The theory of 4th Generation Warfare- as outlined by William S. Lind and others- posits that, in the 21st Century, rather than large wars between nation states, geopolitics will be defined by the gradual decomposition of many nation states in the face of non-state (4GW) forces. We see this around us everyday- in terrorist attacks, Mexican drug violence, Sharia Law in the UK, and the steady disintegration of various nations (Libya, Yemen, Syria, Belgium, Sweden).
Interestingly though, the by-product of this is that some states- those most able to withstand such destabilizing forces, become stronger. Through this we see the re-emergence of global powers who had otherwise been overshadowed over recent decades. The most notable example are Turkey, Russia, and to some extent Poland/Eastern Europe.
Turkey and Russia, specifically, have been the subjects of very astute articles in the recent week. One, by William S. Lind himself, on Traditionalright.com, and one, by Guillaume Durocher, on Counter-Currents.
Mr. Lind’s article details the possibility of war between Turkey and Russia. Lind suggests that Russia’s somewhat hasty exit from the Syrian theater is a result of this possibility, as tactically it makes much more sense for Russia to want to engage Turkey along the Russian-Turkey border, rather than far afield away from supply lines in Syria. Lind posits that Turkey’s unspoken alliance with ISIS might have lead to confrontation within the Syrian theatre had Russia not pulled out.
Durocher’s article on Counter-Currents focuses on the current genocide-via-migration that is occurring in Europe, and goes over the entire “migrant crisis”. A notable part of the article deals with Turkey however, and Erdogan’s motives and relations vis a vis the EU, Europe, and Germany.
Russia and Turkey are strategically oriented through opposite ends, but to similar mindsets. Russia is largely a defensive power at this point in history. Unlike during Soviet times, Russia can no longer be considered a superpower. They have a massive demographic problems driven by third world mortality rates and a lack of natalism, and their empire has been reduced to its smallest geographic variant of any point in the last several hundred years. However, this very defensiveness is what leads to their aggression.
Turkey, on the other hand, is an offensive position. While threatened and infuriated by the Kurds in the southeast, Turkey’s larger prerogative internationally is expansionistic, in line with the ideology and national vision of its ruling political party and President, Recep Erdogan. This also makes it aggressive. The geopolitical futurist George Friedman posits that Turkey and Russia will be, along with the United States and Poland (or an Eastern European confederacy), the prime powers of this century (while I am not a fan of Friedman and feel that he is mistaken on some things, I think he is largely correct on this score).
While these geopolitical intricacies are of major import for the course of events in the coming decades, on a personal level I do not particularly care what happens in Syria, or between Turkey and Russia, apart from how it impacts Europe. This question therefore is of our prime consideration.
In Russia, I do not feel that any actions will be taken that will particularly impact the flow of events in Europe either way. This does not mean that Russia is not focused on them however, but only that they are in a bit of a contradictory position in regards to European genocide/the migrant crisis. On the one hand, the leaders of Western Europe are virulently opposed to Putin and Russia on all fronts. They and the remnants of the Neocon leadership in the U.S. are massive Putin-haters, as is Western European suicidalist benefactor George Soros. Based on this, it is in Putin and Russia’s best interest for the demographic murder of Western Europe to continue unabated. Once Germany and France and the UK become third world, crime-ridden countries without functioning governments, one of Russia’s greatest opponents (Western Europe et al) has been eliminated.
On the other hand however, there is much evidence that Putin and Russia (naturally) feel a great sympathy with these countries’ citizens. Rutin is a Russian-Nationlist, and Russian-Nationalism is implicitly (though complicatedly) European in outlook (in that it is Christian, White, etc). Putin has made many comments suggesting that he feels the same horror over the suicide of Western Europe that Eastern European governments like those of Poland and Hungary do. Additionally, Western Europe is where some of Russia’s greatest trading partners are located. The breakdown of this region could therefore also negatively impact Russia in this regard, if it ended up interfering with the profitability and viability of trade.
In a perfect world, we might hope that Russia and the Visegrad nations would work together to exert leverage upon Western European leaders to curb their insanity and suicidal behavior. However Eastern European countries such as Poland feel that Russia is an existential threat, and the complicated history of Russian conquest in Eastern Europe means that that there is little love lost between their leaders.
Both Russia and Turkey are historical world powers who have a history of conquest within Europe. While the idea of a present-day Russia exerting influence within Europe is almost a hopeful one (in that Russia is violently opposed to Muslim immigration and the suicidal policies of Merkel and her allies), the prospect of Turkey doing so is a far different matter.
Turkey’s relationship with Europe is delineated by the fact that it currently defines itself by its Ottoman roots. This means that within the foundations of its very identity is the desire to colonize Europe.
As Durocher states:
The central problem is obviously the president of Turkey, the autocratic and Islamic “Sultan” Erdogan and his blackmail: He negotiates with Germany – France no longer counts, led by lame duck – in exchange for billions of euros, to block immigration from Turkey, which is a fool’s bargain. He is also demanding the abolition of visas for Turkish visitors to the Schengen area and the resumption of negotiations for Turkey to join the EU. Erdogan’s goal is exactly the same as that of the Islamists and the criminal entity Daesh [the Islamic State]: To Islamize Europe, a thousand-year-old dream.
This quote references the recent agreement between the EU and Turkey. The implications of this agreement are enormous. The most dangerous obviously must be the free Schengen access granted to Turkey. We have discussed this before, but the idea of 80 million Turks suddenly having unlimited access to travel throughout and relocate within Europe is of drastic and horrifying implication. Beyond this there is also the fact that the agreement effectively hands Turkey the end of a noose held tightly around the EU’s neck. For the agreement, in entrusting and relying European border integrity and care of migrants to Turkey- and a Neo-Ottoman government that dreams of European Islamization- seems suicidal. Considering the leverage this gives Turkey over Europe, one can only speculate to the motives and sanity of Angela Merkel and the EU leadership.
There are a variety of conclusions we can make based on these developments. The first and most obvious is that the rest of 2016 will be of great consequence to Europe’s future. For the ammunition keeps building for it to be an explosive summer and fall. Recent reports indicate that in the failed state of Libya there are 800,000 migrants waiting to cross into Europe. It is also estimated that Europe will see anywhere from 1.8-6.4 million migrants cross into its borders this year in total. Other reports indicate that Algeria may follow Libya into failed-statehood.
With all this being the case it seems reasonable to assume that more European countries will close their borders and end Schengen-based free movement this summer (we can only hope at least). Other countries will not however, and with The Local reporting that Angela Merkel’s polling numbers have reached their “pre-migrant crisis” highs, it seems many European citizens are equally complacent in the face of this invasion. This speaks to one of the fundamental problems any opposition movement has (whether Geert Wilders, the Sweden Democrats, the AfD, etc), which is the fact that in an environment such as this, it is easy for Suicidalist governments to retain power, in that they can, at will, bring in a million new voters merely by opening up their borders for a season.
We are all well aware of course that the idea of political solutions is redundant at this point. And this brings the most important question to the fore: will anarchy rise to the point, or will European-Preservationists use violence to catalyze the point- at which Suicidalist governments fall, and authoritarian political parties or groups can wrest control of their nations’ courses? This remains to be seen, but the latter course (violence) has little proof to suggest it. This is unfortunate, for as Durocher rightly states, the current events in Europe are of importance exceeding WWI, WII, the fall of the Berlin Wall, or any others that have ever occurred in Europe. They herald no less than the death of its empires, peoples, and culture. With this as the case- and with the complicity of Western European leaders in these horrors- violence, if and when it does overtake them, it will be justified indeed.