Movement EURASIA
Rambler's Top100
3, building 9, Azovskaya ul. 6, Moscow, Russia

+7 (095) 310-73-97
+7 (095) 310-71-98
+7 (095) 310-51-72



Hozh-Akhmed Noukhaev official site

Rambler's Top100

Communique about the blasts in the US 12-9-2001

The swallows of Apocalypse

Our condolence and sorrow

We express our deep and sincere sorrow for the innocent victims of terror, simple US citizens who perished as a result of a terrible and unprecedented tragedy.

We condemn the acts of the assassins against innocent people.

A geopolitical blast

What happened in the US on 11.09.2001 changes the course of the world history. As after the shoots of Gavril Prinzip in Sarajevo or after the invasion of Nazi troops into Czechoslovakia, the path of mankind instantly goes astray from that track which still yesterday seemed so firm. Today as never it is important to realise: what has really happened?

Leaving aside the humanitarian aspect, is necessary to understand the true nature of things. We have awaken in a fundamentally different world.

It is perfectly evident that what happened is a not an accident, a catastrophe or an unprecedented crime of maniacs. The scale, the historical moment and the nature of the blast clearly tell us about its geopolitical substance.

The unipolar world (as it existed till yesterday)

The XXI century began only yesterday as the epoch of unchallenged US hegemony all over the world, as the unipolar world. The US looked not simply as the indisputable leader in terms of strategy, technology, economy, politics, but as a the highest and invulnerable reality imposing its own rhythm to all basic world processes. Globalisation, as a matter of fact, meant Americanisation. US supremacy was founded on the exhibition of its planetary strength as ‘superpower’.

The club of the supporters of ‘multipolarity’

This supremacy of the US was not at all accepted by everyone, neither to the same extent. A group of the states openly claimed for a different world pattern – for ‘multipolarity’. The attitude to ‘multipolarity’ is officially sanctioned in fundamental documents of such countries as Russia, China etc. Many other states of Asia, of Africa and Latin America share this line. Even the reliable partners of the US – Europe and Japan – would prefer to see a multipolar world, though expressing themselves very cautiously (more often at an economic level). A weak resistance to the project of American hegemony came also from such respected international organisation as the United Nations, created in different historical conditions and mirroring a different balance of power (related to the past).

The hardest opposition to globalisation-Americanisation has come from some radical terrorist organisations, often of Islamic kind.

Islamic terror as the offspring of American special services

Here it is necessary to go into more detail. Islamic fundamentalism (specially of wahabite, extreme Sunni kind) was raised by the US during the cold war. In the Islamic world the opposition between the two super-powers (the USSR and the US) was expressed in the USSR support to Islamic socialist-oriented regimes (either secular or Islamic, but never fundamentalist), while the US, on the contrary, put their stakes on wahabism and radical islamism. The US have generated Bin Laden's ‘Al-Qaeda’, the Pakistani Talibani movement, supported the wahabism of their strategic partners – Saudi Arabia, participated in the control of radical Palestinian organisations (of pro-Saudi attitude – particularly Hamas), later supported the wahabists in Ichkeria [Chechnya] etc.

The geopolitical need for such radical islamic groups decreased after the disintegration of the Soviet bloc. They began to act under autonomous programs and have directed their efforts against the yesterday's masters.

One of the terrorist attacks of such former CIA collaborators of islamic attitude was directed against the World Trade Center. This blast took many human lives. In this and many other cases the US met face to face with people generated by themselves. The absence of a clear geopolitical adversary on behalf of Russia made these forces henceforth ambiguous.

The US on the threshold of fundamental crisis

The increasing political resistance to US projects in the unipolar world gave birth to serious problems. In the last days Kofi Annan, at the United Nations conference in Durban on the fight against racism, openly criticised the racial policies of Israel, the most devoted US ally in the issue of globalisation.

In economic sphere, despite all the achievement of the American economy, a severe crisis is looming closer, linked to the disproportion between the volume of virtual capital in the futures stock exchanges and the capital involved in the real sector of the economy. According to many experts, in the near future a severe crisis capable to bate the American power is looming closer. The shares of the companies linked to so-called ‘new economy’ (the NASDAQ index) have begun to slip downwards to a critical extent.

In general terms: on the eve of the giant blast the US faced a very complex dilemma: on the one hand, the existence of definite reasons for absolute supremacy, coupled with an adequate subjective will to this purpose (such order of things is embodied in 1997 ‘US strategic development concept for the XXI century’ of former US President William Clinton); on the other hand, the inability to realise this supremacy in a situation of rather severe opposition on the part of other countries – and all this on the background of a decaying economic situation in the US.

The blast accelerated the epochal change

The hijack by the terrorists of several civil aircrafts, the aerial attacks against the buildings of the Pentagon and the World Trade Center (no less than all the other blasts) take place at this turning point of the world geopolitical history.

The unknown terrorists (supposedly belonging to one of the radical islamic organisations) have sharply accelerated the historical and geopolitical process, having put the US before necessity to immediately define their role in the world context and having deprived them of the chance of delaying this decision.

In the near future the US political leadership will have to take the fatal decision. There are two basic possibilities:

– to acknowledge such successful blast as the definitive evidence of US inability to assume the role of world hegemonic power (being unfit to provide safety to their own citizens, the US cannot be considered as the guarantor of planetary stability); having made such choice the US should turn to the isolationist project (which is supported by the right wing of the republicans) and to return to the ‘Monroe doctrine’, according to which the sphere of US geopolitical concerns is limited to the two American subcontinents; this will mean the admission of the US defeat in the construction of the unipolar world (in the short run, at least).

– to answer to the challenge through a system of rigid measures, down to nuclear strikes against the supposed opponents, rejecting the ‘democratic formalities’, solving the strategic, political, diplomatic and economic problems of the US by ‘mobilisation’ methods, referring to an extraordinary situation; this could actually mean the beginning of the ‘third world war’.

Whom the US will declare war to?

Why does everyone today speak about war? From the point of view of pure logic it is absolutely unclear which country or even which force has struck the US with such horrifying impact, unknown to America for all its history (having got used to wage war on others' space and often by others' hands). To whom America should answer back? And who should answer to her?

>It is an issue of principle: if the events should begin to evolve according to the second script, even at a semi-official level, we shall be constrained to recognise that the US ‘opponent’ in this case become all those forces which counter (with a different degree of intensity) the globalist project and American planetary supremacy. In other words, the US face a declaration of war against the whole world.

The US have been hit by the most radical component of the adversaries globalism. The choice of a hard answer means that, independently from the diplomatic reaction from such or such countries and political movements (from the NATO government, the European powers, Russia, China, Iran or the leaders of the UN) the US will be compelled to enter into straight confrontation with them.

The US – alone against the rest

The structure of this confrontation will be heterogeneous. As NATO allies and Japan are concerned, such development of the events would mean accepting a strategy of straight subordination – specially in the economic sphere (the US argument: the enormous economic losses in this catastrophe are the price to be paid for the US to act as the ‘stronghold of civilisation’ in the face of ‘barbarism’ – i.e. radical anti-globalism – and therefore all ‘civilised’ countries will be obliged to pay the costs in common). This measure, together with the introduction of an extraordinary regime for the same American economy, will help to bypass the peak of the looming huge crisis.

Against the most consequent supporters of multipolarity the most direct hits will be struck (in the case of the so-called ‘rogue countries’ it may be acts of war, that will serve as a warning to the more moderate ones).

>Actually the blasts mean the beginning of war between unipolar globalism (not incidentally the chosen target is the building of the World Trade Center – a symbol of world capitalism, globalism and mondialism) and all the rest of the world.

Clearly many countries and political forces would prefer different methods and different rhythms of development of the events. But history does not recognise personal inclinations, and we stand now where we stand.

Mankind holds breath waiting for the answer of the US, which will predetermine the further course of world history

The war has begun. The US must decide how to answer: to capitulate or to return the strike.

Any attempt to postpone the decisions in such situation will change nothing. The bets are made, the mechanism is in motion. It is that ‘final countdown’, about which so much was said.

The geopolitical sense of the term ‘international terrorism’

Some specification concerning ‘international terrorism’. This concept is vague, geopolitically inexact. In the epoch of the cold war terrorist groups played a role as instruments in the opposition between the two super-powers. A part of the terrorists were supported by the US, another part by the USSR. The dissolving of the USSR resulted in the actual dispersion of the system of terrorist groups working for it. The most staunch among them (such as ‘Carlos’) were integrated in small self-supporting structures. During the last decade the tutelage upon terrorist organisations was exclusively realised by the winners of the ‘cold war’, i.e. the Americans. This also was meant to a large degree by the President of the Russian Federation, calling to a greater attention to this problem. It is clear why Americans did not hurry to pay attention to this.

Today we have to be afraid that the term ‘international terrorism’ will be spread to all the supporters of ‘multipolarity’, and all of them will be accused of directly or indirectly helping it. It is necessary to foresee all this and to counteract from the start.

EURASIA chooses peace at any cost

The destiny of the world hangs on a string..

The position of EURASIA as a whole is such: for such tragedies not to repeat – neither in the US, nor in other spots of the world – it is meaningful for the US to concede that at present the realisation of planetary supremacy is unreal. The persistence in this question will bring incalculable sufferings to mankind and to America. For the sake of peace, humanity and life on earth the US must show wisdom and realise the correlation between the occurred tragedy and that strategic position which was held by the USA after the end of the ‘cold war’. The raid of the hijacked ‘Boeings’ over the strategic centres of the American life are the first black swallows of forthcoming catastrophe on an incommensurably greater scale. And the oceans will no more defend America. The geopolitical safety warrant for the US lies only in returning to a regional continental dimension.

Claiming supremacy all over the world, declaring the whole planet as the space of their own national concerns, the US themselves created a situation in which any spot of the planet, dissatisfied with such situation, will answer in the same way. Globalisation necessarily generates global terror. If the whole planet is declared as a zone of vital US interests, the whole territory of the US can be declared as a zone of vital interests of global terror.

Peace is actual now as never before. If there will be a miracle and the adolescent American self-consciousness in these days will grow adult and will change (as the consciousness of the peoples of the Old World, whose history is so full of blood), the best and fairest multipolar peace world will happen already tomorrow.

If it will not, it cannot be excluded that we stand now on the threshold of the end of history. The fight of America against all the rest, given the present technologies of a mass destruction, can hardly end, even theoretically, with something positive.

On behalf of the Political Council of the All-Russian Social-Political Movement EURASIA


Trans. M. Conserva

Russian Italiano Deutche
Start Page E-mail Home Page