This case study provides an analytical commentary on the article written by Prof. David Bukay in ‘Modern Diplomacy’ on the issue of why Islam hates the West. Prof. Bukay presents the issue that ‘the Western world is ignorant, unacquainted, and in fact stupid concerning Islam. For so many years and so many Islamic attacks, its leaders still reiterate the Pavlovian question: "why do they hate us?"” (Bukay, 2016, April 22). Prof. Bukay compares the West to a battered spouse that is the victim of domestic violence. Instead of seeing the situation clearly like a battered spouse, the West tries to rationalize Islamic violence against the West through examination of the actions the West did to invite the violence.
The profound connection between the Slavs and the Asian races has a prominent place in the long-standing tradition of the Eurasist doctrine. At philosophical and geocultural levels, it is as if the Russians still represented the "Third Rome" - that of the final reconstruction and restoration of the European civilization and its Imperium - which unites with the Asian world, that is the beginning and the end of the sapiential development of mankind.
Whether one truly believes in the old adage that the President of the United States is the ‘leader of the free world’ and ‘the most powerful person on the global stage,’ it is unquestionable that whoever holds the Oval Office in the White House wields tremendous influence and impact far beyond the borders of America. As the world looks on with fascination in 2016 at the coming confrontation between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, questions remain as to which candidate is favored by which foreign leaders.
There are many signs which make us think of a new strategic relationship between Russia and Israel in the Middle East. In general terms, we can now assume that the Jewish State is already considering and assessing the US disengagement from the Middle East system - hence Israel is trying to define a policy to "replace" them, thus establishing connections with the Russian Federation.
As already well-known, since Soviet days, Russia has pursued a pragmatic policy aimed at enhancing multidimensional ties with the countries of the continent on the bilateral and multilateral basis. Experts say while building mutually beneficial cooperation remains one of the main priorities of Russia, its economic cooperation with Africa has hit stumbling blocks, for example, trade turnover with the countries of sub-Saharan Africa for the period from January to December 2015 was estimated at US$ 3.3 billion.
Few would argue that Russia’s recent display of military assertiveness, in both its hybrid confrontation in Ukraine and recent intervention in Syria, is antithetical to its proposed self-image as a regional power. This is largely the basis of Emil Aslan Souleimanov’s article explaining how Russia is using the threat of the Islamic State to attempt to reinstate political-military hegemony throughout the former Soviet states. But Souleimanov missed the broader aspect of Vladimir Putin’s true motivations in the Middle East and throughout the Caucasus: countering perceived U.S. and NATO hegemony in the region and beyond.
On March 18th, 2014 following a popular self-determination referendum of the people of Crimea the Russian Federation declared re-annexation of the Crimean Peninsula which was annexed by the Soviet Ukraine in 1954. Nevertheless, the western global corporative media, politicians and statesmen classified such act as a matter of “aggression, violation of international law and unlawful occupation of a part of a territory of internationally recognized independent state and the UN’s member”.
For the United States and the now brainless Europe, initially the Russia-EU Summit in Sochi in March 2014 had been cancelled due to the Ukrainian crisis, but later, after the regular referendum which saw the peaceful annexation of Crimea and Sevastopol with over 4,000 votes, the relations between Russia and the West continued only at G7 level.