Skip to main content

                                                               LET'S READ

                             Article published on 27th February 2020


          I recommend you to lecture a very interesting book about Geopolitics. Its name is NATO Expansion to East. Battle for Europe, published at Pavel Coruț Publishing House, București, 1997. Author’s name is Florian Gârz, a retired officer who is well-known for many books on Military Strategy and Geopolitics. This officer activated in the Directorate of Military Intelligence of the Romanian Socialist Army. Between 1991-1997, he worked as a counselor in the Defense, National Security and Public Order Department and as a Secretary of National Supreme Defense Council’s chief.
          Why do I consider this book so interesting? Because it was published in 1997 and offers some forecasts and estimations regarding geopolitical evolutions, especially for Europe. Some of them have been confirmed, others were not confirmed and some aspects are just partially confirmed. It is amazing how an analyst could foresee the international situation and evolutions, 23 years ago. His ability in this field is admirable.
          In order to compare, it is necessary to have an overlook on the international 1997 environment:
-            Russia was undergoing a major economic and social crisis, which was about to deepen in 1998[1]; gloomy forecasts about the economy, reflected in statistics, indicated a great depression[2], fact confirmed by the reality next year; the internal security and public order became problematic, due to the alarming level of criminality in all area of the Russian society[3]; armed forces were compelled to withdraw from Chechnya in 1996; as an assessment, at that moment Russia was a weak and an almost failed state;
-            A NATO Summit took place at Madrid on 8-9 July 1997; the decision was to include Poland, Czech Republic and Hungary in the alliance;
-            China was on a visible economical developing trend, but no one could foresee the level that the country reached 10-15 later[4];
-            European Union was undergoing a full reforming and consolidation process;
-         There were some areas in Europe posing a high risk for military conflicts; their situation was unclear.
In order to figure out how the author forecasted the events and geopolitical evolutions, I propose you to put the elements in a table, containing quotes from the book, and to mark them according to the degree of confirmation as „Confirmed”, „Unconfirmed” or „Partially Confirmed”.

Forecast (Quote)
Degree of confirmation
Regarding the Russian Federation Nuclear Program, inherited from the former USSR, it exists and develops normally, although some so-called „analysts” wait from one day to the next the Russian Economy’s collapse (.....). Some types of high range cruise missiles are tested. – page 66.
CONFIRMED
NATO decision to expand to East, due to the pressure exerted by USA, is a classical action to fill the „vacuum” (security vacuum in Central and Eastern Europe). (.......) The „vacuum” theory has a destabilizing purpose, and the Russians, although they do not firmly oppose now, they will oppose later, after solving the great internal difficulties they face, as they did in 1940. – p. 83.
CONFIRMED
Washington no longer keeps secret the fact that they would wish to include Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania in NATO, and even Belarus and Ukraine. – p. 84.
PARTIALLY CONFIRMED
The prevention of an military and political reintegration between Russian Federation and Ukraine seems to be one of the main strategic goals of the USA in the geopolitical area of the former USSR. – p. 84.
CONFIRMED
Military conflicts in the Caucasus area, as well as in the area of the republics inhabited by Muslim population, reveal local and international factors which try to separate them from Russia. USA, together with United Kingdom, make all possible to direct important oil and natural gas pipe lines that start from there, to Arabian Sea, not to Black Sea. – p. 84-85.
CONFIRMED
(.....) US military size down on the continent, from 350.000 in 1988, to less than 100.000 in 1997. Their presence, although symbolic, is uncertain in the future.  – p. 105.
UNCONFIRMED
The main and arduous problem now is the NATO expansion to East, in terms of methods, time and space. It is very difficult to establish a new line for demarcation between NATO and Russian Federation Western border.  – p. 126-127.
CONFIRMED
I think it would be quite difficult for those „Atlantists” (supporters of NATO expansion) interested in „NATO expansion to east” to obtain all member states’ consent. It is much easier to maintain the status-quo and there are also some opinions according to NATO will extend its existence in the 21th Century if it remains legally unchanged (....). – p. 129-130.
UNCONFIRMED
I am deeply convinced that NATO, as a military „victorious” alliance, will have the fate of other victorious alliances known in the history of Europe. – p.131.
UNCONFIRMED
As long as we get closer to the 21th Century, „the community of interests” in NATO will be more and more fragile, until disappearance, although its structures and assets seem impressive and they will however work for a limited period. – p. 133.
PARTIALLY
CONFIRMED
The Western Bloc needs to take into consideration Moscow’s interests and reactions regarding NATO expansion to East. In this way, they recognize Russia’s „veto power”, especially regarding Balkan Peninsula. – p. 133-134.
UNCONFIRMED
The effort to approach Ukraine in order to join „Visegrád Group” (.....) is, in my opinion, an intermediary phase to make this new European state to definitely separate from Russia and to adhere to Western policies. The purpose is to create the conditions for Ukraine to join NATO. – p. 141.
PARTIALLY CONFIRMED
(....) the image of a „Monopolar” Europe begins to appear, especially from the economic point of view, and Germany will have the main position in it. Its purposes will not totally be the same as USA ones. – p. 142.
CONFIRMED
(....) the US experts do not foresee any position for Russia in the future security architecture and they do not give a chance to this country. All the military alliances projected for Central and Western Europe exclude Russia and are anti-Russian. – p. 142.
CONFIRMED
The main Russia’s strategic goal is to rebuild its economic and military capabilities and, based on them, to rebuild, in a peaceful way or using force, the Independent States Community, in order to counterbalance the other military and economic blocs that exist in Europe and throughout the world. This process would take at least two or three decades.  – p. 145.
PARTIALLY CONFIRMED
From the beginning of the next century, OSCE[5] will exceed NATO in respect of involvement in the security policy in the integrating Europe. – p. 281.
UNCONFIRMED

I need to say that, in the table, I put just a few examples, which I considered relevant, taking into consideration the nowadays geopolitical situation, but there are still other interesting aspects in the book. This is why I recommend you to read it or to read other books written by Florian Gârz.


[1] Bolkhovitina Elena, An Analysis of the Currency and Financial Crisis in Russia, Department of Research Cooperation Economic Research Institute Economic Planning Agency, Tokyo, Japan, p. 12.
[2] Congressional Research Service, The Russian Financial Crisis of 1998: An Analysis of Trends, Causes, and Implications, Updated February 18, 1999, Order Code 98-578 E.
[3] Ilona Karpanos, The Political Economy of Organized Crime in Russia: The State, Market and Criminality in the USSR and Post-Soviet Russia, City University London Department of International Politics October 2017.
[4] Charles Adam, 1997 International Monetary Fund, Asia and Pacific Department, Annex I China—Growth and Economic Reforms, on Internet at https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/weo1097/pdf/octweo06.pdf, accessed on 25 Feb 2020.
[5] Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

  THE MYTH OF ISRAELI INVINCIBILITY. PART II 1956 – Suez Crisis            Crisis erupted due to the nationalization of the Suez Canal. In 1954, the Egyptian president, Gamal Abdul Nasser, started ambitious projects, including Aswan Dam (on Nile) and armed forces modernization. Initially, he asked USA and UK for funding but was refused. Taking advantage of the rivalry between Eastern and Western blocs, he approached the USSR for help and received a positive answer. Based on Soviet security guarantees, he took a step forward: on 26 July 1956, he nationalized Suez Canal, owned by an Anglo-French company. Due to the highly geostrategic and economic importance of the canal, UK and France reacted. Their first approach, supported by the USA, was a diplomatic one but later, planned a military intervention to seize the canal by force. Israel was included in this plan. According to it, the Israeli forces were supposed to conduct offensive operations in Sinai Pe...
  KHARG ISLAND – MISSION IMPOSSIBLE?           The international media is flooded with information regarding the US leadership's intention to perform a military operation to occupy Kharg Island in the Persian Gulf. It is believed that seizing the island, which is Iran's primary oil hub, would deal a powerful blow to the Tehran regime. However, such an operation involves an assault and the occupation of the island by an expeditionary force. In other words, boots on the ground . [1]           Kharg Island is located 483 km from the Strait of Hormuz and 25 km from the Iranian coast. The shortest distance to the Saudi coast is approximately 190 km, as is the distance to the Kuwaiti coast. The island's surface area is about 20 km² . Source: https://www.britannica.com/place/Kharg-Island             A simple consultation of the map and a minimal knowledge of the situation show us ...
  THE MYTH OF ISRAELI INVINCIBILITY. PART VI 1978 – Intervention in Lebanon              In 1973, after the Yom Kippur War, Israel already possessed clear military superiority over its Arab neighbors. The defeat suffered and the heavy losses within the Arab coalition guaranteed this reality. The superiority was reflected in the trump cards it consistently held or had regained: strong US support, highly effective intelligence services, air power, and the tactics of (blitzkrieg). Technological superiority was not yet evident.         Israel’s security was already very solid compared to the 1950s and 1960s. Peace negotiations were underway with Egypt. Jordan no longer posed a problem. Syria remained the only neighboring state enemy, but it was far from having the capacity to launch any military campaign against Israel. Other enemies still existed—namely Iraq and Libya—but they were not in a position to act directly. What remained ...