1984 - 2021: How J. Orwell predicted the modern three-polar world


The collapse of the USSR became a real geopolitical catastrophe, the waves from which are felt to this day, 30 years later. It also meant the collapse of the bipolar world system based on the confrontation between two superpowers with diametrically opposed socialeconomic habits. But nothing lasts forever under the moon. Today in Washington, they state the restoration of not even a bipolar, but a three-polar world. What changes does this bring to all of us?


It is noteworthy that the United States did not start talking about a new geopolitical reality. policy, and the high-ranking military. This was stated by General Mike Milli, head of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, adviser to the President, the National Security Council and the US Secretary of Defense:

The United States, Russia and China are great powers. In my opinion, we are entering a tripolar world that will potentially be more unstable from a strategic point of view than what we have seen in the last 40, 50, 60 or 70 years. Therefore, a dialogue is needed between us.

Now numerous military experts and political scientists of all stripes, both in Russia and abroad, are trying to understand what exactly the American military leader wanted to convey to the general public. But is it worth it to strain so much if everything has long been invented and written before us?

Dystopia today


Anyone who is at least a little familiar with the work of his kind of genius writer George Orwell will undoubtedly see in the concept of a three-polar world a reference to his famous novel, written in the genre of dystopia, entitled "1984". It is believed that the Briton depicted a satire on the totalitarian Soviet Union, but the author of these lines has a different point of view. This work contains a semantic double bottom ("doublethink"), where the vices of the Western world are very subtly and latently ridiculed. But back to tri-polarity.

In the novel, the whole world is divided by three superpowers, which are fighting among themselves for the so-called disputed lands, which include the territories of the countries of North and Central Africa, the Middle East, as well as a number of countries of Southeast Asia. Sounds familiar, isn't it? And then everything is even more recognizable.

Oceania is an Anglo-Saxon superpower that has swallowed up North and South America, Great Britain, Australia and South Africa. Well, how can you not remember the "Five Eyes" and the new military-political bloc AUKUS?

"Eastasia" is an Asian superpower that has absorbed China, Korea, Japan, as well as parts of Mongolia, Tibet, India and Manchuria. Note that in 2020, the PRC signed a Comprehensive Regional Economic Partnership (RCEP) with 14 countries of Southeast Asia.

"Eurasia" is in the world of the novel "1984" a conglomerate of the USSR, Europe and Turkey, occupying the territory from the Bering Strait to "former Portugal".

These three superpowers are at war with each other, competing for contested lands, but neither side has the strength to achieve decisive success. Therefore, once every few years, they enter into alliances with each other, changing the balance of power in this isosceles triangle. At the same time, the fundamental question is that no one has a total preponderance. With unenviable regularity, ocean propaganda has to change shoes, explaining why they are either fighting with Eurasia or not fighting.

Satire is simply brilliant in its own way. Written in 1948, at the very beginning of the Cold War, George Orwell's novel anticipated what we will achieve in 2021.

Not as written


Alas, there is one very important difference. If "Oceania" and "Eastasia" really took shape, then there are big problems with "Eurasia". Instead of the USSR, with its 23% of world GDP, there is the Russian Federation with about 2%. Europe and Turkey are members of the western anti-Russian NATO military alliance. This means that there are already two almost equal poles, but the third is not. And this entails a lot of trouble for us.

If in a three-polar world, according to Orwell, "Eurasia" could act as an independent actor and conclude equal military-political alliances in turn with "Oceania", then with "Eastasia", then in the realities of 2021 we are objectively the weakest link. The temptation to knock him out for the other two players may be too strong. Let's take a look at possible alliances.

№ 1... Russia + Eastazia vs. Oceania. Let's say right away that this is the best option for us. With a relatively weak economy, we will act as a junior partner in relation to China, but, thanks to the presence of a "nuclear shield" and the remnants of a high-tech industry, Moscow has something to offer Beijing in order not to become essentially its "vassal".

№ 2... Oceania + Russia vs. Eastazia. The option is not so unrealistic, in fact. If pro-Western liberal forces come to power in our country, then with them Washington will gladly use Russia as an additional ram against the PRC. There will be plenty of reasons right away: some will remember the disputed territories, old grievances, if necessary, new grievances will appear. By joining a coalition with Oceania against Eastasia, Moscow will reaffirm its loyalty to the Anglo-Saxon world and take its place as a raw materials colony.

№ 3... Oceania + Eastazia against Russia. This is a real nightmare, the probability of which is nonzero. We cannot resist the US coalition, the NATO bloc in general, and the PRC. Why should Beijing and Washington "zero" Russia? Why not? Remove the weakest player from the board, dividing his territory and resources to prepare for a real war between Eastasia and Oceania. In this case, our country may face the fate of Eastern Europe on the eve of the Second World War.

What conclusion can be drawn? The three-polar world, apparently, has already arrived. Consequently, Russia needs to actively engage in the economy and industry, strengthen the army and navy, promote integration alliances and create its own internal market for at least 400-500 million people in order to stop being the weakest link in the chain.
7 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. gorenina91 Offline gorenina91
    gorenina91 (Irina) 6 November 2021 12: 02
    -1
    - In fact, "Option No. 2" has long been realized in Russia by 3/4 ...

    Moscow will confirm its loyalty to the Anglo-Saxon world and take its place as a raw materials colony.

    - It already exists - "a fait accompli" ...

    If pro-Western liberal forces come to power in our country, then with them Washington will gladly use Russia as an additional ram against the PRC.

    - The "pro-Western forces of the liberal wing" have been in power in Russia for a long time and are carrying out the ideology of the West with might and main ... - As for the "additional battering ram against the PRC" ... - then China managed to contrive and also managed to impose its "needs" on Russia. .. - so the ramming did not work ...
    - So, what happened ... - and the result is a modern interpretation of the work of Carlo Goldoni - "Servant of two masters" ...
    1. Marzhecki Offline Marzhecki
      Marzhecki (Sergei) 6 November 2021 12: 16
      +1
      Quote: gorenina91
      The "pro-Western forces of the liberal wing" have been in power in Russia for a long time and are carrying out the ideology of the West with might and main ... - As for the "additional ramming against the PRC" ... - then China managed to contrive and also managed to impose its "needs" on Russia .. . - so the ramming did not work ...
      - So, what happened ... - and the result is a modern interpretation of the work of Carlo Goldoni - "Servant of two masters" ...

      Things could be much worse
      1. radvas Offline radvas
        radvas (Igor) 6 November 2021 14: 47
        0
        Usually, if something can happen worse than just bad, then this is "much worse" and happens
  2. Sofa division Offline Sofa division
    Sofa division (Maksim) 7 November 2021 19: 57
    0
    Chaos in the heads. We must start with this.
  3. Ivanov Victor Offline Ivanov Victor
    Ivanov Victor (Victor) 10 November 2021 13: 53
    0
    The conclusion about strengthening and development is undoubtedly supported, since Russia, after all, has historically developed not only as an independent state, but also as one of the leaders in development. And the world today recognizes this state of affairs, noting the Russian civilization as one of the main ones. Therefore, to be in the role of addict "we cannot, we are very sick."
    But the rest is nothing more than a coincidence that Orwell does not plead. At the dawn of this stage of development, he introduced the third world for the acuteness of intrigue. At the same time, real politics had its own "Third World", which rather reflected the very zone of potential redistribution.
    As for the main line of this round of development, it is a question of globalization - the unification of the world, for the formation of standards for its interaction, connections, actions, and so on. By the beginning of the Cold War, there were two contenders left. Both, we note, are built on regulatory and supervisory principles and two archetypes - the dominant of the production function, and social ties. Moreover, if the first set a goal - to unite the world, the second - no. And although they were more progressive, there should have been one to win. What happened at the appointed hour. Now another hour is coming - for the next round, and its task, within the framework of the global world, is to form a network system from a hierarchical one, and therefore to move to a macroregional structure. Geography and politics show that we have ... about a dozen such regions. Some remain gray areas with public access, some are fully formed. Geographically, Russia has a separate macro-region, but the problem with the population is, and 400-500 is a very low border, 1 billion is needed. In addition, Russia is the crossroads of the Slavic and Turkic worlds, in both there is competition, and therefore, coverage should also solve these issues ...
    As for America, their proposal for three centers is not recognition of Russia, but an attempt to stay "on the mountain", since the degradation of this system is super-rapid and, for many reasons, will objectively end with the collapse of the United States in the next couple of years. Therefore, the prospects for the American macroregion are still vague, but they remain.
    However, no one will have an easy transition to this new reality, and this will not happen until 2031. And on the current agenda is rather a new global structural crisis, which will finally bury the established order of things and not only the United States.
    But, as for forecasting as such ... the world and its development have shown the presence of a whole system of rigid laws, both History and the Future are determined much more strongly than we could imagine it before. Accordingly, utopias written on the basis of this new knowledge will completely cease to be "fantasy"
    1. Marzhecki Offline Marzhecki
      Marzhecki (Sergei) 12 November 2021 08: 44
      0
      But the rest is nothing more than a coincidence that Orwell does not plead.

      Coincidence? I do not think. wink
      1. Ivanov Victor Offline Ivanov Victor
        Ivanov Victor (Victor) 12 November 2021 13: 52
        +1
        It is very difficult to find a black cat in a dark room, especially when she is not there.

        Thinking in general is correct, especially in this intellectual issue. And if you do this, then you will see the context in which the novel was written.
        By 1945, over the course of several decades, civilizations were mastering an unprecedented toolkit of total ideologies. All great powers have used this tool. The point is that a tool is a tool (like a kitchen knife, for example), you can cook dinner, or you can kill a neighbor, or save a family from bandits. Note that the origins of this process are in the development of the sciences of psychology, sociology, etc. And the moral side of the issue was still revealed by Dostoevsky, whose 200th anniversary we are celebrating today. Moreover, the consideration of Western civilization as having no ideology is part of its ideology - to be invisible, the consequences and possibilities of this are precisely what Orwell described in the first place. Moreover, the practice of a fanatical attitude towards people, in the same England, has historical roots and in the post-war period it also actively manifested itself.
        It seems that Orwell's thoughts at that time were a projection of the "worst fears", so urgent because the horrors of war and the devastation of entire states were still painfully fresh. Now a fresh example of the same literary understanding of the "fascism of the future" is Pelevin's "transhumanism". A kind of civilization vaccination against a terrible disease.
        And in a dispute, ideologies and blocs can only be fundamentally different. There were two fundamentally different at that time. the third was then not given in principle. And there are four ideological foundations in total.
        Today's struggle is the next round of development, another goal-setting. It has a little more than a dozen basic regions. And there are only 5-6 centers of power capable of starting a struggle right now, while ideologies are still 4.
        So three - this is an intermediate stage of the movement today, there will be more of them (at least Europe, and India, and there is also Japan), while ideology, although it does not disappear anywhere, passes into another plane.
        As for Orwell's visionary abilities, everything is simpler here. “It was not he who came to us, it was we who reached the same stage,” the story has made almost a whole round. We are now at the level of the 1929 sequence of events. This is not yet a war or 1945. But one of the challenges to society has already been given - "fascism is showing its pretensions and its grin." The social crossroads are similar, but the roads are different, and the terrain is different. So it doesn’t feel like making predictions; it’s quite good at understanding the problem.