005: Sphere of Influence

Sphere of influence is another term that is used increasingly, before and since the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

Ukraine is next to Russia, it was part of the Russian empire, it was a founding republic of the Soviet Union, Ukrainians belong to the same Slavic tribe as Russians; they are part of the Russian sphere of influence. They are not part of the American sphere of influence, how can they even think of joining NATO? Joining Russia and Belarus (Putin+Lukashenko) to resurrect the Slav reunion is the most logical option for them. As a minimum, Ukraine should be neutral. Look at Finland. That nation has also been in the Russian sphere of influence. If Ukraine had opted for ‘Finlandisation’, it could have avoided the war.

 

The Sphere of Influence concept is old, and universal. Way back in 1823, American president James Monroe declared that if a European power tried to interfere with any nation in the Americas, that would be viewed as a hostile act against the United States. It essentially meant USA was the Big Brother for countries like Canada, Mexico, and other Latin American countries. Nobody from another continent should attempt to interfere with those countries. Using this doctrine; America has invaded, caused regime changes, interfered in Panama, Nicaragua, Honduras, and others. Trump on becoming the president openly considered a military intervention in Venezuela. Because this is the backyard of the United States. Taiwan is in China’s sphere of influence, and Nepal and Bhutan in India’s.

 

Since America is the benchmark rival for Russia, in 2008, President Medvedev articulated the Medvedev Doctrine. I will discuss it tomorrow.

***** 

 

Muslim women in many countries wear burqas. The Afghani burqa also conceals the entire face. Only the eyes can see through the netted garment, like trapped animals looking from inside a cage.

 

Who has decided that these women should wear burqas throughout their life? The Ayatollahs, Mullahs, and the ordinary Muslim men. Why should their mothers, wives, daughters wear burqas? Because it has always been like that. It is, in fact done for the protection of the women. Muslim women have opted for Burqas voluntarily, ask them.

 

If the State, non-Muslims, liberals, or Muslim women themselves talk of banning the Hijab or Niqab or Afghani Burqas; the Muslim Mullahs go wild. Because ‘Muslim women’ is their sphere of influence. Nobody has a right to interfere with what has been historically established.

*****

 

The sphere of influence is a concept supported by the warmongers, bullies, Big Brothers, human predators, violent people, mafia lords. For the human race, it is not based on any law of nature. What do I mean by that?

 

This concept is from the animal kingdom. Predators earmark their areas, their territory. They fight with encroaching rivals. Rabbits eat plants, foxes eat rabbits, and bears eat foxes. Lions or tigers are the apex predators. This food chain is based on nature’s laws.

 

None of the animals, even when evolved; built bridges, skyscrapers, internet, invented clothes or vehicles, produced films, written books; set foot on the moon. The human being is capable of technological progress as well as moral progress. In the twenty-first century, humans can’t cling to laws of predators from animal kingdom.

 

*****

 

Nature doesn’t prescribe human beings to have spheres of influence. That is why this concept needs to be condemned and abandoned. Muslim women, not their husbands or Ayatollahs should have a right to determine their attire. Ukraine has a right to determine its ties, not Russia. If history is the justification for the future, civilization can never progress.

 

Sometimes the exercise is subtle. When the British Empire collapsed, it introduced the term ‘Commonwealth’, a mild and harmless substitute for ‘empire’. A commonwealth or a union of nations maybe fine, but why should it be headed by a British queen? Why, even today, should Canadians and Australians declare allegiance to Queen Elizabeth? Some would argue it is only on paper. (Meaning the queen’s photo on every Canadian banknote?)

 

In 2022, for the United Kingdom to have a Queen is absurd enough, but for Canada, Australia, and a few other countries to have a British Queen is ugly. Because it reinforces this concept of sphere of influence. It says it should always be this way because it has always been this way.

*****

 

In a civilised world, there is absolutely no place for any sphere of influence philosophy. It should be condemned wherever you see it; Muslim men putting their women in Burqas, British queen heading the Commonwealth or Russia preventing Ukraine from following its own free and independent policies.

 

Ravi

(Tomorrow: The Medvedev Doctrine)