The First World War as a form of European containment of Russia: a view from Arkhangelsk

History, as we know, does not go in a circle, but a spiral of its favorite route. 100th anniversary of the First World War confirms this axiom as well as possible. History does not change on the front of the stage of world as geopolitical puppeteers (with the face of the Anglo-Saxons), guides (represented by the Teutons) and their victims —the Slavs. Only the state-puppets change, acting as instigators of conflict (in 1914 it was Austria-Hungary, and in 2014 — Ukraine).

In this regard, we believe that one more axiom deserves an interest — a geopolitical axiom, that the situation in Russia has always been complicated, "... as soon as it becomes stronger." It had drawn the attention of the President of the Russian Federation V.V. Putin at a meeting with students of the Northern (Arctic) Federal University named after M.V. Lomonosov on June 9, 20141.

Picture 1. V.V. Putin and the NARFU students

This idea was clarified by V.V. Putin in his Address to the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation on December the 4th, 2014: "This is not just a nervous reaction of the United States or its allies to our position to the events, the coup d’état in the Ukraine and even to the so-called "Crimean spring". I am sure that if all these things didn’t existed — I want to stress this, dear colleagues, especially for you, for politicians, for those who are sitting in the room —if all these things didn’t existed, they would come up with some other excuse in order to restrain the growing opportunities of Russia, affect it, and even better — to take an advantage of it. The containment policy was not invented yesterday. It has been carried out against our country for many, many years — always, we can say for decades, if not centuries. In short, whenever someone thinks that Russia has become too strong, independent, these tools are used immediately”2.

A hundred years ago an interesting judgment about our country confirming it had been left by famous French economic commentator Edmond Teri in the book “Russia in 1914. Economic Review”. It was noted that"... the increase of the state power was created by three economic factors: growth of the indigenous population, an increase in industrial and agricultural products, financial resources that the state can invest in public education and national defense," he analyzed the situation in Russia. Its population grew by 40 million, reaching 175 million people (3rd largest in the world after China (365) and India (316)), and by 1948 it was to grow to 350 million, that would be more than the five largest European countries. The growth of industry in 1904—1913 was 88%, coal production increased by 79%, iron and steel — by 53%, grain production increased by 22.5%, potatoes by 32%, sugar beet by 42%. In 1922 it was planned to introduce a compulsory free primary education system. “Needless to say, — Teri wrote,— that none of the European states did not reach such rates. And if things go the same way between the years 1912 and 1950, as they did between 1900—1912, by the middle of this century, Russia will dominate over Europe both politically and economically and financially” [1]. There were German forecasts, which concluded the same as the French: "In ten years Russia would be impossible to catch up”3.

This, most likely, was a key reason for retracting the Russian Empire into the World War II. Using the spiral logic of history, one can confirm this global cause of the World War I. by the confessions of theorists and practitioners of the modern Western geopolitics. So, one of its authorities Henry Kissinger writes in his famous book “Diplomacy”: “Russia was the otherworldly force for the rest of the world: mysterious expansionist vision, which one should be afraid of or to restrain it by including into alliances or confrontation” [2, c. 126].

Zbigniew Brzezinski frankly admits: "The defeat of the Soviet Union was the result of 40 years of efforts made during the presidency of Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush" [3, p. 20—21] and predicts: "The new world order will be built against Russia, and Russia on the ruins of the expense of Russia!"4. The fact that the main Russophobe was awarded the highest

order of Ukraine — the Order of Yaroslav the Wise on the occasion of his 80th anniversary again confirms not only the logic, but also the way the current events are going on.

The desire of the West to weaken the Russian Empire was perfectly understood by its best representatives a hundred years ago. In beginning of the 20th century P.A. Stolypin did not want the war in Russia: “While I am in power,— he said in 1909,— I will do everything possible to prevent the war in Russia until the entire program that gives it the internal recovery will be implemented. We cannot be compared with the outside world”5. By the way, the cause of fatal attempt to kill him on the 1st of September 1911 in Kiev City Theater still remains disclosed. After all, the murderer of Stolypin Dmitry Bogrov was both a revolutionary socialist and the tsarist secret police agent. Quite possibly, he performed someone's will. Anyway, in 1916 in the murder of Rasputin, who tried to make Nicholas II to agree on a separate peace treaty with Germany, traces of a British intelligence officer O. Reiner were found by historians. However, the British connection is found in the murder of Paul I, who was going to have an alliance with France in 1801, after a failed attempt to kill Napoleon in the Rue Saint-Nicaise. Then, as you know, when Napoleon learnt about the murder of the king, he said: “They got me in St. Petersburg”6. He knew what forces were behind the murder of the Russian emperor.

In the beginning of the 20th century it had become a serious threat to the Anglo-Saxons represented by aggressive Germany. Russia needed the UK to help in the future war against the Germans, but Russia as an ally was too strong. In order to weaken it, England was pushing Japan into war with Russia, providing logistical support to the country of the rising sun. The fact that the objectives of the UK in the war were in ousting Russia from the Pacific coast was described by one of the founders of Russian geopolitical school Aleksey Vandam (Edrikhin) [4, p. 90—102]at the beginning of the past century. During the Russian-Japanese War of 1904—1905 Anglo-Saxons had been undermining the stability of the Russian state and helping the revolutionaries.

A well-known revolutionary socialist B. Savinkov wrote: “A member of the Finnish party of active resistance Konni Zilliacus reported that he received a donation from American millionaires at a rate of one million francs for the Russian revolution, and the Americans put the condition that the money should be used on the arming of the people and were distributed among all the revolutionary parties [5, p. 41].

So in 1917 the Entente allies, unwilling to share the promising results of victory over the Triple Alliance with Russia, began to support antimonarchist powers to create a chaos of the class struggle and even then, a hundred years ago, to build a world order “on the ruins of Russia and at the expense of Russia”. The Intervention in 1918—1920 was a perfect illustration of these intentions that had not changed by today.

Events in the European North during the First World War were also suggestive about the sincerity of the Allies. It is no secret that the Archangel has always been and it still is a port that provides the access to the open seas for Russia, but also the possibility of its entering by the other naval powers. No accident that even our ancestors had to endure the onslaught of severe Vikings, protect the Russian North, relying on the wooden fortress, and Peter I began with the construction of a stone fortress at the mouth of the Novodvinsk in the Northern Dvina River near Arkhangelsk to strengthen the state. Later there were unsuccessful attempts of the British and the French to gain a foothold in the White Sea during the Crimean War.

The interventionist’s plans to consolidate the European North are more or less known today. It remains an open question whether, and at what stage of the World War I there plans were formed. Few seem to know that Arkhangelsk and other White Sea port of Arkhangelsk province during the World War I, received more goods than during the Great Patriotic War [6, p. 110]. It may not be that the invaders, organizing their delivery, had no information on inland transport infrastructure of the region and the country as a whole and the absence of possibility to deliver goods to the inland areas. Then the other question arises: was it a conscious reason for the formation of subsequent operations on goods’ preservation and use the Arkhangelsk as a base and bribing the local population and the authorities? Anyway, such situation had occurred in Murmansk, in our opinion.

December 23, 1917 in Paris the secret Anglo-French Convention on the “spheres of influence” in the European part of Russia and in the “areas of perspective operations of allied forces” was signed. Economic interests of the allied countries had been put forward in this agreement. English zone of interest consisted of the Caucasus, the Don, Kuban and North Russia [7, p. 43] due to the natural wealth and strategic position of the European North. These intentions, writes V.I. Goldin, were embodied in a letter of the chief of the British mission in Russia, general F.C. Pool to London in January 1918: “Among the plans that I have heard, most of all I like the one in which it is proposed to create the Northern federation with the center in Arkhangelsk ... And entrenched in Arkhangelsk, we could get a lucrative timber and railway concessions, not to mention the value of the control over two northern ports” [8, p. 8]. In relation to the northern region of Russia, important in terms of geo-strategy of intervention they made a plan to create a buffer state that had been mentioned by F.C. Pool in January 1918. It was even invented a grandiose name of the puppet state — Russkaya Severookeanskaya Respublika (Russian Northern Ocean Republic) (RSR). At the same time the Entente made detailed plan for the development of RSR. Firstly, it was supposed to control the export of goods of the specified republic, as well as to control the Russian settlements on Svalbard. Secondly, it was planned to give the port Kildin to Allies after a peace treaty with the Central Powers. Thirdly, former Allies intended to set the summer route connection with the Siberian Republic, another Russian buffer state in the Far East of Russia. Fourthly, the RSR had to maintain and widen the direct connection with the United States, Britain and France to provide itself with all the necessary goods. The US financial and industrial companies were supposed to be engaged into restoration of trade and economic opportunities of the RSR7.

Conclusion

In February 1914 Petr Nikolaevich Durnovo, former Minister of Internal Affairs of Russia and a member of the State Council, issued a prophetic memorandum to the tsar. In this document, P.N. Durnovo emphasized that the main burden of the war, no doubt, would fall on Russia, as England was hardly capable to take part in a wide continental war. And France with its poor human resources would likely stick to a purely defensive tactics in view of the huge losses that a future war would bring in the present state of the military equipment. So, the battering ram, puncturing the very thickness of the German defense would be Russia8. All of these victims, according to P.N. Durnovo, would be in vain, because Russia would not be able to secure permanent territorial gains, fighting on the side of Great Britain — its traditional geopolitical opponent. But the most important argument of P.N. Durnovo against the war was the belief that it would inevitably lead to a social revolution.

These conclusions are something that has not lost its relevance, especially with a regard to the possible consequences of the troubled times in periods of crisis. It seems that today our geopolitical opponents are hatching the idea of destruction of Russian statehood. However, in the words of VV Putin — it is meaningless to talk to Russia from a position of strength in the current situation as well as to hope for social unrest similar to the beginning of the 20th century.