Noam Chomsky: Why is everything that the USA does is legal ("The Nation", USA)

26
Noam Chomsky: Why is everything that the USA does is legal ("The Nation", USA)

This article originally appeared on TomDispatch.com. It is an excerpt from Noam Chomsky’s chapter in Power Systems: Conversations on the Global Democratic Uprisings and the New Challenges to the US Empire (Talking about global democratic uprisings and new challenges for the American empire). This is an interview asking David Barsamian questions, and Chomsky answers.

Barsyamyan: The United States, as before, has firm control over the energy resources of the Middle East?

Noam Chomsky: The main oil and gas producing countries are still under tight control of dictatorships that enjoy Western support. So, the successes of the “Arab Spring” seem to be limited, but they are essential. The West-controlled system of dictatorships crumbles. In fact, the process of their decomposition has been going on for quite some time. For example, if you go back to 50 years ago, we will see that now the energy resources that are of major concern to American strategists are mostly nationalized. Attempts are constantly being made to change this situation, but they remain unsuccessful.

Take the example of the American invasion of Iraq. For all but the inveterate ideologues, it was quite obvious that we had invaded Iraq not because of our ardent love for democracy, but because this country ranks second or third in the world in oil reserves. In addition, it is located in the heart of the largest oil producing region. Talk about it is impossible. Such conversations are considered conspiracy theories.

Iraqi nationalism inflicted a serious defeat on the United States, acting mainly by non-violent resistance. The United States could kill militants, but could not cope with half a million people who took to the street demonstrations. Step by step, Iraq managed to dismantle the control mechanism established by the occupying forces. By November 2007, it became very clear that it would be very difficult for the United States to achieve its goals. And what is interesting, at that moment a clear statement was made about these goals. In November 2007, the Bush administration made an official statement about what the future arrangements with Iraq could be. There were two basic requirements. The first is that the United States should have unlimited possibilities for conducting combat operations from its military bases, which they will keep. The second is that the Iraqi government should "facilitate the flow of foreign investment into Iraq, and especially American investment." In January, 2008, Bush made an unequivocal statement about this in one of his farewell statements. After a couple of months, faced with resistance from Iraq, the United States had to abandon these requirements. The power over Iraq is swimming away from their hands right before their eyes.

Iraq has become an attempt to reclaim and re-install with the help of force something like the old control system. But this attempt was repulsed. It seems to me that, overall, American policy has remained unchanged since the Second World War. However, the possibilities for implementing this policy are reduced.

- Are they shrinking due to economic weakness?

“Partly simply because the world is becoming more diverse.” Today it is much more than the most diverse centers of power. At the end of World War II, the United States was at the absolute peak of its strength and power. They possessed half the world's wealth, and all their rivals either suffered severely from the war, or were defeated. America possessed unimaginable security and, in fact, developed world management plans. At the time, this task was not so unrealistic.

- Is this what they called "grand territorial plans"?

- Yes. Immediately after World War II, the head of the Department of Political Planning Department George Kennan and others worked out the details, and then the implementation of this plan began. What is happening now in the Middle East and North Africa, and to a certain extent in South America, is, in fact, rooted in the end of the 1940s. The first successful resistance to American hegemony was in the 1949 year. These are events that have been called quite interesting, “the loss of China.” The phrase is very interesting, and no one has ever challenged it. There has been much controversy over who is responsible for the loss of China. This has become a major domestic political issue. But the phrase is very curious. You can only lose what you possess. This was taken for granted: we own China. And if the Chinese move towards independence, then we have lost China. Then there were fears of "losing Latin America", "losing the Middle East", "losing" some individual countries. And all based on the premise that the world belongs to us. And all that weakens our control is a loss for us, and we need to think about how to make up for it.

Today, if you read, say, serious foreign policy magazines or, if you need more farce, listen to the Republican debates, you will hear them ask: “How can we prevent further losses?”

On the other hand, the ability to maintain control has decreased dramatically. By 1970, the world has already become economically tripolar. There was a North American industrial center based in the USA; was a European center with a foundation in Germany, roughly comparable to that of North America in size, and was an East Asian center with a base in Japan — the fastest growing region at that time in the world. Since then, the world economic order has become much more diverse. Therefore, our policy has become more difficult to implement, but its fundamental principles have not undergone major changes.

Take the Clinton Doctrine. The Clinton doctrine is that the United States has the right to unilaterally use force to ensure "unimpeded access to key markets, to energy supplies, and to strategic resources." It goes beyond what George W. Bush said. But it was a quiet and calm doctrine, it was not arrogant and rude, and therefore did not cause much indignation. The belief in this "right I have" remains to this day. It is also part of intellectual culture.

Immediately after the murder of Osama bin Laden, when all these approving shouts and applause were heard, several critical comments appeared, the authors of which questioned the legitimacy of this action. Many centuries ago there was something called the presumption of innocence. If you detain a suspect, he remains a suspect until his guilt is proven. He must be brought to trial. This is a fundamental part of American law. It takes its origin in the Magna Carta. So there were a couple of voices saying that it might not be necessary to throw out completely and completely the foundations of Anglo-American law. This caused a very powerful reaction of indignation, but the most interesting reaction, as usual, sounded at the left-liberal end of the spectrum. Well-known and respected left-liberal commentator Matthew Iglesias (Matthew Yglesias) wrote an article in which ridiculed such views. He stated that they are “amazingly naive” and stupid. And then substantiated his statement. Iglesias wrote: “One of the main functions of the internationally established order is precisely to legitimize the use of deadly military force by the Western powers.” Of course, he did not mean Norway. He meant the United States. So the principle on which the international system is based is that the United States has the right to use force whenever it pleases. Talk that the United States is violating international law is an amazing naivete and utter nonsense. By the way, this applies to me too, and I gladly admit my guilt. I also think that the Magna Carta and the norms of international law are worth giving them some attention.

I say this simply in order to illustrate the following: in intellectual culture, and even at the so-called left-liberal end of the political spectrum, the underlying principles have not changed much. However, the possibilities for their implementation have decreased dramatically. That is why all this talk is about the decline of America. Take a look at last year's last issue of Foreign Affairs, this main magazine of our establishment. On the cover it is written in large and bold letters: “America is over?” This is a standard complaint of those who think that everything should belong to them. If you think that everything should belong to you, and then something doesn’t work for you, you lose something, it becomes a tragedy, and the whole world begins to crumble. So, is America the end? Many years ago we “lost” China, we “lost” Southeast Asia, we “lost” South America. Maybe we will lose the countries of the Middle East and North Africa. And again, America is the end? It is a kind of paranoia, but paranoia of the super-rich and super-powerful people. If you do not own everything, it is a disaster.

“The New York Times describes the“ defining political difficulty of the Arab Spring, which is how to reconcile conflicting American impulses, including support for democratic change, a desire for stability, and fear of Islamists who have become a powerful political force. ” The New York Times highlights three US goals. What do you think about it?

- Two set out for sure. The United States is for stability. But we must remember what this stability means. Stability means the execution of American orders. For example, one of the accusations against Iran, this powerful foreign policy threat, is that it destabilizes Iraq and Afghanistan. How? Trying to extend its influence to neighboring countries. And we, on the other hand, “stabilize” countries when we invade and destroy them.

I occasionally present my favorite illustration of this state of affairs. These are the words of a well-known and very good liberal analyst on foreign policy issues, James Chace (James Chace), who previously worked as an editor in Foreign Affairs. Speaking about the overthrow of the regime of El Salvador Allende and the establishment of the Pinochet dictatorship in 1973, he noted that we had to “destabilize Chile in the interests of stability”. As a contradiction, this is not perceived - and it is not as such. We had to destroy the parliamentary system in order to achieve stability. That means they do what they say. So yes, we are for stability in the technical sense.

Concerns about political Islam are like any concern for independent events. Anything that does not depend on you, must necessarily cause concern, because it can weaken you. There is a small paradox here, because the United States and Britain traditionally by all means support radical Islamic fundamentalism, not political Islam, for it is a force capable of resisting secular nationalism, which is of genuine concern. For example, Saudi Arabia is the most notorious fundamentalist state in the world, a radical Islamist state. He has missionary zeal, he spreads radical Islam in Pakistan, he finances terrorism. But Saudi Arabia is a bastion of American and British politics. They consistently supported the Saudis, defending them against the threat of Egyptian secular nationalism during the time of Gamal Abdel Nasser and Iraq during the time of Abd al-Karim Qasim, as well as many other dangers. But they do not like political Islam, because it can become independent.

The first of three points, our striving for democracy, is one of the kind of talk of Joseph Stalin about Russia's commitment to the ideals of freedom, democracy and the liberation of the whole world. When such statements are heard from the mouths of commissioners and Iranian clerics, we laugh at them. But when Western leaders talk about this, we politely and even with a certain awe nod.

If you look at the facts, then our desire for democracy will seem like a bad joke. This is recognized even by leading scientists, although they say it is different. One of the main experts in the so-called promotion of democracy is Thomas Carothers, who is very conservative and enjoys great prestige. He is a “neoreiganist”, but not a fiery liberal. Carothers worked for Reagan at the State Department and wrote several books on promoting democracy, which he takes very seriously. Yes, he says, this is a deep-rooted American ideal, but he has a funny story. The story that every American administration suffers from schizophrenia. They support democracy only if it meets certain strategic and economic interests. Carothers calls this a strange pathology, as if the US is in need of psychiatric treatment. Of course, there is another interpretation, but it will not come to your mind if you are an educated and well-behaved intellectual.

“A few months after the overthrow, President Hosni Mubarak was on trial, charged, and facing a prison sentence. It is unthinkable for American leaders to be held accountable for crimes in Iraq or elsewhere. Will this situation ever change?

“Well, this is basically the Iglesias principle: the basis of the international order is that the United States has the right to use violence whenever it pleases. And how in such conditions can someone be charged?

- And no one else has such a right.

- Of course not. Well, maybe only our satellites. If Israel attacks Lebanon, kills a thousand people and destroys half the country, that’s nothing, that’s normal. Interesting. Before becoming president, Barack Obama was a senator. He did not do much, being a senator, but he nevertheless did a couple of things, which he was especially proud of. If you watched his website before the primaries, he’s sticking out the fact that during the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 2006, he was one of the initiators of the Senate resolution demanding that the United States not interfere with Israel’s military actions until it reaches goals, and America condemned Iran and Syria because they supported resistance to the Israeli offensive, during which southern Lebanon was destroyed. By the way, destroyed the fifth time in 25 years. So vassals inherit this right. This also applies to other American customers.

But in fact, all rights in Washington. That's what it means to own the world. It's like the air you breathe. You cannot question it. The main founder of the modern theory of international relations, Hans Morgenthau, was a very decent man, one of the few political scientists and experts in international affairs who criticized the war in Vietnam for moral, not for tactical reasons. Very rare person. He wrote the book The Purpose of American Politics. Well, you know what it is about. Other countries have no goals. On the other hand, America’s goal is “transcendental”: to bring freedom and justice to the rest of the world. But he is a good scientist, like Carothers. So he researched the facts. He said: when studying facts, it seems that the United States does not correspond to its transcendental goal. But then he declares: to criticize our transcendental goal is "the same thing as falling into the heresy of atheism, which denies the validity of religion on the same grounds." Good comparison. This is a deep-seated religious conviction. It is so deep that it is very difficult to understand it. And if someone starts to express doubts, this causes a state close to hysteria, and often leads to accusations of anti-Americanism and hatred of America. These are interesting concepts that are not found in democratic societies, only in totalitarian ones. And in our country, where they are taken for granted.
Our news channels

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

26 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +4
    8 February 2013 06: 45
    Yes. Immediately after World War II, the head of the Department of Political Planning at the Department of State, George Kennan, and others developed the details, and then the plan began. What is happening now in the Middle East and North Africa, and to a certain extent in South America, in fact, has its roots in the late 1940s. Well comrades, there is nothing to add, you all see yourself!
  2. MG42
    +10
    8 February 2013 07: 10
    Well, this is basically the Iglesias principle: the foundation of the international order is that the United States has the right to use violence when it pleases. And how, under such conditions, can someone be charged?

    World Gendarme. The UN, as they say, eats its bread in vain, since it is practically impossible to put the United States through this mechanism, only accept a condemning resolution, of course, if Uncle Sam does not veto it (New York headquarters).
    What other mechanisms of influence on the United States are there, only a "nuclear club" can stop a sprinter in stripes.
    1. +2
      8 February 2013 11: 05
      Quote: MG42
      What other mechanisms of influence on the United States are there, only a "nuclear club" can stop a sprinter in stripes.


      You are wrong. The United States is by far the most vulnerable in the world. They now hold on to the green candy wrapper, which is kept on by idiocy. It is simply impossible to find another word, since the circulating world volumes of pseudo-money are provided by only 10% of the wrappers themselves (which are also not supported by anything), and 90% is virtual money and this is not even air, but a banal "emptiness". During its existence, man could not come up with a greater absurdity.
      1. MG42
        +2
        8 February 2013 12: 25
        So what am I wrong about? A nuclear club is not an effective tool to deter a star-striped sprinter? Very effective.
        UN effective structure? = recently very inefficient. It was about military aspects and diplomacy.
        Under the USSR, the NATO bloc was opposed by the Warsaw Pact bloc. What do we have now?
        If you want to talk about the US economy and public debt = let's talk. Only these candy wrappers are also printed by the private store of the US Federal Reserve, and they, unfortunately, are the world's reserve currency. I wrote this more than once. The United States is delivering these candy wrappers to Boeing around the world.
        They now hold on to the green candy wrapper, which is based on idiocy.

        Correctly = do not FIG support Uncle Sam and keep reserves in US dollars.
        1. +1
          8 February 2013 13: 40
          The fact that only a nuclear club will stop them. This minotaur already ate itself halfway without any help, thanks to its narrow-mindedness.
          1. MG42
            +3
            8 February 2013 15: 44
            Quote: alexneg
            This minotaur already ate itself halfway without any help, thanks to its narrow-mindedness.

            Yes, and to hell with him, ate so ate = remember him and have a bite drinks
    2. Rubik
      -1
      8 February 2013 13: 17
      A nuclear club can stop only the whole world. Imagine that after a nuclear attack on the United States, someone else will breathe funny and naive.
      1. MG42
        +2
        8 February 2013 15: 41
        Quote: Rubik
        A nuclear club can stop only the whole world.

        This is called what I see = about that and I sing. I clarified in my comment << Today, 12:25 >> that this is a nuclear club = an effective deterrent. Comments are nearby.
        Quote: Rubik
        stop only the whole world

        How pathetic = read for a start there was even a study of scientists on this topic, what will happen in the event of a total nuclear war. If nuclear weapons did not have a damaging factor - radioactive contamination and a wind rose is unpredictable, it would have long been used after Hiroshima.
  3. +3
    8 February 2013 07: 31
    If only Russia would soon restore its power! Then the United States would have held back its "activity."
    1. +7
      8 February 2013 09: 17
      Quote: Egoza
      If only Russia would soon restore its power! Then the United States would have held back its "activity."

      And for this it is necessary to unite Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, etc., into a single state !!!!
  4. +4
    8 February 2013 07: 43
    As the saying goes, "What is due to Jupiter is not due to a bull." The ordinary right of the strong. When the USSR was in the prime of its power, the Yankees did not dare to be so strong. And being the last 20 years the most powerful power in the world, they began to dictate their rules to the whole world. Moreover, they change these rules and also follow them at their discretion. But nothing, will turn over and on our street Kamaz with vodka.
  5. Kaa
    +2
    8 February 2013 08: 15
    I do not share the author's optimism. It is, rather, "a good mine with a bad game. In confirmation of his words - the situation of the United States in Central Asia:
    "Six Iranian editions Keyhan (15.12), Iran (15.12), Resalat (15.12), Hamshahri (15.12), Khabar (15.12) and Jomhuri-ye Eslami (15.12) report on Mikhail Gorbachev's speech at the conference of the Forum of New Politics The former Soviet leader said that the United States made a big mistake in starting the war in Afghanistan and that the fate of the Soviet Union awaits them. Gorbachev's point of view that the Bolsheviks in Soviet Russia were fighting against religion and, in particular, with Muslim values, subsequently the protection of religious shrines became one of the weapons of the Cold War.http: //www.inosmi.ru/overview/20121218/203489970.html#ixzz2KHH8P8Jr
    As a REGNUM correspondent reports, the expert believes that the withdrawal of NATO troops from Afghanistan will largely affect the region: “It is possible to discuss whether it will take place or not, and if it does, in what format, and who will replace the regular army. , we see that the configuration will change. "According to Kochubey, the biggest problem making the withdrawal of troops more difficult is the economic crisis. "It is financial in its shell, but non-economic in its essence," she said. "If we recall the recent reports of the United States Ground Command Joint Command, their forecast was a severe shortage of resources, energy, food and the so-called" imaginary surplus of population. "In Central Asia, all of these factors are present plus a shortage of water. Therefore, a war may start in the region, for example, for water, the expert concluded. Kochubey noted that events are already taking place that indicate a new alignment of forces in the territory. The first thing that she highlighted: Russia and the PRC have taken a course to strengthen the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO). According to the expert, from an economic association, the SCO is becoming an organization responsible for security issues in the region, as can be seen, for example, from the agreement on cooperation in the fight against terrorism signed by the PRC and Russia in September 2010. The expert stated that the key issue related to the withdrawal NATO troops from Afghanistan - who will take their place. Kochubei recalled that a meeting of the heads of Russia, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Tajikistan was held in Dushanbe last September, and since then it is believed that these countries want to take responsibility. "In my opinion, the situation will develop somewhat differently: regular troops will simply be replaced by formations of private military companies," she objected. As Kochubey noted, Afghanistan possesses huge reserves of uranium, gold, mercury, iron: "Pentagon experts estimate the value of Afghan natural resources $ 1 trillion. It makes sense to fight for this money. "
    : http://www.regnum.ru/news/polit/1608668.html#ixzz2KHJbQOvU



    1. +2
      8 February 2013 08: 40
      And what is there to share.
      Noam Chomsky - it is clear that people understand everything very clearly. But, defends his point of view. Here he is well done, and from our point of view, an eccentric with the letter M, a rare one.
      ".. The story that every American administration suffers from schizophrenia. They support democracy only if it is consistent with certain strategic and economic interests. Carothers calls it a strange pathology, as if the United States needs psychiatric treatment. .. "
      It is a pity that other countries, states - point blank do not want to understand - that they live with mentally ill patients.
      in the USSR .. they put in psychiatric hospitals-for thoughts.
      In the world - do not plant - FOR ACTION.
      Is the world .... normal?
    2. +1
      8 February 2013 09: 18
      Quote: Kaa
      that the United States made a big mistake in starting the war in Afghanistan and the sad fate of the Soviet Union awaits them


      For me, this is how a firm conviction appears that the United States is now repeating our path that led to the collapse of the USSR. Afghanistan, an arms race (all these fabulously expensive projects, lasers, railguns, proton guns - this does not remind you of SDI), an open and secret infusion of money to destabilize the Middle East and an attempt to control this region. It reminds me of how we provided assistance to the countries of the socialist camp, Africa, Nicaragua and others. And most importantly, in the United States, totalitarianism, observation of fellow citizens (surveillance, reading correspondence, encouraging denunciations - this does not remind you of anything) is manifested more and more strongly), police arbitrariness and more. That's all, sooner or later it will reach its climax, and then collapse.
      1. +1
        8 February 2013 09: 48
        Very similar, Averias.
        The USSR was a thing in itself - it gave its resources and energy outward. Therefore, when it disappeared - well, it seems like the star went out.
        And the United States, on the contrary, pulls everything into itself like a black hole. And NOBODY knows how "black holes" behave, Singularities - after death.
        Fucks so that nobody will be enough.
        These wrappers alone for 16 trillion .... around the world.
        1. +3
          8 February 2013 10: 54
          Igarr, I didn't use the word collapse for nothing. Since the United States is a consumer, giving practically nothing in return (parasitism), then according to the law of conservation of energy (if something has disappeared somewhere, it means somewhere that has arrived), their constant "absorption" leads to the emergence of a "critical mass", and further collapse, collapse. Only the release of "residual" energy can cause trouble.
          The United States is now similar to the Tokamak installation, all the energy that this installation produces, it spends on the power of the magnetic field to contain plasma. No efficiency, any imbalance is an explosion. What the USA is like is very similar
      2. +1
        8 February 2013 09: 54
        Averias
        If the collapse occurs (I hope - without IF), then this will be something, given the number of trunks of civilians.
        And the parallels are really traced, only with a different sign.
  6. +2
    8 February 2013 08: 31
    In December 1913, the Federal Reserve System was created in the United States - the first PRIVATE STORE in human history to receive the right to print money.
    N.V. Starikov
    and this is the land of various non-traditional, well, now it’s not about that, where some kind of gang spanks pieces of paper, under the guise of a state, considers itself legal?
  7. +2
    8 February 2013 08: 34
    Nice article, thanks !!
    Once again you are convinced that money is not a goal, but a tool.

    Clinton’s doctrine is that the United States has the right to unilaterally use force to provide “unhindered access to key markets, energy supplies and strategic resources”

    Every time you read it jars. Democratizers damn fucking.
  8. 0
    8 February 2013 09: 53
    Photo interviewee Noam Chomsky

    quote Two is spelled out accurately. The United States stands for stability.?? But we must remember what this stability means. Stability means the execution of American orders. what For example, one of the accusations against Iran, this powerful foreign policy threat, is that it destabilizes Iraq and Afghanistan. How? Trying to spread its influence to neighboring countries. And we, on the other hand, “stabilize” countries when we invade and destroy them.

    The trouble is that at present, the world is one polar. That's what the USA is doing what they want. Only the presence of a lot of polar world can stop all this chaos. A lot will depend on Russia. What will be stronger economy in the country, the stronger and policy+ defensive capacity (VS) countries. All these three factors play a huge role in terms of resolving global issues. They are considered strong, weak are ignored.
  9. +3
    8 February 2013 09: 53
    Photo interviewee Noam Chomsky
    quote Two is spelled out accurately. The United States stands for stability.?? But we must remember what this stability means. Stability means the execution of American orders. what For example, one of the accusations against Iran, this powerful foreign policy threat, is that it destabilizes Iraq and Afghanistan. How? Trying to spread its influence to neighboring countries. And we, on the other hand, “stabilize” countries when we invade and destroy them.
    The trouble is that at present, the world is one polar. That's what the USA is doing what they want. Only the presence of a lot of polar world can stop all this chaos. A lot will depend on Russia. What will be stronger economy in the country, the stronger and policy+ defensive capacity (VS) countries. All these three factors play a huge role in terms of resolving global issues. They are considered strong, weak are ignored.
    1. Kaa
      0
      8 February 2013 13: 05
      Quote: Apollon
      Stability means the execution of American orders.

      This is, in the sense, like their ideological twin brothers "Ordnung Huber Alles" or what? So they are not aware that those who were in the Ordnung ended badly, and history tends to repeat itself. But one day they will have to take Fashington, or they will arrange the Civil War 2.0 so that they don't get their hands dirty :?
  10. +2
    8 February 2013 10: 17
    Striped you are not "zones of influence", you are losing "mother" from greed. But do not worry ... There is one country on the planet earth, it has helped so many in history to "see the light". These are not threats ... This is so remembered so that
    1. +1
      8 February 2013 10: 27
      Quote: KrSk
      There is one country on the planet earth, it has helped so many in history to "see the light"

      Oh, brother, if the fat rulers remembered that ...
      there is one sparkle $ in the eyes
  11. 0
    8 February 2013 10: 34
    Yes, and among the people there are adequate people who understand the absurdity of the present order of the world, but being citizens of this country - they also understand "their high peacekeeping mission on Earth." Indeed, by supporting Islam, they create zones of instability and opposition to other religions in the Middle East. In my opinion, the Americans, that the British, hiding from the rest of the world in isolated territories, feel impunity, meanly and impudently playing off peoples to achieve their well-being.
    1. +4
      8 February 2013 10: 48
      [quote = Bone] that the English [
      the filthy islet is doing this in life
      since go ... don run to london
  12. +1
    8 February 2013 11: 48
    Hitler in comparison with them is a baby in short pants. He spoke of the inferiority of other races. These others are generally not considered people. They generally do not see them point blank. The whole territory of the earth is an empty space for their exercises.
    No need to deceive yourself - if this defilement is not burned with hot iron and fire, it will kill everyone on the planet in order to live on its own.
  13. ZKBM-BUT
    0
    8 February 2013 11: 55
    all the troubles because of the Yankees. everything, everything, all the troubles because of them. and what prevents them from combing the comb? Well, after all, the whole planet is across the throat.
  14. +2
    8 February 2013 12: 11
    His name is AGGRESSOR

"Right Sector" (banned in Russia), "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (UPA) (banned in Russia), ISIS (banned in Russia), "Jabhat Fatah al-Sham" formerly "Jabhat al-Nusra" (banned in Russia) , Taliban (banned in Russia), Al-Qaeda (banned in Russia), Anti-Corruption Foundation (banned in Russia), Navalny Headquarters (banned in Russia), Facebook (banned in Russia), Instagram (banned in Russia), Meta (banned in Russia), Misanthropic Division (banned in Russia), Azov (banned in Russia), Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia), Aum Shinrikyo (banned in Russia), AUE (banned in Russia), UNA-UNSO (banned in Russia), Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People (banned in Russia), Legion “Freedom of Russia” (armed formation, recognized as terrorist in the Russian Federation and banned)

“Non-profit organizations, unregistered public associations or individuals performing the functions of a foreign agent,” as well as media outlets performing the functions of a foreign agent: “Medusa”; "Voice of America"; "Realities"; "Present time"; "Radio Freedom"; Ponomarev Lev; Ponomarev Ilya; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; Mikhail Kasyanov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"