Relations between Russia and other countries: "befriend" or colonize
On the pages of "Military Review" and on the pages of other publications, you can often see comments in such a way that if Russia uses force in one case or another, for example, to solve its economic problems and / or support its corporations, change and / or liquidate unfriendly regimes, then how will it differ from the "stronghold of world evil" - the United States or Great Britain?
The question is, do you need to be different? Maybe in this issue with the United States and Great Britain it is worth taking an example?
What negative consequences for our country will the “aggressive predator” policy bring?
Help "brotherly countries"
One of the distinguishing features of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), of which Russia is the successor, has become assistance to the so-called "fraternal countries." The Soviet Union helped a lot and generously to the countries of the Soviet bloc in all parts of the world - the countries of Eastern Europe, Africa, Asia and Latin America.
The amount of aid to the countries of the Soviet bloc was enormous - the supply of weapons and military equipment, the construction of infrastructure facilities, the supply of food and consumer goods, not to mention loans and direct financial injections. The total volume of infusions into other countries amounted to hundreds of billions of dollars, and this was when a significant part of the population of the USSR lived in conditions that could be called beggarly. All this was accompanied by classical Soviet agitation about friendship of peoples, building communism / socialism.
Soviet aid to "fraternal" countries
Did the Soviet Union have anything to do with this?
He had something, but it hardly paid off such an impressive investment - a certain number of foreign military bases (much less than the United States), some kind of trade with the "banana republics", and the presence of their representatives at public holidays and events. The very image of the USSR as a socialist state hindered the efficient siphoning of resources from the "colonies". An absurd situation developed - the "colonies" of the USSR received more than the metropolis.
We can say that the United States pursued a similar policy - the "Marshall Plan" was carried out, cash injections and supplies were carried out weapons third countries. And the agitation was appropriate - the opposition to the communists, who "will take away everything, divide it up and put it in the Gulag." In general, the struggle for a bright democratic future.
But there are key differences: the United States is a capitalist country, they will spend a certain amount of money, but then they will definitely want to get a return on it. The result is enslaving, often secret treaties with the governments of the American puppet colonies. For example, it is believed that every new chancellor of the FRG signs a secret "chancellor pact" with the United States even before taking office.
Alleged evidence of the existence of a secret interstate treaty between the United States and the Federal Republic of Germany - "Chancellor's Office"
If such an agreement was concluded with Germany, then what can we take from any third world countries - having fallen into financial dependence on the United States, they will never get out. Suffice it to recall the financial crisis in Argentina, caused by the actions of both the Argentinean government and international financial institutions, including the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and provoking poverty and hunger in the "breadbasket of Europe", as well as the continuing high inflation.
After the collapse of the USSR, its successor Russia for some time stopped investing in other countries for one simple reason - they themselves had no money. As a legacy, Russia inherited both the debts of third countries of the USSR and the debts of the Soviet Union itself to third countries.
As a result, Russia paid off Soviet debts, and received pitiful pennies from third countries - since 1992, Russia has written off more than $ 140 billion of debts to the Soviet Union and later debts issued by Russia. At the same time, information about such facts is not advertised, and there are no reasonable grounds for these actions. One cannot consider the argument for writing off debts - “they won't pay us anyway, they have nothing to do”.
Nothing? So - let them give the territory for a military base and / or extraction of resources. Don't want to give? We will talk about what needs to be done in this case below.
Moreover, Russia has returned to the vicious practice of lending to different countries, which had not previously returned and are now not returning the funds provided. It is quite possible that this is a kind of money laundering, when the next “Papuan” receives a billion dollars, then 90% of the amount received is then returned to the accounts of interested parties?
Construction is carried out on credit, with future income, in such openly hostile countries as Turkey. For example, the construction of a nuclear power plant. In the event of a deterioration in relations, they simply nationalize it (unless, of course, the possibility of an “emergency” NPP failure is envisaged).
And there is no way to explain such gestures as, for example, the repair of the Capitol dome in Havana (Cuba), on which Russia spent 642 million rubles. All this Cuba is not worth one Russian child who did not have enough money for treatment. As soon as the United States lifts economic sanctions on Cuba, it will instantly forget about Russia and lick the United States with a zeal that will dim the efforts of Poland and Ukraine.
Russia is a generous soul
By the way, Cuba is a vivid example of how the United States is punished for refusing to pay on investments of American companies: 80 years of harsh economic sanctions, so we shouldn't really count on concessions in terms of sanctions, this can take decades.
In general, the so-called policy of assistance to "fraternal" countries carried out by the USSR, and in particular today's Russia, can only be called a betrayal of the interests of its own people.
Good deeds can not be celebrated
So, maybe Russia will be rewarded for her "good deeds"? And the "brotherly" countries will be grateful for the built-up infrastructure, for food, for the supply of weapons?
Alas, as practice shows, this is not the case. The article The accession of the countries of Eastern Europe to the Soviet bloc is an inevitable necessity we looked at how the countries of Eastern Europe, formerly part of the Soviet bloc, turned from friends to opponents in an instant. Almost all cultural and economic ties have been severed, and this trend continues. Even such previously neutral countries as the Czech Republic are now full of belligerent rhetoric.
Why is this happening?
Everything is very simple. The people, as a mass, have no opinion of their own.
The people of any country believe in what propaganda is pushing into them. Anyone from an ally in a matter of months can be turned into an enemy in the eyes of the overwhelming majority of the population. For example, the powers that be in the countries of Eastern Europe need Russia only in “special” cases, when it is possible to get something from it, but at present they have another “breadwinner” - the United States. In addition, the image of the "enemy-occupier" allows you to effectively manage the opinion of the same population, allowing you to blame all the blunders of the authorities in the economy on the "enemy".
An example from the Czech Republic - why should Russia blow up a supernumerary warehouse with obsolete weapons? No benefit, from any point of view. But if from this warehouse most of the weapons were stolen by some people and sold, for example, to Ukraine, then there is very much benefit in blaming Russia for the explosion. They covered up the dirty deeds and earned political points - Russia is now a "convenient" adversary.
It is even more difficult with the countries of Africa, Asia and Latin America. They are infinitely far from Russia, they have a different mentality of the population. Most of the population of some countries is not at all aware that their country maintains any kind of relationship with Russia - all the "goodies" are received by their leadership. The lack of education and critical thinking makes it possible to convince them of anything in the shortest possible time, even that the Russians will come to “eat their children”.
Specific, mostly semi-dictatorial regimes have neither stability nor popular support. In the event of a US-organized coup, the new regime will jealously serve the new master, realizing what will happen to him if he does not actively prove his loyalty.
How will Venezuela behave if the opposition to the current government wins? Will the Russian base remain in Syria if Bashar al-Assad's regime is defeated? Will any of these countries be "grateful" to Russia?
Russia - Venezuela: Friendship for Life? Source: Russian Foreign Ministry
Foreign policy
We need to shout less about our military power - Poseidons, Petrels and other wunderwaffe. The author, of course, loves military equipment and enjoys watching it at the Victory Parade, but still there are specialized events for its demonstration - "Army", "International Aerospace Show" and others. The same Victory Day can be organized without transporting heavy equipment across Red Square - this is perceived only as a sign of aggression. It is quite enough, in my opinion, if the servicemen are simply paraded. And the money saved is better spent to address the needs of veterans.
Military parades have not frightened anyone for a long time, but they give an informational opportunity to recall the "aggressive Russia"
The declared foreign policy should be as peaceful as possible. Are they demolishing monuments in Poland? Anyway, this is their territory, why stir up a scandal out of this? It is necessary to react less to the injections of some second-rate politicians and supernumerary foreign media - only the guilty person is justified, and any retaliatory actions only draw attention to accusations against Russia. Yes, and the statements of the top officials of the leading powers can be completely ignored - you never know what Trump or Biden will blurt out?
It is necessary to act silently, but inevitably - to take an example from Israel, which does not suit military parades, but eliminated all the accomplices of the extermination of Jews in Nazi Germany all over the world. And now he does not shun anything when defending his interests.
The policy of the Russian Federation should be as pragmatic as possible, and its main goal should be to obtain real economic benefits for our country, and not childish squabbles with "inferior" states. Let Russian corporations, private and public, get there. Even if part of the money goes offshore, part of it will in any case go to Russia (increasing the share of money coming into the country is also a strategically important task).
Breaking - not building
How, then, to proceed - to refuse help and support from friendly countries? Locked within the boundaries of your own territory?
Our geopolitical opponents will be very happy about this. We will be quite comfortable for them in the role of some kind of North Korea - "overgrown". One way or another, if Russia claims independence, and does not want to become a colony of the United States or China (or both of them), in a form fragmented into some quasi-state formations, then some kind of economic and military activity will have to be carried out. And it is better to conduct it as aggressively as possible, but quietly.
How should it look like?
1. Our relations with other countries should be formalized as rigidly as possible. If a loan is given or a delivery is carried out, then guarantees of a refund of funds should be put at the forefront, for example, they can be provided by some territories or resources transferred on a long-term lease or even on an ongoing basis - to our the fleet would it not hurt to have a permanent base on an island or peninsula under the jurisdiction of the Russian Federation?
Russian expeditionary forces and forces of private military companies (PMCs) should be deployed in these territories. In this combination, the official expeditionary force will protect the territory from invasion. Whoever says anything, if the position of Russia is tough, then not many will dare to strike the territory occupied by the official armed forces of the Russian Federation. Of course, we are talking about serious powers - the countries of Europe or NATO. But they may well "incite" the forces of their new vassal, who formally announced that it did not recognize the treaties of the previous government. And the expeditionary force in this case must be strong enough to repel the attack of the army of a country such as Syria, Libya or Venezuela. Fortunately, as the experience of Israel shows, they do not know how to fight a serious enemy.
2. In response to the attack of friendly regimes by the forces of the United States and its allies, Russia should carry out similar actions against regimes friendly to the United States and its allies. This should be done by PMCs and MTR (special operations). The destabilization of a regime friendly to the enemy will always require less forces than maintaining “one's own” friendly regime: to break is not to build.
Such actions will severely hit the interests of American companies in the region, cause chaos and a flow of refugees to prosperous European countries, across Turkey. They will have a positive effect on Russia even if, as a result, someone else, for example, China, gains a foothold in the crisis-ridden region.
Is it cruel? Yes, this is so, but if we isolate ourselves and only defend ourselves, then we will surely lose. The United States or Britain will not hesitate to take similar actions against us, regardless of how many Russians will be slaughtered as a result of the further fragmentation of Russia into independent republics.
A guarantee of a retaliatory active aggression against regimes friendly to the United States to make them think before taking similar actions against the Russian Federation, to force them to negotiate with us. Dividing the world into "zones of responsibility" is far from the worst option, at least much better than the third world "hot" war, the consequences of which will be much worse than any local crisis. By the way, a significant part of the regimes supported by the United States cannot be called either humane or democratic.
3. With regard to support for their friendly regimes, yes, such support should be carried out, but it should have a clear timeline and financial framework. For example, according to the author, Syria has already exhausted its limit, it costs us too much - it's time to leave Assad to fend for itself, securing certain economic zones for itself, following the example of Turkey. The rule is simple - 10% of the effort (conditionally) should bring 90% of the result, and not vice versa. That borderline when investments become more than the expected return and should become a signal for the curtailment of the support program or a radical change in its format.
The tasks to be solved will dictate special requirements for the armed forces, military equipment and weapons, which must be effective for solving expeditionary tasks. Strengthening of special operations forces will be required. There will be a need to legalize and develop private military companies. We will talk about this in more detail in the following articles.
Information