soldiers in the sodden trench lines (among other long forgotten places) of Europe – began, in part, due to the continental, and especially maritime, competition between Imperial Great Britain, and a new, rising, and highly populous, land power, Imperial Germany. Both had pretensions to global leadership; Britain’s old and long-standing, Germany’s recent and aspirational – tinged with a sense of long-denied deservedness. Political and military leaders on both sides – along with other European (and the Japanese) nations – then pledged philosophical fealty to the theories of an American Navy man, Alfred Thayer Mahan. To simplify, Mahan’s core postulation – published from a series of lectures as The Influence of Sea Power Upon History – was that geopolitical power in the next (20th) century would be inherently maritime. The countries that maintained large, modern navies, held strategic coaling stations, and expanded their coastal, formal empires, would dominate trade, develop the strongest economies, and, hence, were apt to global paramountcy. Conversely, traditional land power – mass armies prepared to march across vast land masses – would become increasingly irrelevant.

Mahan’s inherently flawed, or at least exaggerated, conclusions – and his own clear institutional (U.S. Navy) bias – aside, key players in two of the major powers of Europe seemed to buy the philosophy hook-line-and-sinker. So, when Wilhelmine Germany took the strategic decision to rapidly expand its own colonial fiefdoms (before the last patches of brown-people-inhabited land were swallowed up) and, thereby necessarily embarked on a crash naval buildup to challenge the British Empire’s maritime supremacy, the stage was set for a massive war. And, with most major European rivals – hopelessly hypnotized by nationalism – locked in a wildly byzantine, bipolar alliance system, all that was needed to turn the conflict global was a spark: enter the assassin Gavrilo Princip, a pistol, Austrian Archduke Franz Ferdinand, and it was game on.

Webmaster's Commentary: 

What bothers me about the US government, is its collective inability to think an issue through to its logical conclusion; and it doesn't seem to matter who is in power, Democrats or Republicans; this insanity is entrenched to the point of its being nearly pathological with the US government.

And that's when grave mistakes in geopolitical relationships can take place, leading to massive geopolitical tensions, and sometimes, horrific, senseless wars, in which this country has found itself enmeshed since 9/11

Do you realize that no 19 year old kid in this country has ever lived through a time when the US was not at war with something, or someone, far away, to affect regime change, and expropriate a foreign country's resources, to which the US has no moral right?!?

Please chew on that, intellectually, for a moment, please.

Comments

SHARE THIS ARTICLE WITH YOUR SOCIAL MEDIA