Posted on 01/16/2007 4:51:10 AM PST by Freelance Warrior
Russia is a market economy, and even its state sector is highly commercialized. In the last few years, the Kremlin has successfully focused on boosting the price of Gazprom stocks, rendering it the third most valuable publicly traded company in the world. Part of this endeavor has been to abolish political subsidies to friendly former Soviet republics and let gas and oil prices approach market prices. Belarus was the last country to enjoy oil subsidies from Russia, and now they are gone. ...
But Russia is no longer the Soviet Union. It would be wrong to accuse the Kremlin of neoimperialism, because it is sacrificing foreign policy aims for profits. Imperialism costs money, and today’s Kremlin prefers greed. In effect, Putin has abandoned the long-professed Russian-Belarusian Union, and Russia is alienating Belarus as aggressively as all other post-Soviet countries.
(Excerpt) Read more at telos-eu.com ...
The Russians are aware of their position in the world. One hopes our side hasn't lost all copies of Mahan and Mackinder's works.
EU always impose their wish on the other side and keep running into a nasty surprise. Do they ever learn?
The "heartland theory" of Sir Mackinder was proven false by Nazi Germany and the USSR. Both possesed Eastern Europe (the last for several decades) but no-one managed to get the remaining world.
To describe a work as of "purely historical interest" is no criticism at all in my view.
The understanding of sea power and logistics is never outmoded. That some shallow readers, including the Nazis, who leaned far more on Haushofer than on the men cited, would draw unwarranted conclusions from their works is no criticism either.
Since the Mahan's times world armies have been mechanised, new branches of the military have come into existence (aviation, nukes, etc.) All these have changed the warfare drastically. This idea makes me sceptic about the Mahan's works' importance now, while, frankly speaking, I'm not aware of his works.
would draw unwarranted conclusions from their works is no criticism either.
I meant his idea on the Eastern Europe:
"Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland; Who rules the heartland commands the World Island; Who rules the World Island commands the World."
Did Germany command the Eastern Europe in WWII? Yes, until they lost the war. They also commanded all the the "Heartland" except for Britain.
Did the USSR command the Eastern Europe? Yes, for 45 years. Did it make the USSR master of the world? No.
But Russia is no longer the Soviet Union. It would be wrong to accuse the Kremlin of neoimperialism, because it is sacrificing foreign policy aims for profits. Imperialism costs money, and today’s Kremlin prefers greed.===
That is the "gold" words. When you begin to understand it?
Naval superiority is a key issue for the USA, since it's divided from the other most important parts of world by oceans, and good supply is top necessary for the military, so any US military operations outside its territory must be supplied by sea, but I cannot understand why the USA should remember purely military issues while the article is about Russia's purely economic activity.
"To describe a work as of "purely historical interest" is no criticism at all in my view."
Mahan was completely eclipsed by the theories of Blitzkreig and Defence In Depth. Of these, both create problems with logistics (is there a theorist on military logistics?), but I would argue that Defence In Depth worked best.
I would agree with your later point about naval power, but without the ability to project force inland (across a continent if necessary) it is like "the elephant wrestling the whale", as Napoleon commented on France vs. England.
The Whale v. Elephant series is not over.
A reductionist reading of any text is generally unfruitful.
Mahan's theories of naval power were hardly "eclipsed" by German and Russian Army strategists.
The "Heartland" Mackinder describes is not Europe but the Eurasian heartland - Central Asia broadly considered including western China and Siberia - the castle keep of the world, so to speak.
The Soviets were under no threat of invasion and conquest from any direction after the crushing of Germany as a power.
As regards air forces and nuclear weapons having displaced naval power as balancing factors to the perennial Land Power, I will say that the strategic space is now shared between Navy and Air Force, in what proportion I do not know.
I would only say that Mahan's Sea Power books definitely opened my eyes to the evolution of sea warfare from the early 17th C. to his own time.
Has Col Putin been informed of that?
Has Col Putin been informed of that?==
He is. I presume that he sometimes just play the fiddle for foreigneers. Play thier biases and worries for Russia' profits as he understood it.
It is not a question or reductionist readings any more than one of extrapolative reading.
Not being familiar with the full content of Mahan's works I could only find a bibliography of his texts (are any still in print?), but to judge by the titles it appears that he was an engineer who applied civil engineering to fortifications.
The history of warfare is one of static forces in fixed positions surrounded and overwhelmed by more mobile forces as demonstrated in the 20th century by (a) Western Front WWI 1918, (b) France 1940, Soviet Union 1942, (c) British North Africa 1941/42, (d) Germany Eastern Front 1944/45 (e) 1st & 2nd Gulf Wars.
Thus, Mahan's works on entrenchments and fortifications are interesting for light they might shed on defensive patterns of enemy positions, but ultimately they were redundant by the end of the 19th century (cf., the US Civil War vs the 2nd South African (Boer) War).
Where mobile forces clash it is the more aggile (and securely supplied) that wins. Fortifications will slow an enemy but unless you are capable of striking back at them (Battles of Kursk, El Alamein, etc), fortifications are a trap.
To the best of my knowledge, Mahan devoted his career to the study of naval warfare, not land fortifications.
Your general point about mobility is correct - read Mahan to see his insights about mobility and fighting ships.
I see that Project Gutenberg has Mahan's 'Sea Power" on-line.
Thank God that Al Gore invented the internet!
thanks for the clarification - I saw there was a bit of a dynasty but hadn't followed them all the way down!
In that case, I would suspect that A.T. Mahan demonstrates the rule of the open flank (i.e., there is always an open flank, if you can reach and attack it)?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.