Every time the face of an era was defined not
by nobility or physical standards of contemporaries, not its number and
availability of minerals on their territories, but only the most advanced
technology.
In other words there is only significant
factor of geopolitics are technologies. Passages and resources have auxiliary
character, no more than a fair wind or a favorable land relief for battle: not
much benefit from them, if between of fighters is an essential gap in weapon technology.
We will show it on historical examples.
At the time of the Stone Age skills of
processing of a stone and excellent knowledge of mineralogy were a decisive
factor of a survival. Malignancy, force or number, but only ability of
mastering advanced technology, especially ancient metallurgy were a decisive
factor in a victory of kromanyonets over the Neanderthal man at all.
Mastering technologies of agriculture led to
blossoming of Ancient Babylon and Egypt which once represented a terrestrial
civilization. The beginning of the Iron Age represented blossoming of the
Persian kingdom which basis was made by armor cataphracts – heavy armed riders and infantrymen.
Priority transition to ancient Greeks and
Romans marked such important point, as a sea supremacy over land. And, if about
Greeks it is more or less obvious, the praised Roman infantry at all isn't a
significant factor of power of Rome. It no more, than consequence of the Roman
power.
About what forget all historians and the
fiction writers describing times of Punic wars? They in detail write about
Hannibal's desperate transition through the Alps and about gallant wanderings
across ancient Italy but in an emphasis ignore two really an important point.
The first what thus Romans selected at punic
control over the Mediterranean Sea? Never already to lose it up to the
disintegration of the empire.
The second what thus Romans received control
over silver mines of Iberia (Spain), having got thus access to almost unlimited
sources of finance of the ancient world?
As a result Hannibal's all victories were
vain as allies and mercenaries started preferring the rich and close neighbor
to the far, terrible and poor commander.
We will note here too defeat of the
Mediterranean pirates by Gneus Pompeus who actually made much more for a
celebration of the Roman Empire, than near the upstart Caesar. After control
over the Mediterranean Sea and constructions of the "Roman" roads the
long-term power and expansion of Rome were provided. And salt not at all in
unique properties of Roman maniples which were repeatedly beaten. And in their
ability quickly to rise from a non-existence even after several crushing
defeats in a row.
In other words, Rome was created by logistics
and finance, and not so military art. Which even in something was weaker, than
at predecessors. (Chariots, rams, phalanxes, elephants, an armor cavalry – all
this consigned to the past).
Why spent too much, if to be at war with
barbarians? After Hannibal Rome had no serious rivals.
After adoption by Rome of Christianity and
its division, the center of world power is displaced to the east. At first to Khazaria,
and then after its destruction by Svyatoslav, to Central Asia. For this period
of time expression of one founder of historical myths is characteristic:
"the steppe generates the people". No more, than during a colonial
era "the ocean generates the people". Aggressors are generated by the
loan capital and thirst of a profit, water and land here at all odd.
What technological innovation became a basis
of overland empires? It is the stirrup invention therefore there was a
possibility of creation of prompt cavalry armies which appeared decisive argument
in war up to times Kotovsky and Budenny.
So there was the first world empire of land
founded on technology of cavalry business plus control over all overland
logistics of Eurasia. However, management of the foolish and freedom-loving
people was very troublesome. Besides, geographical discoveries called into
question global hegemony of the empire of land.
Then after all yet there was no Makkinder and
Bzhezinsky with Hartland’s concept. Nobody knew, what it, our globe. And,
apparently, predecessors of our known geopoliticians put forward the concept
which became for ages a basis British, and then and the American foreign
policy. Though the name of one of her authors is known: Thomas Mor.
This concept says that there is no need to
submit and win the people. It is quite enough to be at safe distance and to pit
them among themselves. Ruining them purely economically due to control over sea
transport logistics.
So the center of the world capital, arts and
wars at first moved to Venice and Genoa, then to Holland, and then - to
England. And naval supremacy became a basis of the Anglo-American military,
political and economic power. From here and their fossil, really Neanderthal
thirst for dinosaurs aircraft carriers.
But after all everything changes in our
world. And whether eternally naval supremacy will be identical to domination in
the world? No, certainly.
Naval supremacy was succeeded already by
domination in air, space. The one who will receive such domination and will
become the new face of a terrestrial civilization.
Who it will be? The answer is already known.
Russian became language of the international astronautics. The same as Latin
became medicine language. And it means only one – the new era of a terrestrial
civilization will be an era of Russia. Also it is the last era as above stars
happens nothing. And only on us depends, whether there will be this era in
general and what it becomes.
And USA? And Chinese?
The USA can remove for a long time animated
cartoons about Mars and far-out planets and even to send expeditions of
colonialists one way, to remove the show "behind glass" from their
life in bulletproof capsules. But they already lost, having missed magnificent
chance from 1970 to 2010 for the space break.
Chinese
in 2014 repeated that at essentially other level of technologies was realized
by Russians in even in the sixties the last century much more successfully.
It is already impossible to catch up with
us. It is much simpler not to catch up with us, and it is simple to return us back,
from space on the earth. Purely economic and ideological traps: well why to you
this space, take better control over oil. As it was at the time of
Brezhnev-Nixon.
I hope, we won't change a new world era of
Russia for the next beads from our geopolitical opponents.
No comments:
Post a Comment