DIPLOCODEX n°0 : EU CRASH ON THE RUSSIAN CHESSBOARD (The Protasevitch Wall and The Crimean Square)

DIPLOCODEX n°0

EU CRASH ON THE RUSSIAN CHESSBOARD :

THE PROTASEVITCH WALL AND THE CRIMEAN SQUARE

INTRODUCTION

Europe VS Belarus. With the appealing tease given by this title, we are now observing the formation of another confrontation : Europe VS Russia. When I say Europe, I say European Union; this is why you can see Belarus and Russia are incorrectly excluded from the term Europe, even if they are, to some extent, European too.

The problem is simple, a Belarus political opponent has been « kidnapped » thanks to the hijacking of the flying plane he was into; the hijacking is rumored to be Belarus President LUKACHENKO plot, with the participation of Belarus KGB agents.

See our partner, Deutsche Welle, article of the issue :

https://www.dw.com/en/germany-russia-flights-resume-after-air-traffic-suspension/a-57757954

Well, business as usual you could think; we should note that Belarus denied these accusations -because these are primarly accusations, if not facts. The real fact is that the arrested person, Roman PROTASEVITCH, 26 yo journalist, is now under detention in Belarus. K1FO, as a geostrategic news agency, can only support a fellow journalist, and defend the rights of the press, and the elementary human rights, which we hope will not lack regarding PROTASEVITCH detention.

We could also note that the PROTASEVITCH Affair is nothing but political, then we should all be responsible in the treatment of the events, and the strategies set in this respect. We will see in an upcoming work that the Belarus-Ryanair incident is part of a greater geopolitical scheme, and that its potential links to other past, present, and future geostrategical incidents are representative of the invisible but strong links that can exist between publicly unrelated geopolitical facts.

In the present article, we will focuse on the treatment of the Belarus-Ryaniair incident by EU and Russia authorities.

MIDDLE RUS

After the supposed rapt of the Belarus opponent by the security forces of its own country, from a fly between Athena (Greece) and Vilnius (Lithuania), the European Union suspended their flyings on the Belarus aerial space. Belarus, a country located between Poland, Russia, Baltic States and Ukraine, is the core of a region that deserves more attention from global leaders : It’s what we call the Middle Rus.

The Middle Rus is not at all at the center of the Russian State and world, described in MISS-UNDERSTAND RUSSIA, but at the middle between Western Europe and Western Eurasia; we should say that Middle Rus is Western Eurasia, or at least Far Western Eurasia, or (Far) Eastern Europe, we should also see it as the legacy of the Kievan Rus, which is located at the strategic center of Early Western Russian historic heritage. As said in MISS-UNDESRSTAND RUSSIA, Russian world is a gateway for several cultures, as it faced numerous wars, unifications or invasions and led prodigious territorial expansions; all of this is in the Russian world.

The Russian world was not unified for long centuries, as it didn’t encompassed all the geo-ethnical parts it held today, we should then said that if we could see the Russian capital as the primary center of what we could call, not the russian world, but the Russian state, then we should see the origin of Russian state in the ancient history of Moscow.

The Moscow Principality is a legacy of the Kievan Rus’, the first occurrence of a Russian State that even led Moscow itself, so is the Middle Rus that hypothetical geographic space that can share some direct proximity with Western Europe ?

Fellow historians can say that early rulers of Moscov or Kiev came from the Varangians, a branch of Norse-Vikings; regarding cultural, military and historic evidences, could we say that Norse-Vikings, which share with Turkic people some habits as the throat singing, or led incursions in their surroundings spaces and far away from their native places as Nomayad conquerors did, are descent of Eurasian people, or Naval Mongols if you prefere, as the Turkic-Mongolic expanded West and East (even in Japan, where their invasion failed) ?

We should then ask the similarities we can see between countries located at the cardinal extremities of Eurasian conquests, for Example Denmark/Norway and Japan, which share same lifestyle regarding fishing, energy, coastal architecture and so on, we should study the Hainu peoples, who could share the same features with the Eurasian peoples that went to Scandinavia, or even, why not(?) with the Proto-Scandinavian -Varangians-Norse-Vikings peoples that went to Russia to form the Early Russian State, and then expanded in east or melted with the Russian and Eurasian population as the Russian State was assimilated into a greater eurasian ensemble, or formed itself this eurasian ensemble, in the intent of creating a great Russian Eurasia.

If the existence in history of some eurasian ensemble was intended by the Khan rulers, the Tsars or the USSR, it natural that it encompassed all ethnicities and faiths that lived in the Eurasian space; nevertheless, the specific location of someone in the Eurasian ensemble had a great influence in its own existence; Belarus, as a country at the forefront of Western Eurasian ensemble, so western that we could not included it into it, is part of one one the key components of the Russian world, which since the Ivan IV conquest of Siberia, is more and more another word for the Eurasian Ensemble, as with the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union, Moscow had take the responsibilities of it. 

We can see that if Eurasia is not safe, Russia is not safe, and if Russia is not safe, Eurasia is not safe. 

As Eurasia is constituted with at least two parts, the Siberia, and the Turkestan-Mongolia (Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan -even if Tajiks are nor Turkic or Mongolic, Turkmenistan, Mongolia state, Eastern Turkestan and Inner Mongolia), we can see that only Siberia is full part of Russian State territory, the major party of Turkestan-Mongolia was part of the Moscow-led USSR, with the exception of Mongolia itself, which was a Socialist Republic outside the Soviet Union, and the exception of Eastern Turkestan and Inner Mongolia which are both included in the People republic of China national territory, as Tibet, an other potential component of the Great Eurasian world, and the gate for it to South and South-East Asia, where the Moghols were among the greatest rulers.

Russia and Eurasia, then are not realities we could exchange one with the other, less than in the case of USSR and Eurasia, but if USSR directly led Mongolia and China eurasian territories, or even Mongolia and China, USSR would have been the total eurasian state, from the Baltic Sea to the Pacific Ocean, from Black Sea to Bering Strait, from Himalaya to the North Pole. By being honest, we can see that if USSR was not that big, and if Russia is by far more restricted in term of superficy, Russia can limited its security to its own borders, and should at least linked its sovereignty to the entire Russian world, close but distinct, or better, distinct but close, from the eurasian world.

The Russian world is like a circle, or a bracelet, and its neighbors and peripheries are like the rings of the bracelet. One ring is lost or broken and it all the bracelet which is damaged. The Bracelet and the rings are interconnected and the same reality, the bracelet is all its components, and the intent of the owner of a bracelet is to secure it and make it the most beautiful possible. Belarus, regarding the Russian world circle, is at the north west, close to Lithuania, Poland and the Baltic Sea, which mean Scandinavia too. Yet Poland (once reunited in the Polish-Lithuanin Commonwealth, the Scandinavain kingdoms had been, at the west of Russian world, the most enduring military opponents to Russia and its circle:

We should then consider the Wars between Russia and Scandinavia kingdoms, or the Wars between Russia and Polish or Baltic (including Lithuania) kingdoms.

We should not ignore that there is a symbol in the fact that PROTASEVICH has been taken in a fly between Athena and Vilnius (Lithuania), when we know that Russia is ambivalent ally, but ally of Turkey in Libya or Syria, and knowing that Turkey is know in a naval confrontation against Greece in the Eastern Mediteranea for the control of what they call (Their Sea). Are we witnessing a direct confrontation between Russia and the Western world for the control of their land (Middle Rus), as they would be in a confrontation with them for the control of « their » north (Antarctica), as it could be a confrontation between China and Western powers in Pacific for the control, for the Chinese, of their Ocean.

When we know that France, in a response to the Turkish offshore and defence incursion in Greece maritime space, send a great naval military defence in the zone, as we know that France and Turkey are in direct diplomatic confrontation, which saw the Turkish Head of State claiming that its French counterpart was mentally disabled, after that France President (NATO member) implied that NATO (of which Turkey is also a member) was in a state of cerebral death, could we think that there are, there was, there will be geo-defence responses from each sides of NATO coalition and Russia-Tukey alliance, regarding each side initiative regarding the other side security and interests ?

DIPLOCODEX is that game which is not playing.

For each geostrategic event, you should determine of what geostrategic event it is the response. For each geostrategic event, you should determine what will, or could or should be the response to it.

For example, if I say Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings, we could easily say that it is a response of Pearl Harbor attacks, and if I ask what was the response to Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings, you would say « the Japanese capitulation from WWII ». Well, if these events were representative of a state of global conflict, it is not a purpose to present the current state of world affairs as a state of war between powers.

For what geostrategical event could the Ryanair hijacking could be the response ? What could be the response to the Ryanair hijacking ?

Was it the response to the Ryanair hijacking the closing of the EU flying travels through Belarus aerial space. What have been the response to the EU decision against Belarus ? : Russia refused the bypassing of Belarus for the plane flyings between EU and Moscow; then what would be the route of such flyings between European Union and Moscow ? From EU to Moscow, the passage by Belarus is, according to Russian authorities, the shortest and safest way, would we contourn by north-western Russia and Baltic States, or through Ukraine (including Dombass) ? Or by Anatolia and Mesopotamia (Syria and Iraq) ? Is President of Russia Vladimir PUTIN right when he say that EU will put their own citizens in danger if there is changes of the usual flying routes between Western Europe and Middle Rus including Moscow, through Belarus ?

The rules of DIPLOCODEX are simple : there are at least two powers or two coalitions of powers face to face. The goal is to destabilizate and sometimes ultimately anihilate the adversary or enemy. In direct war, as during the WWII, the belligerants attack the other camp forces and territory, directly. In indirect war, the belligerants attack the influence zone or assets and interests of their counterparts.

Is the fact of putting pressure to Belarus authorities regarding Protasevitch rapt a indirect attack on Russia, by putting pressure to a country located in its influence zone (Belarus, a Middle Rus country) ? Is the fact of hijacking a plane which go from Greece to Lithuania a maneer for post-Soviet power, to indicate that from Greece (South-East Europa) to Vilnius (North East Europa), there is an invisible security line, passing through Western Belarus, that prevent Middle Rus, under the patronage of Moscow, from any NATO-EU influence and interference in the zone ? Could we call this line the Protasevitch Wall, in respect of the new geopolitical geometry the Belarussian journalist had indirectly created between Western world and Russia-Belarus (Middle Russian) coalition ?

Can we say that the direct western threat to Middle Rus is the concept of Intermarium, a political space separating central Europe from Russia, from the Baltic to South-Eastern Europe ? Can we say that the Middle Rus is facing from years the expansion of NATO and EU influence zone in Eastern Europe ? Can we see the route of the plane intercepted by Belarus as a new geostrategical line : the Protasevitch Wall. Could we see the Protasevitch wall (going from Athena, GREECE to Vilnius, LITHUANIA) as the new western frontier of Russian European influence zone ?

Considering that Moscow is in the European part of Russia, as the Caucasus where is located the Artsakh (Armenia and Azerbaijan), can we see a square, whose angles are Vilnius (N-W), Moscow (N-E), Bakou (S-E) and Athena (S-W) ? Could we call this square the Protasevitch Square ? This would be incorrect, as the line going from Moscow to Baku is not led by the Protasevitch affair, even if they are included in the same diplocomplex (or diplocodex game), we should better , as Crimea appears as the strategic center of the square, going from Athena to Vilnius and Kaliningrad , from Athena to Stepanakert (Artsakh) and Baku (Azerbaijan ) in the south, from Artsakh-Armenia/Azerbaijan to Moscow in the east, and from Moscow to Kaliningrad-Lithuania in the north, with in the central zone of the Crimean Square, the Black Sea, and it strategic pojnt, The Crimena Peninsula, now part of the Russian Federation as the Republic of Crimea (not recognized by UN), call it the Crimean Square.

As you can see, the Crimean Square allow Russia to be connected in its western part to the Baltic Sea with Kaliningrad, to the Mediteranea with the Protasevitch Wall which go to Athena, and to be connected with the Caspina Sea with Baku (in Transcaucasia) and the Russian Caucasus.

We don’t ignore that Mali, Sahel-Sahara West Africa State faced two coups d’État in less than six months; we don’t ignore that the first Coup in Mali was led by a high-ranking Malian military official trained in Russia, his tropps overthrow the legal President, in a country where France intervene in the last years with the Barkhane Operation, against transnational local terrorist groups. After the first Mali coup, ploted by a Russian-trained colonel, an extraordinary destabilization occure in a strategic Russian influence zone, Caucasus.

See CAUCASWORLDER, THE GOLDEN RHOMBUS

Surprising military confrontation took place between two ex-Soviet Republics, Armenia and Azerbaijan, now member of the main Eurasian ensemble political organization, the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS). If we could see the Mali Coup(s) as indirect interventions of Russia in French-speaking Western Africa, could we saw the Artsakh conflict was formed as an indirect intervention of France in the Russian-led Caucasus ?

Diplocodex is a battle that never stops, if not with general armistice, but often continues, specially when authorities ignore that it is real. Having no doubt that Russia are great players of K1FO theoricized Diplocodex, we can imagine that the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict would be a reason for a retaliation.

Of course, France condemned the first Coup d’État in Mali, and kind of restreinded the offifcials discussions with the new military regime in Bamako. The priority was to push in Mali for a democratic State, with balance of powers, and of course, limitation of the military influence in Mali State affairs: was it the progressive marginalization of the Mali Defence in the State affairs, a mean to marginalize Russian backed new malian military elite, for the benefit of more consensual and traditional national political leaders ?

In the case of the lowering of military defence in Mali politics, if it reduced Russian direct presence in strategic Mali, at the crossroads between Sahara, North African and African Atlantic-coastal states, or Guinea Gulf countries, is it possible that the second coup d’État, again made by Mali military circles (who imprisoned the running President and Prime Minister of Mali) is an indirect way for Russia to strenghen its presence in the Western South Sahara region, or even a strategy of marginalization of the traditional power of the region, France ?

Diplocodex is complex, thus we can call it Diplocomplex, we should also study all the Diploboard in which the Diplopawns are evoluating. There is in the present Diplocomplex a clear confrontation between France and Russia, in Africa (Mali, Centrafrican Republic among others) and abroad, for example in the Caucasus.

Russia is the main member of its team (CIS), this is why it was brillant for those who intended to destabilizate Russia to put grave divisions in the CIS itself, between Armenian and Azeri peoples, this based on the first war between the two new independent states after the break-up of the Soviet Union in the late 20th century. Diplocodex is the determination of the causality and consequentiality of each geostrategical event, based on action and reaction.

Diplocodex help to demonstrate the origin of geostragical decisions: there we put our attention on the Russia relations with Western world. By the way, as the relations between Western world (NATO and allies) and Russia and allies are crucial for the future of the global affairs, Diplocodex will be a core material for K1FO, alongside TRANSAFRIKHA, The project that put Africa in the rails of true bio-development.

If TRANSAFRIKHA can enhance security and business, we shouldn’t ignore that the Diplocomplex is crucial for the security of all its participants, and then for their prosperity as the first is linked to the second.

DIPLOCODEX the Application – TRANSAFRIKHA The Project : here are two services, fundamental for the understandinG and development of the world. Diplocodex is for governement, TRANSAFRIKHA is for business.

With Diplocodex, you can see in the past, for example you can determine that the COMECON (Council for Mutual Economic Assistance) was a response to the Marshall Plan (as the Warsaw Pact) but also a larger response to Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) founded in 1948 as Organisation for European Economic Co-operation (OEEC).

To be honest, the present Diplocomplex can give the impression that the Cold War is not over. The Cold War, more than a strict war, was, often, a concurrence with courtesy between USA and USSR; there could not be another power like them in this regard, this is why it lead to distrust between Soviet Union and China, or between European mid-powers and their distinctive threat or protectors regarding the side of the Curtain Wall there were : USA and USSR.

Then, the non-aligned movement was a negation of the bicephal hegemony of Washington and Moscow, as it refused any allegeance to both side, as you can on the map regarding COMECON (the Soviet Union backed economic community), Yugoslavia was less integrated in the ensemble than others parts of Warsaw Pact, Tito independence to Stalin and to Stalin successors is well known. As Western Europe powers were sometimes more and more asking for independence from US geopolitics and influence, for exemple in Western Germany (even if FRG leaders to the like of ADENAUER were well-known USA-NATO oriented, at the contrary of the Willy Brandt Ostpolitik) and even in new reunificated Germany, the Wars in Yugoslavia can be seen as the main event that prevented European Union (which included United Kingdom at this time) to be a fully sovereign federal state with three nuclear powers (France, Italy and UK), as the conflict in the Balkans destabilized the region, and shown the then-incapability of EU to pacify the zone without the intervention of at least one of the two superpowers of that time (USSR or USA), which were reluctant to do so.

As the Yugoslav Wars took place between 1991 and 2001, we could establish a parallel between these conflicts and the intermediate years between the end of Soviet Union (1991-1992) and the reemergence of Russia (2000-2001) : the Yugoslav Wars are also the Yelstin years, the end of the Yugoslav Wars is the beginning of the Putin era, which begun with the War in Chechnya.

Our diplocodex is now based on the Russia and CIS; we took a moment to present our algorithm functioning with the example of France and Russia international confrontation in each other influence zone (Africa and Eurasia-Caucasus, or to be correct ECOWAS -EACC for France and CIS for Russia).

The diplocodex is simple : you have towo powers, if there is one event A in the zone of on epower 1, it is a response to a previous intervention B by this power in the other power (2) zone, or and the event A will lead to a intervention by the power 1 in the zone of power 2.

Then, when a geostrategic event occured in one power zone, you should see what other power is in direct or indirect confrontation with this power; then you should have two reflexions :

• See if, among the powers in confrontation with the hurted power (1) , there is one power (2) which could have been previoulsy destabilized by the hurted power, or which could have an interest in destabilizing power (1)

• See what would be the next power destabilized by a geostrat event in its geozone (it could be a response of the hurted power to the power (2) its considered guilty of the attack against its, or a destabilization of another power (3) allied with the power (2), in the case the responsible of the gesotrat event against power (1) is power (3), or if power (3) need a « message », in the case power (3) is an ally of power (2), in the case the responsible of the attack against power (1) is power (2).

We clearly saw with Armenia-Azerbaijan and Mali-Centrafrican Republic that there is a Diplocodex between France and Russia.

But if Russia and France had their own geozone, which permit them to led diplocodex policies, are they too in the geozone of some more powerful powers ? Is Russia in the geozone of China, or Iran, or Turkey ? Is France in the geozone of USA, or UK, or Germany ?

As we saw with NATO and CIS, the political organizations in which a power is included is, particularly when it is regional, a geozone for the power, but also upon him. If USA had influence on NATO, can we say that NATO also had an influence on USA ? Could we say that regional or transnational organisations are a mean of infleuence for powers, but also of the countries and interests defended by the organisations, on the their powers-members ?

Plus, we should ask why we already think that France is in the geozone of USA, or that Russia could be in the geozone of China, thinking that France, under sovereignist Charles DE GAULLE presidency (1958-1969) once left the NATO, or that China empowered its own development, including with the so-called Tiger-Club economies, in the Fying geese paradigm.

To determine a nation geozone, meaning the influence he had and the influence others powers can have on it, we should see :

• the allies of the power : a nation can only be under the influence or have influence on a nation which is its ally
• the organizations of the power :
  • a nation can only be under the influence or have influence on a organization the power is member of,
  • a nation can only be under the influence or have influence on a a nation which is member of the same regional political organizations or geoastragecic alliances than the power

Then, considering France, it could only be under the influence or have influence on allied countries, it could only be under the influence or have influence of organizations it is a member of, it could only be under the influence or have influence of countries with which it is aside member of regional cooperation oraganizations or geostrategic alliances/organisations.

Considering what is a influence zone, it is a more difficult question, somewhat based on perception rather than facts, but in the case of powers, it is not difficult to know their influence zone as it is part of their official policy and of their public international prestige and security; it is a symbol of their direct or indirect power and world presence. An influence zone is as implied by its name a question of influence, so of national interests, and one the most crucial assets of any powerful nation. Then, determine a power influence zone is a melting of impression and facts, what we could call a geopolitical factual impression.

As we can see with the Protasevitch line or wall, and with the Crimean Square, Russia give a strong image of its influence zone in Europe (here in the western part of Middle Rus), that give the impression that Middle Rus is expanding in the West. The Artsakh conflict after the Mali first 2021 coup give the factual impression that it could be a Russian state retaliation for a indirect destabilization led by another power in one of Russia influence zone; this could be false, this could be only hazardous, as the geopolitical incident between Russia-Belarus and EU could only be pure coincidence regarding the second mali Coup d’État (2021).

Diplocodex trace lines, but never say it is true or false; but just that it is, or could be, or not.

As the diplocodex is operating on a diploboard, with diplopawns, can we see the blockade of Russia on EU ambition to bypass Belarus aerial space, for the EU flyings betaween EU and Moscow, as the fact that EU leaders failed to see the next move ? Putting itself too much in front of the issue, which is extremely grave as presented by the French Foreign Affairs Minister, will EU be obligated to retreat to stop the escalation which could be in its advantage ? What if Russia close the aerial lines between Moscow and EU countries, or prevent any fly from EU or to the EU, on the Russian Federation aerial space ?

What if Russia and the entire CIS (Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kirghystan, Moldavia, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan) prevent EU flying from their territory, in solidarity with Belarus ? This could sound corny, but is it not the Russian new decisions regarding EU flyings only concerned by the EU- Belarus crisis ? What if Russia and the entire CIS, and all their eventual allies prevent EU flyings from their territory, in solidarity, not only with Belarus, but with Russia and CIS in the case new EU decisions and sanctions were taken in retaliation of such Russia-CIS diplocodex moves ?

Descalation is the only way for European Union; and the understanding of all the Russia-CIS capabilities of retaliation a norm, as a reaction can only be at least equivalent to the action it respoond too . . . At least.

DIPLOCODEX is a laguage, an art, and is based on rules and law, including those of motion, as it is based on diplomoves on the diploboard.

We should then take a look at natural laws, and first to the 3rd law of motion by Isaac NEWTON, also called the law of action and reaction.

DIPLOCODEX.