Quite often, one has to deal with the following statement: the majority of Americans are primarily interested in their internal affairs and are not interested in international affairs, and especially Russia. Banal is a very widespread statement. And often it sounds in response to the fact that the Americans are there, the other, the third ... and the answer: yes, the Americans are not interested in Russia at all! Beautiful, of course.
We can find a weak tracing of this even in Europe: somehow I watched a long interview with a Russian-speaking Frenchman, and so, at the moment of a special heat of analysis of Russian-French relations and the influence of the future president on them, he stated frankly and frankly that the French voter was interested in social issues , issues of employment, crime, and so on ... and Russia is not a priority for him at all.
So it's not bad, it's very, very cool! We, Russians, are also primarily concerned with issues of employment, wages, housing, crime ... It’s good and wonderful that we understood each other so quickly! And then some “pseudo-experts” came up with some contrived political disagreements and muddled with might and main the water for their narrow-minded purposes. A resident of New York, like a resident of Uryupinsk, is worried, above all, not by the geopolitical situation, but by his own welfare.
The idea that Russia in the United States is by no means a priority has always met. It seems that the Russian-speaking reader was hinted that his beloved Motherland does not mean so much in international affairs, and that to think otherwise is to be deeply mistaken.
And after all this "happiness" Trump began to openly poison him with "ties with Russia." It is strange somehow: what is the matter of the great and mighty United States to some third-rate country? And it’s not the EU, not the PRC, or even the not tolerant and democratic KSA, but Russia has become a trend in the intra-American political struggle. That in itself completely refutes all previous conversations about the "unprincipledness" of the Russian theme on the intra-American political agenda.
Moreover, it refutes even in exaggerated, caricature form. Solid Russian interference in the elections and solid Russian hackers. Tellingly, it was “copied” in Europe, supposedly and there everyone is terribly afraid of Russia's interference in the course of elections and its influence on the outcome of the elections. Any adult who is a little familiar with the realities of the American / European political system can only be amused by such reasoning: even Putin dream about it with all his strength - to really influence the outcome of the elections in the USA / FRG / France he doesn’t have many opportunities.
In these countries, there is a rather closed, well-established system that has very little in common with the widely declared "democracy." To get there to a stranger is virtually impossible. Nevertheless, the charges (unsubstantiated) sounded constantly. And they continue to sound.
This is how interesting things work out: initially there is some backward, unpromising, degrading and not interesting Russia in anyone in the West, and then suddenly it starts to make presidents in the USA ... somehow it doesn’t look like the truth at all.
In fact, there is nothing special to rejoice here: first, America is not governed by a certain “American people”, but by the American elites (a very limited group of citizens); secondly, yes, the Americans for the most part are absolutely not interested in Russia, while Russia "does not start to get confused under their feet."
We are somehow stubbornly trying to ignore the fact that the Americans are used to feeling like "the first and exclusive nation." And from the phrase that the average American is not interested in us in any way, for some reason they immediately make a bold conclusion that we can fish on our side of the lake, and no one will touch us. The idea is interesting and attractive. And it is very actively moving in response to Russia's military efforts: they say who needs you with your rusty tanks? The West is busy with its megaprojects, and backward impoverished Russia interests him a little less than nothing.
However, however, practice shows a completely different picture: what was up to the ordinary American before “Georgia-2”? And yet, what happened happened, and no protests and condemnations of this were observed in the United States. Georgia actually borders with Russia and does not border with the United States and does not even border with the EU. Is this what the Americans care about Georgia?
The logic is this: all serious political problems on the planet are the prerogative of the Americans. No, right after World War II, when practically all civilian industrial production and all finances were concentrated in America, it was somehow logical. Today, the situation has changed a little, but the psychology of Americans does not change. We do not want to understand the unpleasant fact that an ordinary American has quite an “imperial thinking”. America as the center of the planet.
The disruption in its time of the agreement on Syria (Lavrov-Kerry) can be explained precisely by this. Americans are simply not ready to implement any kind of “agreements”. They are, so to speak, "the stitching came under the imperial mantle." Yes, of course, there are conspiracies and intrigues, but there is also such an unpleasant fact that an ordinary American used to consider himself the "master of the planet." And he really does not care about Russia and the Russians, but not because he is ready to leave them alone, but because America and Russia are on “different levels of being.”
So the "Crimean sanctions" could be imposed on a completely different occasion. It is difficult to live with such people on the same planet. The whole trouble lies in the fact that today the United States, in principle, does not have the necessary resources to maintain that very "great imperial" status. Yes, they can control Bulgaria, Georgia and Estonia politically, but nothing they can not offer economically.
On the big, on the serious. The times of "magic South Korea" are long gone. Namely, Georgians and Estonians relied on it for the most part. The fact that they will enter the American sphere of influence and on the "magic elevator" will rise to the seventh sky of economic happiness. None of them planned to “starve in the name of freedom.”
And here it works again, forgive me, the complete "frostbite" of Americans: they somehow don’t even think about the fact that they owe something to all these countries economically. From their point of view, the fact that they "rule" these "powers" is a big plus for their inhabitants. This "misunderstanding" especially hard hit Ukraine. Here, “incomprehension” has become simply epic in nature: from the point of view of many Ukrainians, the meaning of the “revolution of guiding” is that now all the economic and political problems of Ukraine have tackle the US (EU).
Chaos and overtly criminal decisions / actions in Ukraine have many reasons, but one of them was voiced by the very Mamchur: “America is ours!” This is the outright self-love / suicidal behavior of Kiev after February-2014 of the year that explains it: America is us! People really imagined that they can all. Thank you for this, you need to say to those American politicians who pushed them to this. But those “American politicians” rely on the opinion of millions of voters who are convinced of the need for “American leadership” for the planet. As practice shows, only devastating defeats can change this opinion (it is also true for Napoleon’s “voters” and Hitler's voters).
At the same time, the bloody chaos in which the people of Iraq, Libya and Syria found themselves influenced American politicians very little - this not them voters. And an ordinary American doesn’t care about them from a high bell tower ... This is what is meant when ironically declares the lack of interest of ряд ordinary Americans ’in foreign countries. Yes, even you all die. That is, they will certainly interfere (this just implies American “exclusivity”), but to bear responsibility for this is not and once again not.
Such a “concept of foreign policy” and without any “conspiracy theory” provides for itself the “kingdom of chaos”. By the way, the comrades Ukrainians (and their politicians!) Did not even understand, by what they signed up. They come from the old samurai traditions of mutual loyalty vassal and suzerain (interestingly, samurai ate fat?). But America proceeds entirely from other traditions - “to challenge and quit” ... the Americans did not read Exupery and did not consider themselves responsible for anyone. Unless, of course, it is unprofitable to them.
That is, the fact that “America is a democracy” doesn’t help us (and everything else) practically. American voters are mostly American voters. All the others are strangers at this celebration of life. And now American politicians are actively making decisions that affect the life of the rest of the planet. And what does democracy have to do with it? A nuclear / non-nuclear attack by the US on Russia or China (in the absence of an adequate response) on the interests of the American voter beats not so much ...
They just want to convince us constantly about something: they say America is far away, democracy in America and the American voter don't give a damn ... all that, but it doesn’t solve our problems. At the suggestion of the Americans, a wave of “revolutions” swept across the Arab world, tens of millions suffered ... but what was the ordinary voter from the American backwoods before? He is worried about his taxes ... That is, the existence of a certain (cut) democracy in America somehow insures an American voter, but not a foreigner.
Foreigners do not vote for American politicians, so their opinion is absolutely indifferent to the American political elite. By the way, the opinion of ordinary Americans is also not so important to them. That is, the problem is not that in the USA a bad political system or the Americans are bad people. The problem is that this system is controlled (not completely!) From within the country, and affects the entire planet. Such is the imbalance. And the ordinary American voter sees nothing wrong with America deciding the fate of other nations of the world, without bearing any responsibility for their fate ...
And it cannot be said that such a situation is absolutely unique and does not have any historical precedents: just remember the Roman Empire. They usually tell about her “from the inside” - and immediately before our eyes an impressive picture of wise senators, staunch legionnaires, corrosive lawyers, huge colosseums, magnificent roads, beautiful statues ... and much more! Gloria Romanum she is so ... pretentious! However, all this is shown / told from within the most glorious Roman "ymperia".
Why am I doing this? And to the fact that on the outside it looked completely different. Fundamentally. The trouble is that, considering the history of that same empire of the Romans, we, as it were, clothe ourselves in the toga of a Roman senator and from the height of our position ... But from the point of view of the slave (especially in the quarries!) Everything looked a little different. And there were much more slaves in the empire than senators or even ordinary free citizens of Rome (almost the entire history - the mass distribution of Roman citizenship began very late).
It is banal, and nevertheless: as many Russians view the history of Russia of the XIX century exclusively from the point of view of the highest aristocracy, there is a similar error with regard to Rome. But to be a Roman slave - it was not the worst, it was much worse than being a neighbor of Rome. Many do not fully understand the meaning of the Roman Empire, but, oddly enough, it consisted precisely in the robbery of provinces and provincials. Residents of the provinces were residents of the Roman Empire, but not quite its subjects (for the most part). And they do not have much rights, there are much more responsibilities. And when they were included in the empire, they could both be robbed to the skin, and simply sold into slavery. And it did not bother anyone - they were, in fact, "meat", prey. And in the empire they were included largely for the convenience of robbery.
Once again: the post of governor of the province was therefore so interesting that it made unbelievable profit - the province (and the provincials!) Was, in fact, its property. This, of course, is well known to everyone and is not interesting to anyone, however, however, for some reason, he says a patter - they say, there were such unpleasant episodes against the background of general magnificence ... So, these “lewdness” were the essence and meaning of the Roman Empire, - architectural excesses are, rather, an optional “consequence”.
This is not about “exposing Roman imperialism” (which is rather late), but about a more realistic view of things. Yes, the Romans were such: greedy and cruel! And they liked to rob, kill and rape (and “rob caravans”) rather than indulge in philosophy and versification (this was the lot of foreigners, slaves and freedmen). Therefore, being a neighbor of the Roman Empire / Republic was not as fun as many think. We just have to look at the empire from within, but not outside, which is not entirely correct.
And yes, the Roman Empire after 2-th Punic has not met equal opponents in power. Pax Romana, which was formed in the Mediterranean, was characteristic in that it was, so to speak, a separate galaxy. Rome in the heyday of the empire unconditionally maintained relations even with distant exotic countries (primarily trade), but as such it had no diplomatic relations with its neighbors in the heyday of the empire (in the modern sense). He did not consider them equal to himself in any way. Neither the states themselves, nor their inhabitants.
By the way, the idea of "racial superiority", like the greeting, copied by the Third Reich, comes from there. No, no one liked strangers, including cultural Greeks, but it was the Romans who brought the idea of segregation to a logical conclusion. For some reason, historians do not like to argue about this “reverse side of the Roman Empire” ... But the Romans surpassed most of the cultural peoples of that era not only in positive terms ... in terms of negativity, they also probably have no equal.
The Greeks, Persians, Phoenicians, Carthaginians and Etruscans (Hindus, Chinese of that time) were not a “gift” either, but such huge slave barracks were not close to anywhere else in the ancient world. Everyone had cruelty (where without it!), But some kind of patriarchal, fanaticism ... and the Romans put the plunder and enslavement of neighboring nations on an industrial basis ... and even during the Republic, when the Senate ruled everything. That is, if we argue from the point of view of the Roman, the empire was an absolute good. Here are just the Romans were a very modest minority among those who were affected by the very empire ... but for some reason historians look at the situation from the point of view of the Romans ...
Meanwhile, all the neighbors of the Romans consistently conquered, robbed and driven through the slave huts. This percentage of slaves was no longer in any major state of antiquity. That is, the Roman Republic / Empire was quite a “specific” structure. Somehow the mass battles of gladiators are not seen anywhere else in history. Generally nowhere.
Well, mentioning the Third Reich between cases, it is impossible not to note the same most interesting feature: it looked very different from the inside and the outside. Here is any Soviet person who accidentally began to read the memories of a German about life "then", this can be very shocking: they lived for themselves normally. Quite normal. No "fascists with machine guns" ran through the streets. So we are told that in Ukraine today there are no fascists (they don’t run through the streets with machine guns!) And everything is fine ... So that's how it was in the Third Reich in 30. Only there really “everything was normal” - they “killed” their “Azov” back in 34, and the economy grew (as did the technology).
And the standard of living of the German workers under Hitler became very high, and social security expanded incredibly: the Führer’s party was actually called: National Socialist German Workers' Party (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei). And it was not empty propagandaas claimed in the Soviet era. Hitler stood behind the mountain workers and peasants (German). Then he robbed Europe so that the Germans ate their fill and lived well. And the Germans (in the mass) supported their Fuhrer, that is, the Fuhrer was quite a socialist and robbed Europe first of all for a simple German, and not for large monopoly capital, which he disliked.
The truth is, of course, the unpleasant, myth of the evil Nazis, relying on brute force, the Gestapo and the concentration camps, and the "millions of honest Germans" deceived by propaganda and intimidated by terror ... looks much more presentable. However, the Germans (unlike the same Italians) supported their Fuhrer to the end ... "resistance" was very, very limited.
But after the war, somehow it was all explained to the interested public, and I had to deal with frank myth-making about the “exceptional guilt of the Nazi elite”. Allegedly, all the others are “not in business”. But that was the strength of the Nazi regime that the people supported him. And to the end. Unlike the magnificent white marble Rome, we judge the Third Reich exclusively from the "outside." Hence such contrasts in the perception of these empires, and in fact they had so much in common ...
We used to curse the Third Reich, because us he did a lot of bad things. But this is for us. The Germans look at his activities a little differently. Because they were “inside”, not outside. And even many Europeans (Dutch, Norwegians) do not feel any special hatred for that regime. I understand that it is difficult to accept, sometimes it is even impossible, but this is the case. For the Russian, the Third Reich is one thing, for a German (or even a Dutchman) is quite another.
Well, Rome and the Third Reich are values known and rastiarennye, each of us has a special relationship to them, which is very difficult to change. But recently I came across a purely abstract, theoretical and hypothetical example of the “invented empire”. And there everything is the same, only brought to the limit. There is such a "literary work", "Black Pawn" is called. Based on the Strugatsky and Saraksha, so to speak ...
The work is powerful, unique, voluminous and in places obscure, however ... however, the Island Empire on the planet Saraksh is modeled and described just great. Detail so with the details. I will not retell, it is necessary to read (whoever succeeds), but the basic idea of “empire from the inside and the outside” is shown with horrendous straightforwardness, just brought to the point of absurdity. And before the nightmare too.
That is, the author managed the almost impossible: to convincingly combine within the framework of one state “almost the world of Half a day” and, so to speak, organically enter the slave trade and concentration camps there. And this is not “fanfic” not once. Quite a convincing and frightening model of society. In short, this very Island Empire, dominating in the military sphere on the happy planet Saraksh, considers “continents”, well, how to say it, as subhumans, in relation to which any forms and degree of violence are permissible.
And the fleet of the empire performs this violence on a regular basis, with maximum cynicism. But in itself it would be commonplace ... which of us has not read the fantastic "pоmana ”about evil, ugly empires ... Another thing is interesting: the author organically integrates quite a humanistic, progressive and in fact almost a communist society into the core of the same empire. And sincerely admires the resulting construction ... Such is the "Chinese doll" of seven balls.
In principle, yes, the “genius Strugatskys” have both in their works, there should be a compiler, so it was found ... it turned out funny, unusual. Just very often, “protecting” the very same America, they begin to describe it in great detail. from within: how Americans comply with the laws, how they manifest social activity, go to church, do charity work and so on and so forth ... And all this is right, and everything has a place to be. But it kind of applies to "their" - a small such detail. And in the number of "their" include Not everyone American passport holders.
All these highly moral principles do not prevent them from bombarding residential areas and hospitals. Strangers cities, and their conscience does not torment them. Is that sometimes the soul hurts about the "American budget dollars spent aimlessly on air bombs" ... yes, it hurts. In any case, in order to better understand the empire, you need to look at it from two angles: inside and outside. And any, the most blissful pictures “from the inside” of the system still do not say anything about what strangers will have in “close contact”.