Ukraine: New Pearls by Francis Fukuyama
Human story knows many thinkers whose ideas have influenced the world perception of millions of people, on the economic, social, political and cultural way of life in various countries. Only some thinkers had a really positive - developing - influence with their ideas. Others, under the guise of proposing something fundamentally important and needed by their theories, only powdered the heads of recipients, made a feasible contribution to the de-nationalization of people's consciousness and, accordingly, to economic, social and political destruction. Theories clearly frankly constructive, introducing only confusion and chaos, distorting the worldview, include Francis Fukuyama theories.At the very beginning of the 90-ies, Fukuyama created a completely anti-scientific, but in form very scientific, futurological project. In the weighty book [20], he predicted the relentlessness of the onset of market democracy for the whole world, which should do much good to all mankind. Allegedly, the inevitable liberalization of the world was called by him the end of history. I will not analyze the content of this book, because it is not the subject of this article. An interested reader can familiarize himself with a detailed analysis of a book about the end of a story in a review dedicated specifically to this work [9]. I can only say that, firstly, it is the unlimited state market that leads to social polarization, enrichment of the few and impoverishment of the majority. Therefore, economic liberalism, which in every way idealized and preached Fukuyama, completely contradicts the social good. Secondly, no liberal democracy praised by Fukuyama has come. He argued that wars and serious conflicts would cease along with liberalization and democratization. And what do we see? The forecast was not a jot.
Moreover, Fukuyama seems to be unaware of intellectual honesty and elementary decency, since he did not recognize the obvious fallacy of the thesis about the end of history. Many years after saying his prediction, after the fall of the USSR as the main bastion of resistance to liberal democracy, he continued to insist on his own. He still calls the market the best form of organization for human society. He still thinks that it is liberal democracy that will take over the future of the world, that "modernity, represented by the US and other developed democracies, will remain the dominant force in world politics, and the institutions that embody the basic western principles of freedom and equality will continue to spread throughout the world" [21 ]. Nothing is realized on a global scale and, I must say, thank God. Fukuyama continues to dodge intellectually in an interview, when he is asked uncomfortable questions, cheat, saying that his prediction was misunderstood. But they understood it correctly, especially as the Fukuyama book does not resemble the work of such sophisticated authors as J. Derrida or J. Deleuze, who write extremely difficult in three-story language, and this complexity interferes with understanding and gives a wide scope of interpretations. The book of Fukuyama is extremely simple, does not provide a wide field for interpretations, and therefore it is required to make some kind of intellectual distortion in order to misunderstand it. Although today Fukuyama is so zealously not promoting the idea of the "end of history." Apparently, understands its failure. But it is also afraid to admit it, therefore it buries its head in the sand, it is unlocked by common "market" phrases, and it is obviously erroneous. The widely known book "The End of History and the Last Man" is directly proportional to the degree of absurdity of the theses put forward in it.
Indeed, the world is unjust, and its injustice is indicated, among others, by the literary factor; extremely wide popularity is often received by authors whose ideas and forecasts are erroneous in their very foundations. The same can be said about S. Huntington, who predicted the absurd idea that from now on geopolitical confrontations will be characterized exclusively by conflicts between civilizations, each of which combines different countries in cultural similarities [22]. True, the position of Huntington is much less utopian than that of Fukuyama, with its all-goodness of liberalism, peace, friendship and chewing gum. In recent years, Fukuyama has distinguished itself with new pearls, and in this article we propose to get acquainted not with Fukuyama 25 years ago, which postulated the end of the story, but with Fukuyama current, fresh, but still engaged in cheap insinuations, forgery and perjury.
For three years now, the world’s views have been focused on the situation in Ukraine. Only these views are completely different. Despite the absence of a clear and unambiguous dichotomy of the type “black and white” in a wide range of views, despite the rather long continuum of views about what is happening in Ukraine, it is still two points of view that prevail. With a certain amount of humor (but this humor does not go to the detriment of objectivity) they can be called American and correct. According to the point of view of the United States and the "civilized" Western world, Nezalezhnaya experienced a "revolution of dignity", as a result of which the people finally threw off the oligarchic government, which was mired in corruption, freed itself from Russian oppression and switched to the path of democratization. According to the correct point of view, in Ukraine there was an anti-people coup, as a result of which the oligarchy became stronger, corruption increased, living standards plummeted, power almost liberally separated from its social functions, the country lost state sovereignty and passed under external - American - management. Z. Brzezinski and F. Fukuyama did not ignore what is happening in Ukraine. Brzezinski’s new book on Ukraine-related events I previously reviewed [8]. This article deals with Fukuyama abstracts.
Fukuyama set about the old occupation - political delusionalization in his old style. He almost completely identified himself with the rhetoric that the newly-minted Ukrainian gauleiters and their Washington masters proclaim, and he is not worried that this rhetoric is contrary to reality.
For Fukuyama, Russia is the occupant of the Crimea. Apparently, he does not know that Crimeans themselves expressed a desire to join Russia. It would be strange if they wanted to stay in the bosom of Ukraine, in which, obviously, looters and criminals came to power. Those who argue that there was no referendum forget the following. No political decisions are able to initiate such a huge confluence of the people, which was formed on the day of enthusiastic rejoicing associated with the unity of the Crimea and the Russian Federation. No planes and ferries are able to deliver so many people by political order for extras. Also, those who argue that the people of Donbass are cruelly exploited by the militias, that the locals are under the yoke of the “separatists” and hate them fiercely, let them look at the thousands of people gathered at the funeral of Arseny Pavlov (Motorola) - the heroic defender of Donbass from the Ukrainian Nazism. Such a huge cluster would never have gathered for the funeral of a terrorist and an oppressor. The Kiev-American side provided no evidence of violations during the Crimean referendum, and Fukuyama did not bother to substantiate this fact of occupation. He just said that. There is such a joke: Crimeans not only voted, but also everywhere rejoiced at Unity at gunpoint. But Russophobia is doing its job, and the myth of annexation in the world media has become dominant.
According to Fukuyama, Russia is the responsible party for the fall of the Malaysian Boeing. It is strange to think that such a well-known political scientist replicates opinions that their media have never substantiated, and runs to trumpet about Russia as an aggressor. After all, it turns out that way. Immediately after this tragedy, without carrying out any investigation, even before finding the black boxes, Poroshenko was absolutely unfounded to hasten to blame the pro-Russian militia leading the battles with the Ukrainian junta in the south-east of the country. Without providing any evidence in favor of their version, American lobbyists also accused the militia and at the same time Russia. The accusation was heard before any investigation. At the same time, the European media began to lay responsibility on Russia; which version of the elder, in the person of America, declared, they supported it without being embarrassed by the absence of any data.
The Americans referred as evidence to ... some photos from social networks. Proof of the kindergarten level is served in all seriousness! They announced the available satellite images, but they did not show them. This once again suggests that the Americans are ready to falsify information as they please, if only to blacken their opponents. Interestingly, the Ukrainians, as a party to the conflict, were admitted to the investigative committee for this case, and Russia was not included there. Obviously, this cannot be the result.
The course of the aircraft was changed and ran over the combat zone. This raises questions, since the course change must be coordinated with the air traffic controllers of the country over which the plane flies. Ukrainians, so confidently accusing Russia of this terrorist act, do not provide audio recording of a conversation between pilots and an air traffic controller. And the Ukrainian side did not submit the dispatcher itself. Moreover, if hostilities are taking place in this zone, Ukraine should close its airspace there.
Further reports appear that this Boeing was accompanied by a Ukrainian fighter. In the Ukrainian media, there appeared “evidence” of involvement in the militia’s terrorist attack - a record of a conversation between the militias, in which they confess that the plane they had shot down. That's just bad luck: it turned out that the record is a falsification, which is a stuck together pieces of various conversations. The question arises: if Kiev was not involved in the terrorist attack, would he dirty his hands in creating such falsifications? If indeed the plane had been shot down by militiamen by non-existent “Bukami”, would there be a need to fabricate evidence pointing to the militia? It remains to be surprised at the cynicism of this action, although, on the other hand, given the overall activity of the Kiev junta, it seems that cynicism has no boundaries.
Black boxes were found by the militias. If they were involved, would they pass the find into the hands of an international commission? After all, it is suicide, because the disclosure of stored information would bring the perpetrators to clean water. And to justify in this case is no longer possible. If the militiamen were guilty, the most logical step on their part would be the destruction of the black boxes, not the transfer. I think the tragedy with the Malaysian aircraft is a situation where European politicians know everything, but they express a slightly different - a fundamentally anti-Russian and completely unproven - version. And Fukuyama probably understands everything perfectly, but the money must be worked out. A very remarkable event: in January, 2017, after the Dutch journalists, after visiting the Donbas, returned to their native lands, the Dutch police confiscated their materials (laptops, phones, memory cards and cameras) concerning the tragedy with Boeing. The rationale for the detention was due to the suspicion that journalists want to hide the finds. Only now the suspicion itself was not based on anything. What about the vaunted European publicity?
As befits a decent American political scientist, Fukuyama calls civil society those who made the revolution in Ukraine [15]. Essentially, civil society includes, among other things ,'re-nationalists, overt fascists, ideological heirs of the OUN, murderers, “patriots” bought by Americans. The growth of Nazism, Bandera, the absolute mythologization of the media - all this is not a manifestation of citizenship. It is clear that Fukuyama forgets about these phenomena. He prefers not to see the rewriting of history, admiration for the OUN-UPA, torchlight processions, extremely Russophobic media propaganda, the Nazis, jumping under the clearly intolerant cries of “Moskalyaku to the Gilyak”, characteristic of Ukraine. He closes his eyes to the facts according to which schoolboys were forced to ride under Russophobic slogans.
When they talk about mass politicization in the same Ukraine, they forget one statistical moment. Yes, thousands of people came to the Maidan. But what are these thousands compared to 44 millions of people in the country? Obviously, in a statistical sense, they are not the majority, and therefore they hardly have the right to speak on behalf of the people and in their speech express the will of the people. Even if we see tens of thousands of protesters on an area, this is nothing compared to a supermillion city and, especially, with a multi-million country. The magic of big numbers is that when we see a huge crowd of people, it seems to us that a social majority has gathered here, and almost the whole country is suddenly located in one place, in this populous point of singularity. Accordingly, the temptation to draw a conclusion about the event of universal politicization and civil will is easy. It should also be noted that among the protesting and galloping minority there were a lot of those who purposefully worked for American money to incite Ukrainian fires. Therefore, it is inappropriate to make pompous speeches about civil society, which has finally won out over the illegitimate government. Therefore, the concept of "society" is not applicable to the Kiev Maidan, nor to Moscow Bolotnaya Square.
Fukuyama says that Ukrainians surprised the world with a desire for change in 2004 and in 2014 ([15], [16]). It would be more correct to say that not Ukrainians surprised the world, but American sponsorship. The United States spent about $ 2014 billion on the Ukrainian 5 revolution. This figure was voiced not by some conspiratorially thinking Russian patriot, but by V. Nuland. However, sponsorship from “world democratizers” should not be surprising, since a whole series of revolutions in different countries were put on stream and arranged. When money comes from the United States, diplomatic assistance, coverage of the revolution from the “right” angle in the media, specialists, a representative of the State Department V. Nuland and other resources, making a revolution (even the most anti-democratic — but under democratic rhetoric) is much easier.
And for some reason, now that in Ukraine the economic, political and social situation is much worse than when Yanukovych was, the Ukrainians are not surprised by the new revolution. After all, the revolutionary situation has precisely when welfare falls. Apparently, now there is no support from the United States. No money - no revolution. Ukrainians would really be surprised when they made a revolution in the absence of American support. But, of course, Fukuyama is not talking about any help from the States. Anyway, this is not serious - to tell the truth to such an important analyst.
But a serious action by an analyst of this level is the phrase about Putin as a person who is determined to prevent Ukraine from becoming a successful society [15]. The United States took away sovereignty from Ukraine, forced foreigners to accept to high government posts (a rare disgrace), demanded liberal reforms leading to impoverishment of the population, put Ukraine on the rails of economic enslavement and stimulated the Government of the Independent to take loans and raise public debt. But for some reason, it is Putin who is preventing Ukrainians from becoming a successful society. Apparently, all these actions of Americans lead Ukrainian society to success. Apparently, the actions of the authorities, which resulted in a catastrophically low standard of living, and millions of Ukrainians began to move - including to Russia, send Nezalezhnaya to the right path.
According to Fukuyama, Euromaidan is “a tremendous battle for the expansion of modern forms of democratic governance” [17]. It was only carried out quite undemocraticly, with the beating of the Golden Eagle, with a surge of Nazi euphoria, with murders committed by revolutionaries and with serious outside interference, which in the whole inevitably tears off the label of democracy. But Fukuyama does not know about it or thinks that he does not need to know about it. Just the American elite itself determines where democracy is, and where totalitarianism. And it turns out that democracy is where the government realizes the interests of the American government and corporations, even to the detriment of the interests of its own people. M. Delyagin gives three signs, according to one of which people are recognized by people in American culture: 1) people - those who live in conditions that the American state recognizes as democratic, 2) are those who live in undemocratic conditions, but sincerely strive to democracy, but the degree of sincerity is determined by the American state, 3), those who live in countries that are allies towards the States [6]. There is little irony and much truth in these words.
Reality speaks of a catastrophic jump in corruption in post-Ukraine, and Fukuyama argues that the new leaders managed to reduce corruption and introduce public management principles into the management process [17]. The following imperative is widely known: facts remain facts, and interpretations may be different. Here are honest ethically conscientious scientists arguing in interpretations, without touching the facts themselves. But dishonest ethically unscrupulous "comrades" begin to substitute facts, invent them, construct, and then prove that their mental (sometimes very sophisticated) constructions are the immutable truths of objective reality. He also makes Fukuyama, postulating, but not proving, the reduction of corruption by the new government of Ukraine, democratization and the domination of the principles of public management. What public management, when authoritarianism thrives, does the media replicate the same myths about Russia, Ukraine and Maidan, alternative points of view are not allowed in the media space?
So, the public of Kiev opposed holding a gay parade, but the parade was held anyway. Apparently, the gay parade is a necessary element of democracy, and even if the people are boycotting this event, it should be carried out anyway. Apparently, the ban on communist views is also a manifestation of democratic public management. Such is it, Western American democracy in Ukraine. The main thing is not what was said by the people, but what the elite considered democratic. Finally, it is ridiculous to read the stories about public management, the rise of management quality, etc. when looking at many completely crazy statements by representatives of the Ukrainian establishment, when looking at O. Lyashko, who, standing behind the podium in the Verkhovna Rada, put into his mouth pieces of land , sentencing the Ukrainian black soil, which can be spread on bread and eat. Why not advertise agriculture and fertility? Is it possible to imagine that a really serious politician would allow himself such actions? Or is it just that seriousness, responsibility, professionalism, and intellectual development are not in trend among elites today?
Fukuyama says that he was struck by the strength and organizational ability of Ukrainian society to resist injustice and adds that the Ukrainian model can be an example for other countries in the fight against authoritarian, paternalistic and corruption regimes [18]. First, what is there to be amazed at? Yes, Maidan was filled. But, as already mentioned, on a sociological basis, revolutionaries are not at all a majority, and they cannot represent Ukrainian society. Secondly, what is the strength and organizational capacity, if the protesters did not have any reasoned and rational programs? Great revolutions are made not for irrational and manipulative absolutely empty linguistic cliches in the meaningful sense (as it was in Ukraine in 2004 and in 2014), but for concrete rationally built, thought-out programs. The great revolutions of the past were based on a deep ideology developed by great thinkers. No "cognitive cartography" was proposed on Maidan.
The media campaign accompanying the Maidan was fully suggestive and mystical. No pronounced and supported by the evidence base of ideology was proposed. No clear plan was proposed for the reorganization of Ukraine, the project of a new country, except the mythical integration into Europe. About any analysis of its problems and the development of solutions to the speech did not go. Everything happened at the level of cheap, empty slogans like “Who does not jump, that Moskal”, “Moskalyaku to Gilyaku”, “Ukraine tse Europe”, etc. Without a deep idea, without human-centric ideals, revolution is a crime, and it is a big crime, canceling a small crime in the form of a pre-revolutionary regime. There were only anti-Russian slogans and unrealizable (at least, taking into account the people rushing to power - their human appearance and level of professionalism) populist goals such as overthrowing oligarchy, defeating corruption and entering the European Union. None of these goals was achieved. Moreover, they were achieved exactly the opposite.
The influence of the oligarchy has only increased, authoritarianism has strengthened its position (as evidenced by at least monotonous media content), and corruption has increased significantly. Therefore, it is unclear who and why will follow the example of the Ukrainian model, for which the guardians fought against corruption, paternalism and authoritarianism, and as a result only strengthened corruption and authoritarianism. Paternalism, of course, won, and with it the social state responsible to the people. Therefore, the overthrow of paternalism is not an achievement. Fukuyama attaches a negative meaning to paternalism, seeing in it one of the manifestations of undemocratic states. However, what is called with contempt “paternalism” is connected with what is called social policy. It was her Ukraine that remained, she was defeated. With the same success in the phrase about the Ukrainian model as an example of the fight against authoritarianism, the phrase "Ukrainian model" can be replaced, for example, with the "Pinochet model".
Also G. Kissinger in the already distant 2008 (in the work "Putin remains a very influential leader") stated the need for true independence of Ukraine for the peaceful existence of the international system, that the United States should unequivocally support Independence Square, the need to create close political ties between the EU and Ukraine, on the importance of the latter’s membership in the European Union [10]. In an interview with 2014, “How will the Ukrainian crisis end?” Kissinger said that Ukraine should freely choose its economic and political ties, and have the opportunity to create a government consistent with the will of the people. None of this was achieved, although representatives of the American side like to broadcast that now, after the Maidan, Ukraine has reached independence. Just total dependence on the United States in their Orwellian language is called independence.
The theses of predominantly American authors are clearly unconvincing, which, they say, now Ukraine freely chooses with whom to cooperate, and the government has become “popular”. Paradoxically: it was when Ukraine’s policy lost its sovereignty and completely departed from the popular will, American and Western analysts began to call it sovereign and popular. In the same collection (but in another interview, entitled “Drums of War”, dated 2012), Kissinger, unlike the American propagandists “from democracy,” draws in quite sincere militaristic tirade. Here are its main points: the United States minimizes China and Russia, Iran will be the last nail in their coffin; in the coming war only one superpower will win - the USA; States will take over the Middle Eastern countries because of the resources; Russia and China are watching America take them down; Israel is expected to fight to destroy the Arabs and capture half of the Middle East; Western soldiers, brought up by games like Call of Duty and Warfare 3, are ready to be cannon fodder and fight the Chinese and Russians; on the arrival of the right time, America will show its weapon the world; a winning superpower will create a global government. As they say, thanks for being frank.
Of course, Fukuyama does not bother to prove the theses he expressed. He just throws them, apparently believing that the provision of evidence is not a necessity. However, he has long proved himself to be a political analyst and futurist, whose analyst contradicts reality, if not the laws of nature, and futurology simply does not come true (which we discussed at the beginning of the article). Only his belief in the States completely contradicting political realities as an outpost for the spread of democracy in the world is worth something! He just forgets to say about the ties of the US special services with the totalitarian government of Pinochet.
We present only some facts. The Americans, through the hands of the CIA and the Bigtel corporations, carried out a bloody coup d'état in Indonesia and brought General Suharto to power. Indonesia since the time of Suharto, unaccountable Western export credit agencies lent credits; as a result of crediting, the Suharto family got richer on kickbacks, the country's economy weakened, the environment was badly damaged ([5], [12]). Moreover, the Americans (at the initiative of Kissinger) encouraged Suharto to attack East Timor, since it seemed to the States that communist ideology was taking root there. America provided the Indonesians with weapons, food, ammunition for war.
By the secret decision of Nixon and Kissinger during the Vietnam War, the US bombed Cambodia, its civilians, trying to destroy the warehouses of the Vietnamese Communists on its territory; the war claimed about 500 thousands of Cambodian lives, and the CIA prince leading the neutral politics of Cambodia overthrew. In order to prevent the leakage of information about the shameful war in Cambodia, it was decided in the "democratic" power to listen to the phones of journalists and government representatives, and when it became known, the Watergate scandal broke out. Examples of the treacherous invasion of the States, leading to the suffering of entire nations, can be cited for a very long time. But for Fukuyama, the States are the outpost of democracy. He avoids the question of a completely arrogant and criminal war with Vietnam, the perfidious bombings of Yugoslavia, Iraq and Libya. He forgets that wherever the American boot made a color revolution, wherever the pro-American IMF and the World Bank were in charge, instead of democratization there was demodernization, an economic recession and the overthrow of the people into poverty.
Fukuyama, like Brzezinski [3], proposes to provide Ukraine with training and serious military equipment [14]. Here is such a diplomacy! This proposal was grounded by an unspoken desire to finally embroil Ukraine and Russia. After all, Russia is a serious geopolitical adversary that cannot be left alone. It should be weakened in various ways - by war (of course, by proxy), sanctions, diplomatic pressure, etc. However, analysts like Fukuyama cover up the thesis about helping Ukraine with the words about freedom, security, democracy, wrongfulness of Russia, annexation of Crimea and etc. True aspirations are not pronounced.
Russia has its own answers to all the claims of the West, and they are more reasoned than its claims. But the West does not even want to see these answers, let alone receive them. Therefore, it is difficult and almost meaningless to prove that our answers are based on real facts, that they are more logical and substantively deeper than the claims made to the Russian address. After all, interest on the scales outweighs the truth. There is an interest in the US to spread rot to Russia, so they close their eyes to the whole truth, as in 2008 they closed them to the truth about the Georgian initiation of war, and even with the support of America. Occupied by the US military bases, Europe, but continuing to assert its independence and democracy, is forced to cave in under the States and pick up the American anti-Russian absurd media content in its media, and therefore it is also uninteresting. After all, telling the truth for Europe means provoking US discontent. Unfortunately, interests are stronger than truth. Let us paraphrase a well-known phrase from the philosophy of science: if facts contradict interests, so much the worse for facts.
Fukuyama declares: “Authoritarian regimes, such as Russia, China and India, are feeling more and more confident using the rhetoric of ethnic nationalism that is intolerant of other nations” [7]. I wonder where, in what speeches of Russian politicians, Fukuyama heard the rhetoric of ethnonationalism, and moreover, it was intolerant of other peoples. It is not surprising that he chose not to concretize this thesis, not to speak about specific speeches of specific leaders, not to refer to certain words confirming ethnonationalism as a mainstream phenomenon for modern Russia. Apparently, there were no such speeches. But for some reason, Fukuyama, like Brzezinski, suffers from surprising short-sightedness, which does not allow him to see a completely visible fact: in Ukraine, under known slogans, Russo-phobia was injected into the open and continues to be forced by official (and not some marginal) media, and in Russia there is no Ukrainophobia, even such a thing does not exist. True, ukro- "patriots" usually call Ukrainophobia the rejection of ukro- "patriots" by the Russians. But here we should not confuse the concept: svidomye and Ukrainians-not the same thing. Therefore, disrespect for Svidomo is not Ukrainophobia, but the problem of Svidomo itself.
For some reason, neither Brzezinski nor Fukuyama see ethnonationalism and intolerance, which is flourishing now Polish and Baltic Russophobia. It seems that only the Western world deserves tolerance, which speaks about the principles of tolerance towards others, but allows itself any tricks that contradict these principles. Finally, when the United States declares the need to protect Americans living in other countries, this is called national interests. When the Russian Federation speaks about the protection of Russians who are abroad, immediately followed by accusations of ethnonationalism and intolerance. Western standards are good !!!
Now, in principle, the entire "civilized" world has turned against the non-existent Russian aggression. The States adopted the National Security Strategy in 2015, which is not about whether the United States should be a global leader, but about how the United States should exercise its global leadership. According to the document, one of the most visible manifestations of US global leadership today is the fact that it is the States that mobilize and direct global efforts to counter Russian aggression and "punish" Russia [1]. Only the question arises: who will mobilize and direct global efforts to counter American aggression. Moreover, it is necessary to counteract the information aggression of the United States, because the indiscriminate unreasonable accusation of Russia of aggression is a manifestation of the US aggression in the information war.
Fukuyama replicates pro-Ukrainian myths about Russia as an aggressor in Georgia; this myth, even in the West, has long been debunked, but Fukuyama does not seem to know about it yet. Now let's face it. Saakashvili's regime was supported by America: for five years, the military budget of Georgia increased from $ 30 million to $ 1 billion, before the attack on Ossetia, American military instructors worked in the Georgian Ministry of Defense and carried out Pentagon-funded Georgian-American military exercises [11]. Even Z. Brzezinski writes that after the 2008 war, the USA transferred $ 1 billion to Georgia [2]. It was on the orders of the United States that Saakashvili started the war. American politician and political scientist P. Buchanan calls Saakashvili Washington's favorite. Buchanan is indignant that the US is not doing the right thing, supporting the intervention of Georgia, falsifying data about this war with myths about Russia's aggressive invasion, recognize South Ossetia and Abkhazia as Georgian provinces [4]. Washington's pet - such a status of the former Georgian leader is already obvious - especially after the Americans did not abandon him and pushed him to the post of mayor of Odessa in post-Ukraine.
Russia's participation in the Georgian-Ossetian conflict on the side of the victim, that is, Ossetia, is contrary to the interests of those implicitly on the side of the aggressive Georgia of the United States. It is not surprising that the US authorities immediately started to deploy a large-scale information war against Russia, and political scientists like Fukuyama supported it. All the world, and not only American, "independent" media literally began to play in unison, demonstrating Georgian soldiers shooting at Tskhinval and calling them Russian. V. V. Mironov notes the following. During the war, he was in Germany, where Saakashvili had never seen a chewing tie. And when Mironov returned to Russia, he basically saw the President of Georgia, who was chewing his tie. In general, the German and Russian man in the street saw absolutely different Saakashvili, being sure that he knows the truth [13]. Of course, the truth lies not only in unnatural manipulations with a tie.
Russia was indiscriminately accused of unjustified aggression - of what it did not commit. Aggressors inspired Russian crimes that they themselves have committed. By setting Georgia on Ossetia and Russia's involvement in the war, another reason was formed for accusing Russia in the eyes of the world community. With participation in the war, Russia inexorably seems to be the aggressor in the camp of its opponents and, in principle, all over the world. Even without participation in the war, it is such; after all, the Russian Federation is not at war with Ukraine, but in Western media they are in a military conflict. The myth in the world media is presented as truth, ostensibly not subject to rethinking. They declared with unequivocal certainty that Russia is an aggressor, which means that it is also an aggressor. And since all the world media talked about this, and even used multiple repetitions, relaying the myth, because of the breadth of its replicability, it began to be perceived as a monumental truth, with which no one argues. Consequently, the myth, while remaining a myth, that is, not a historical truth, is subjective, in the minds of the people and communities that perceive it, seems historical, real, not amenable to reinterpretation. This is what happened with Russia, which showed unjustified military aggression, not in reality, but in the broadest mental space. Of course, Fukuyama did not bother to present any real evidence in favor of the idea of Russian aggression.
Fukuyama also decided to demonstrate historical knowledge concerning World War II. In the book "America at the Crossroads" stated that the United States played a key role in the defeat of Nazi Germany and Japan. And then the author makes a link, which states that many readers of this book’s publication in Russian may not agree with this point of view. Of course, they will not agree with such an anti-historical interpretation. In addition, Fukuyama again does not provide any - even minimal - arguments in defense of his thesis. He just postulates him. According to Fukuyama, the unlimited power of America "led to an absolutely moral (from the point of view of morality) outcome of the Second World War" [19, p. 32]. But what does “by universal opinion” mean? Where is this universality?
Fukuyama writes that Western institutions and the values of liberalism and democracy are needed by almost the entire world. That is, he is in favor of the cultural universalism of the West, although he understands that not all nations, by virtue of the specific characteristics of their cultures, are ready to introduce Western values. We give a very long quote. "But Western institutions, as well as the scientific method that was discovered in the West, have universal applicability. There is a deep historical mechanism that leads to long-term convergence across cultural boundaries: firstly, most strongly in economics, then in politics, and finally (in the most remote perspective) - in culture. First of all, this process moves forward thanks to modern science and technology, whose abilities to create material wealth and tools of war are so great that they make science and technology necessary for all societies.Semiconductor technology or biomedicine has the same value for Muslims or Chinese as it does for the West, and the need to master technology determines the borrowing of particular economic institutions such as free markets and the rule of law that ensure growth. on technology, market economies succeed on the basis of individual freedom — that is, a system in which individuals rather than governments make decisions about prices or percentages the covariant rates "[21].
There is no deep historical mechanism leading to convergence across cultural boundaries. Yes, science and technology are needed by all. However, the possession of technology is not at all connected with the borrowing of free markets and economic freedoms. The most graphic evidence is that the Soviet Union, in which there was no market economy, did not smell economic freedoms, but science and technology developed much faster than in many countries of the “civilized” world. Therefore, the thesis about the connection between science and technology and the free market is another ideological stamp and nothing more. The same stamp - the thesis promoted by Fukuyama that economic development leads to a liberal democracy. Yes, economic growth contributes to the emergence of an educated middle class, demanding the protection of their rights. But it’s not at all the fact that his representatives will accept precisely the liberal ideological orientation. And if we talk about Ukraine, then, using the logic of the same Fukuyama, it should be stated: since instead of economic growth there is a decline in all the main indicators, it means that there is a departure from democracy - farther and farther than it was with the more economically prosperous Ukraine since the times of Yanukovich.
In general, Fukuyama was catastrophically mistaken when he predicted an offensive of liberal democracy that was irreversible and blissful to the whole world, and is now no less catastrophically wrong. If a person has the destiny of being a delusional generator and constantly contradicting reality, what can we say. It remains only to sympathize. It seems that the principle will be true: "Listen to Fukuyama and do the opposite."
Both Brzezinski and Fukuyama, speaking for the hegemony of the United States in the world and often moving from rigorous scientific analysis to the verbalization of myths replicated in the Western press and in no way supported, sign in their engagement. It is believed that Brzezinski works in the disciplinary space of geopolitics. However, his activity goes far beyond this scientific field and invades the anti-scientific sphere of ideologizing and propaganda. It is believed that Fukuyama works in the space of political philosophy and futurology. However, his activity is more likely associated with the same ideologizing, propaganda and false predictions. Fukuyama's futurology turns into a false futurology. Fukuyama's opinion is far from objectivity. It overlooked interests contrary to scientific impartiality.
It is advisable to postulate the following thesis: total irresponsibility for their words has long become the norm among political and geopolitical analysts of the "civilized" world. Their recent speeches once again proved loyalty to this thesis.
***
NOTES
1. Alekseev AP, Alekseeva I. Yu. Information warfare in the information society // Questions of philosophy. 2016. No. 11. C. 5 – 14.
2. Z. Brzezinski. Strategic view: America and the global crisis; per. from English M. Desyatovoy. - Moscow: ACT, 2013. - 285, [3] p.
3. Brzezinski Z. Ukrainian Chance for Russia. - M .: Algorithm, 2015. - 240 with.
4. Buchanan P. Why do we tease a bear? // INOSMI.RU. URL: http://inosmi.ru/usa/20110829/173957126.html
5. Golubitsky S. What is the name of your god? The great fraud of the twentieth century - M .: Bestseller, 2004. T 1. - 336 with.
6. Delyagin M. Overcoming the Liberal Plague. Why and how we will win! (Collection "Izborsk club"). - M .: Izborsk Club, Book World, 2015. - 512 with.
7. "Euromaidan inspired world politics" - Francis Fukuyama about Ukraine and globalization. URL: http://reed.media/fukuyama/
8. Ilyin A. N. Brzezinski about Ukraine: analysis or ideologizing? // Russia forever. Folk sheets. URL: http://rossiyanavsegda.ru/read/4312/
9. Ilyin A.N. Is the End of History According to F. Fukuyama Possible? // Information and humanitarian portal "Knowledge. Understanding. Skill". 2012, No. 3 (May-June). URL:
http://www.zpu-journal.ru/e-zpu/2012/3/Ilyin_End-of-History-Fukuyama/
10. Kissinger G. Understand Putin. Politics of common sense. - M .: Algorithm, 2014. - 200 with.
11. Mikhailov I. The Moment of Truth for Russia // Zinoviev Magazine. 2008. No. 3. URL: http://zinoviev.org/chteniya/elzhur/moment-istiny/
12. Rich B. Export Destruction. Why do we need export credit agencies // Games of economic killers. Ed. Stephen Hayat. Preface author John Perkins. - M .: Publishing house "Pretext", 2008. - 448 with.
13. T. A. Umanskaya. Interviews with the Dean of the Philosophy Faculty of Moscow State University V. V. Mironov // Questions of Philosophy. 2014. No. 1. C. 3 – 18.
14. Francis Fukuyama: Putin is playing a very two-faced game // Crimea. Realities. URL: http://en.krymr.com/a/francis-fukuyama-putin-ukraina/26572453.html
15. Francis Fukuyama: Putin does exactly what Hitler did // Ukrainian Truth. URL: http://www.pravda.com.ua/rus/articles/2014/08/27/7035903/
16. Francis Fukuyama about Ukraine, Russia and the future. URL: http://www.xnumxkhvylyn.com/opinion/mind/opinion_20.html
17. Fukuyama: I am very concerned about the development prospects of Ukraine // Gordon. URL: http://gordonua.com/news/worldnews/fukuyama-ya-ochen-obespokoen-perspektivami-razvitiya-ukrainy-103610.html
18. Fukuyama about Ukraine and the world. URL: http://trim-c.livejournal.com/1264521.html
19. Fukuyama F. America at the Crossroads: Democracy, Power, and Neoconservative Heritage. Per. from English A. Georgieva. - M .: ACT: ACT MOSCOW: STORAGE, 2007. - 282, [6] p.
20. Fukuyama F. The End of History and the Last Man. - M .: AST: Yermak, 2005. - 588, [4] p.
21. Fukuyama F. Has history begun again? // Russian journal. URL: http://old.russ.ru/politics/20021106-fuk.html
22. Huntington S. The Clash of Civilizations; Per. from English T. Velimeeva, Y. Novikova. - M .: OOO Publishing AST, 2003. - 603, [5] p.
Information