An interesting article here by Alexander Dugin in which he examines the factional power dynamics of the NATO-Russia conflict using Zbigniew Brzezinski's "Grand Chessboard" analogy:
Chess of war
Let us look at the main actors in the war unfolding in Ukraine. Here we can refer to the 'geopolitical chessboard' metaphor introduced by Zbigniew Brzezinski. Obviously, the territory of Ukraine, and to some extent Russia, is a 'chessboard' on which the global geopolitical confrontation is...
www.geopolitika.ru
I would be interested in hearing from the Russians in this discussion as to whether they see Dugin's perspective here as a generally objective representation of the power dynamics both within Russia, and the overall conflict.Alexander Dugin said:Each macro-figure has before it a fairly clear picture of what is happening, with which all other figures agree in principle. That is, they all act according to certain algorithms, which are inscribed in the objective structure of the confrontation, about which they have no illusions. Everyone understands who is fighting with whom and for what objectives.
Ukraine is just a territory, a chessboard - with its own characteristics, topography and topology, but it is a pure background. It is neither a figure nor a subject. Everything is decided outside of it and regardless of it.
Military, political, economic, social, diplomatic, information and technological processes are closely interconnected and form a rather orderly system, despite the spontaneity of war. All 6 macro-figures can be taken to understand how these systems are configured and how their different parts are interconnected.
But this general agreement with the objective geopolitical framework goes no further. Each subject in the decision-making process moves according to its own logic and the very fact of this movement is capable of changing the whole picture under certain circumstances. For example, the decision on partial mobilisation in Russia, its timing and even its details, affects the entire system. Obviously, the party of delayed defeat in Russia resonated best with the collective West, but once it happened, events began to unfold at a different pace. The same applies to the other major decisions of this war: offensives, retreats, defences, attacks, terrorist attacks, bombing of military and civilian targets on the enemy's territory, and so on. The irregularity of the situation is that the territory of the real enemy in this war - the collective West - remains perfectly safe for now, while on Russia's territory the enemy is striking, right down to the recent UAV attack on the Kremlin.
In this diagram, we can further analyse the relationship of the three black poles to each other, and this will give us a clearer picture of the overall vector, taking into account the political moment in the US and the more secondary processes in the NATO countries - Europe and Turkey. We can also look at the relationship and balance of the three white macro-figures. Again, there is a definite dynamic linked to the same political moment, but already within Russia. Finally, it is possible to analyse how the attitudes, decisions and actions initiated by each pole of one side (the black side) relate to the similar attitudes, decisions and actions of the other (the white side). But this requires another, more detailed analysis.