How the West sees us in conflicts

A picture of our vulnerabilities

History, among other things, is engaged in the creation of myths that complement each other hand in hand with analysis. Inevitably, our myth and the myth about us among our opponents will differ as much as the assessment of what is happening.

While we devote a significant part of our energy to studying and glorifying our successes, our enemy does the opposite - he glorifies and studies our failures, aspects of the vision that are often hidden from us behind successes and myth.

The enemy will always judge and analyze us not by our best episodes, but on the contrary, he is interested in the aspects in which we do not show ourselves to be strong or resilient and suffer losses. By noticing patterns in these traditionally weak points, he forms a picture of our vulnerabilities, our pain points and blind spots.

In order not to receive sudden and painful blows to these pressure points, you should ask yourself the question - how do they see the picture on the other side of the chessboard? Without embellishment, as they say. Awareness of your weaknesses and working with them has never harmed anyone.

It should immediately be noted that our weaknesses have historically manifested themselves as a system much more often than our strengths. One could start with some Livonian War or traditional insoluble social contradictions, but I’m interested in starting with the War of 1812.

So, Napoleon and his army invaded the Russian Empire, reached Moscow and took it, essentially leaving the field of general battle behind him. As we understand it, this is understandable, but in the West, of course, they see the situation somewhat differently.

Yes, Napoleon was unable to conquer the Russian Empire or force it into an alliance and blockade against the British Empire - however, he was able to solve tactical problems (except for the complete defeat of the army of the Russian Empire), he took Moscow, caused significant damage, and so on - having, in general, an open second front (Great Britain) in its rear.

What conclusion would the West draw from the Napoleonic campaign?

That the Russians traditionally fear a pitched battle with an experienced and numerically equal or superior enemy. That the Russians can and will use their territory as an exchange to weaken and stretch the enemy. That a partisan movement will arise in the extended rear. That the Russian fleet should not be considered as a serious factor. Finally, that the Russians will delay a general battle and, in general, will prefer to pull it apart and tear it apart where this can be done.

Let me remind you that now I am not talking about our strengths, but looking at the past through the eyes of the West through the prism of our shortcomings and habits.

In the 1812th century, Western countries made a number of analytical conclusions based on the War of XNUMX. Previously, of course, there were individual elements that could form a system. This is the murder of Paul, and the increased manipulation of us by various Western forces, directly through the sympathies of our elites, divorced from the people, and the significant influence of the personal abilities and habits of our monarchs on making key decisions for the country.

I believe that back in the 19th century, Western thought put forward a number of theses about “what we are” and how we make decisions and implement them, how we think about what we are ready to do and what we are not ready to do - and in what cases.

Through the prism of our shortcomings

The Napoleonic campaign showed that if our “hornet's nest” is well stirred up, we can show considerable agility and “second wind”, reaching the lair of our exhausted enemy. However, the path to this is definitely not easy for us - it is the path of threshold potentials and sacrifices. By limiting the localization of the conflict and not reducing it to the nature of an existential threat, we can be controlled; our second wind will not open without this.

This is what the Crimean War showed - despite the abundant coalition of opponents, the issue of an existential threat was not identified for us, despite a number of incidents, the conflict turned out to be local and, despite the advantage of our field, which we traditionally glorify when we talk about our strengths, we lost. Threshold escalation, localization of conflict, increasing pressure and advantage, logistical and demographic - these are the factors that brought us down, among other things.

The West noticed that we have some shortcomings in the military sphere and integrated them into a system. These shortcomings include the archaization of military science and technology, ineffective organization of the military hierarchy during a limited conflict, poor logistics and supply, and fear for secondary fronts during the main conflict.

The defeat in the Crimean War was a significant blow to our image after the victory over Napoleon. However, we tried to work on the mistakes, and although our traditional shortcomings have not gone away, the situation has improved over time.

Traditional shortcomings are like weeds with deep roots - you can pull them out, plant something new, make it look beautiful, but if the roots remain, then as attention falls, everything will return to normal. In our case, the situation has returned to the times of the Russo-Japanese War.

In this conflict, we were faced with many problems identified back in the Crimean War - this is the problem of ensuring the security of distant territories, and poor logistics in crisis situations, and an unsuitable hierarchy, and the archaization of military technologies and military art, and, of course, the fact that I highlighted it as a frank localization of the conflict.

Based on the experience of the Crimean and Russian-Japanese wars, we can conclude that in our case significant efforts are required to move from a state of threat and minor conflict to a state of threatening conflict.

Staying on the brink of conflict or even beyond it is energy-consuming for us, and this drains us quite a lot, since we are in a dual situation, combining peaceful and military organizations and efforts that are quite in conflict with each other.

In the event of a major war, we need to overcome this resistance. It will also require a lot of effort and time to shake up and rebuild our society and organizational structures, which have traditionally been rather amorphous and difficult to lift.

It is more profitable for our enemy to keep us in tension until this “transition line”, because in this case the internal forces of the country will do a significant part of the work for him, taking a position favorable to him, consciously or not.

Anglo-Saxon methodology

The example of the Russo-Japanese War and the subsequent revolution of 1905 largely repeats the logic of our war of 1914–1917 and our participation in the First World War. Our front in that war was secondary (compared to the scale of the meat grinder on the Western Front, of course), and although the conflict was significant, it cannot be said unequivocally that it posed an existential threat to us. On our second front (the Caucasus) we traditionally held the German ally well, and on the main front it was obvious that the Germans (until the revolutionary mess) were not capable of becoming this existential threat to us. In that conflict we had allies effectively tying up the German forces - that is, I am pointing out that the logic of our actions during the First World War was our traditional logic of "limited conflict."

Our government was not too concerned about completely reformatting the economy for military needs, although the conflict was complex and costly for us and had lasted quite a long time. As a result, the same factors came into play as during the Russo-Japanese War - forces within society became active, which actually played into the hands of our opponents.

In the First World War, French and English society and politics showed themselves to be more resilient than ours. They will certainly remember this moment and take it into account as our minus and weakness. In fact, it was on the basis of the history of the First World War that Hitler’s ideas were formed that “Russia is a colossus with feet of clay.”

Failures in our revolutionary campaign were also due to our traditional shortcomings - poor logistics, poor supplies, archaic military science and technology. In offensive wars, which we wage without a preliminary existential threat, we, generally speaking, quite often did not show ourselves at our best, demonstrating a galaxy of our traditional shortcomings.

This was the case during the Polish campaign of the Red Army. The West also came to conclusions similar to those they made about our exit from the First World War.

The “Curzon Line” style approach, as opposed to the “anti-Bolshevik campaign to the east,” which also had supporters, is a fairly rational solution. It is based on the assumption that we cannot mount an effective march to the west unless there is a real and direct existential threat. In this case, we will be held back by our traditional shortcomings.

The alternative would be for the West to formulate a strategy that would force us to show our strengths. This would create a real threat, stretch out supplies and logistics, and strain forces in conditions where the game would be on our field. The Anglo-Saxon elites showed the wisdom of observation, not making the mistakes of Napoleon, and probably believed that the USSR, as some kind of misunderstanding, would collapse on its own, sooner or later.

However, not all Western elites shared this point of view. In contrast to the Anglo-Saxon methodology, which tried to objectively study our weaknesses and strengths based on an array of historical situations, there was a conditionally German position. It was based on the study of more recent historical periods and postulated “weakness and strength as absolute concepts,” which in itself was very far from analytical.

This view of things did not take into account factors of strengthening or weakening. He took certain patterns from the short term and used them out of context, as if he did not notice its influence on whether the steel would be steel or cast iron. A wooden wall supported from behind will be stronger than a stone wall built at an angle. But for the Germans, with their racial theories, the material of the wall was an absolute in matters of its durability.

It is worth noting that on the eve of World War II we did not prove ourselves to be a powerful military power or a confident system. Despite the fact that in 1939 we were better armed than the Germans, had more strength and the level of militarization of society, and despite the open antagonism of fascism and communism, which began since the Spanish War, we chose to come to an agreement and divide Poland rather than increase confrontation.

I don’t want to point out the rightness or wrongness of this path, I just want to look at events through the eyes of the West and through its analysis of our behavior.

From the point of view of the West (and the Germans in general), the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was a manifestation of weakness, indecisiveness, uncertainty and non-compliance with principles. We signed an agreement with an obvious enemy, who was already understood as a future and undisguised enemy, and this agreement did not provide any security guarantees (for example, because the Germans had a similar agreement with Poland). This was not an indication of a strong position.

Then we took a wait-and-see attitude and spent a whole year watching the “strange war” and the French campaign. We decided to conduct the Winter War with Finland to demonstrate our power outside of military training grounds and test it in practice.

Unfortunately, the results were not very good. The show of force had the opposite effect and once again confirmed the German thesis about “feet of clay” and exaggerated power in general. Perhaps, if we had not started the Finnish war, remaining an “open secret” outside of Khasanov and Khalkhin Gol, with colorful parades and monstrous five-tower tanks, we would be more effective as an anti-Hitler bogeyman. But it turned out the way it turned out.

Western (and German) analytics carefully studied our experience in that war: tanks, control, experience and equipment of troops, equipment with small arms weapons, efficiency aviation and so on.

The findings were confirmed that in the absence of an existential threat, the Russians fight much weaker, even in such geographically contiguous regions. And everything according to the traditional list: weak logistics and supply, interaction, command staff, archaic military thought that was still somewhere in Spain, at best.

Considering the problems with winter uniforms in the Finnish campaign (and numerous frostbites), the West concluded that the Russians were generally unprepared for a real conflict, because in a cold country it is not enough to provide adequate winter uniforms; this, frankly speaking, is important.

This, by the way, is why the ears of all these UK forecasts that “the Russians will hold out for a maximum of two months” are growing - the analysts there have fallen into depression regarding our real capabilities.

However, unlike the British, Hitler did not understand the importance of the factor of space and existential threat, as well as the influence of these factors on adjusting the analytical picture.

Usually, the build-up is our weak point in conflicts, as is opposition to a military restructuring. But behind all these Stalinist upheavals, often quite stupid, analytically Hitler and his entourage lost sight of the fact that the restructuring of society on a war footing and its crisis mobilization had already taken place several years ago. Numerous paranoid processes, plantings, spy mania and the build-up of heavy industry, harsh propaganda had been “pumping” the brains of Soviet citizens for about 5 years, and there was practically no need to bring them to “harsh measures”; they were already in a borderline or close to it state. Mobilization to fight the existential threat took even longer - however, they were preparing to fight the British and French.

Thus, the weak organizational readiness was to some extent compensated for by advance moral preparation - thanks to this, we swayed much faster than it would have been under normal conditions.

For all the shortcomings of Stalin and his leadership, many of these people went through the Civil War and understood the importance and effectiveness of stretching the enemy, guerrilla warfare and brain training not from textbooks, but from the real experience that surrounded them. Which, however, only compensated for many of our other traditional shortcomings, which have not gone away. Quality of logistics, planning, supply, management, command staff.

Of the benefits

One of the advantages that I would like to note is that we very quickly reached the level of existential war. This is our strong point, although at the beginning of the Great Patriotic War, judging by a number of documents, there was still ideological fermentation, and in certain ethnic groups this remained for quite a long time. However, for the most part, opposition to the “military transition” was broken in advance and quite effectively.

For Western analysts, this factor (preliminary effective propaganda processing) turned out to be quite new and revolutionary. They, of course, understood the propaganda of the masses, but the scale and effect of such preliminary processing, I believe, surprised them very much. Like a vaccine that boosts immunity against disease, these factors hastened the response to a military threat.

Previously, the quality of propaganda in conflicts was not our strong point. The low literacy of the population, its ideological alienation and religiosity had an effect, and in general the emphasis was more often placed on direct coercion and a hierarchy of suppression rather than on appeal.
Based on the results of the Great Patriotic War, the West clearly concludes that Russians are very susceptible to propaganda and manipulation. Although they had known about the manipulation of elites since at least the 19th century, the receptivity of the population (and, in principle, the inclusion of similar tools in their repertoire of influences) turned out to be a great discovery for them.

Here I will note that Western propaganda of the early 20th century rather exploits a caricatured, humiliating image of the enemy, rather than the image of the formation of strong appealing patterns.

We can say that the discovery of the USSR was the deep development of provocative images that appeal to morality, conscience and spiritual qualities, and the implantation of these things is extremely expansive, forming not only an effective anti-image, but also an extremely juicy image, and quite competently using all new methods of manipulation. What began as a propaganda factor went much further, and the West later adopted this art and outplayed us on this field.

Based on the results of the Second World War and the Great Patriotic War, the West studied us as a whole - about our ability, like a jack-in-the-box, to reach the capitals of our opponents at the final chords of an existential crisis, it, of course, knew since the time of the Napoleonic Wars. But the move towards the “Iron Curtain” zone surprised him somewhat. Because this was accompanied by a significant material gap between the Soviet standard of living and the standard of living of these countries included in the “Soviet bloc.”

In English analytics, probably since the Civil War, there has been a thesis that, adjacent to more well-fed and traditional states and forced to interact with them, the Union would gradually, or as a result of a revolution, slide back to a more understandable and classical formation. Observing the arrival of the NEP, they seemed to confirm their hypothesis.

But then the strengthening of Stalinism and the war happened, which actually significantly delayed these inevitable and in some ways even logical changes, and after the USSR became a superpower and was forced to adhere to much harsher forms of ideological antagonism for decades - all this delayed the transition that the British had expected in many more years. sometime in the 1930s for more than 40 years. And the transition itself happened fragmentarily (not completely), smoothly and practically not revolutionary.

However, the Western elites grasped the pattern of this back in the 1920s–1930s, as well as the possibility of manipulating this process by maintaining subcritical escalation parameters for a long time.

Since the end of World War II, they have tried to keep us at a sub-critical level of readiness for conflict, preventing us from relaxing or definitely moving into preparation for an existential confrontation. This quite logically contributed to the formation in the USSR of a layer of people who played conditionally “to the West”, without necessarily realizing it. These could be people who preferred certainty over uncertainty, and the more often they encountered the absence of a “hot” conflict, the closer they were mentally to the idea that there is no conflict or there should not be.

In this they came into conflict with Soviet agitprop, which was increasingly less able to maintain a healthy balance of levels of readiness and anxiety.

In the West, there has long been a thesis regarding us, which can be expressed something like this: “Russia produces nothing but depression.” This thesis has evolved - in the West they actually believe that most of the implemented technical solutions belong to them, because only within their framework it was systemic, in other states it was rather targeted or contrary.

It is impossible to say unambiguously whether this thesis is completely false or true, but in our case it is partly true - the potential for modernization based on our own technological cycles has indeed always suffered or limped. Even when we could make some of the most advanced computers in the world, we did not cling to systematic progress in this area for long, preferring to buy or copy ready-made solutions to developing our own. This is one of our objectively existing historical shortcomings that we need to overcome, because the West, knowing this, will exploit our habit, alternating periods of detente and tension, forcing us to endlessly change favored regimes between creating our own and buying ready-made solutions.

Caribbean crisis

The Caribbean crisis became a very good model for the West to analyze what we are. In fact, then we showed deep initiative and planning, deciding to create a center of pressure on the enemy’s shores, just as the enemy created such centers on our borders.

Much has been written about the Cuban missile crisis, and I would like to highlight here the main conclusions that the West could draw from its results.

Firstly, the Russians were already capable of carrying out such long-range and large-scale operations technically and covertly. This was a surprise for them that they will keep in mind every time a conflict brews. The myth of the dangerous “unpredictability of Russians” gained a second wind after the Cuban missile crisis.

However, beyond this myth, they also saw that the depth of elaboration of our plans was insufficient. Even our best plans were plagued by few if-thens. If, at the planning stage, Khrushchev had worked out options for action in the event of discovery of the preparation of starting positions, then the plan itself could have been implemented with a greater probability, or the achievements from its curtailment would have been greater, since it would have become a more significant element in the bargaining. But the option was not worked out in breadth, and everything happened as it happened.

The USA, in turn, gained the points that we lost. Kennedy showed himself to be a more confident leader than Khrushchev, and America itself was more principled and organized than the USSR. The fact that the missiles were withdrawn from Turkey was frankly an incentive prize for us.

Based on the results of a comprehensive analysis, Western analysts came to the conclusion that the USSR could not effectively play the role of the “white” side, although they noted an increasing tendency towards this in the future. Subsequently, it was precisely this increasing trend that prompted the West to go for détente, fearing that the USSR would seek to equalize security imbalances by improving its material and technical capabilities.

This would impose on the West the game that it imposed on us - uncertainty tense to the limit.

However, the West chose to abandon this quite quickly, since it understood the destructive potential of the influence of these factors on its life.

The fact that we went for détente gave the West the understanding that we did not seriously consider the potential of this instrument. For the first time since World War II, the West was convinced that the Russians did not want their security configuration to improve at the expense of their (Western) positions in this security, and that the Russians were satisfied with the current situation at the moment.

This gave the West a lot to think about because it diverged significantly from our rhetoric and even from some elements of our foreign policy.

Loyalists and confrontationists

And it was clearly interpreted by Western analysts as a deepening split in the vision and planning of the Soviet elites into conditionally “loyalists” and conditionally “confrontationists,” with the dominance of the former reigning.

The very processes that were noticed even before the new economic policy entered the terminal phase - and the West could only wait. As in the Chinese expression “Sit quietly on the bank of the river” - approximately the same picture.

You see where your opponent is swimming. It floats on its own, and it is not necessary to push it at all, you can only slightly guide it. This is what they did, consistently luring us into an Afghan trap.

Again, the West operated with the idea that has already been mentioned many times: that the Russians organically resist reformatting for a confident victory in local conflicts that do not threaten their existence as a state and community.

Having imposed such a debilitating conflict, one could expect that it would drag on for many years and, probably, over time they would prefer to withdraw from it without achieving final goals, with the accompanying reputational and material costs.

By creating such a conflict, the West simultaneously bound and devalued the “confrontationists” and gave an increasingly powerful position to the “loyalists.” Considering how frankly weak the still formally atheistic USSR understood Muslim countries (which was repeatedly confirmed by the USSR’s disastrous bets in the Middle East), its involvement in Afghanistan was truly a masterful combination of our enemies.

As a result of the Afghan conflict, Western countries noted, in addition to our traditional shortcomings, the growing problems in the field of propaganda and engagement arising in the Soviet Union. Despite potentially powerful resources and a significant number of personnel, agitprop turned out to be unable to reformat Afghan society, demonstrating a boring and ineffective presentation of material and a growing anachronistic gap with Western technologies of imposition and manipulation.

In the West, it was quite logical to conclude (which, however, has been confirmed for many years) that the degradation of propaganda is a complex phenomenon, and the quality of internal propaganda is also weakening.

The West has once again become convinced of our weak ability to achieve sustainable results in local conflicts of a non-existential scale. They probably concluded from this that such things do not change much over time or due to technological progress - being essentially chronic companions of our civilization-mental model.

In part, these conclusions (and other conclusions about us) were confirmed by the results of the first Chechen war and partly the war with Georgia in 2008. In many respects, this was confirmed in 2014, when we fundamentally went to all lengths to at least somehow freeze the Ukrainian status quo, despite the frank and undisguised anti-Russian line.

Conclusions

So, it's time to sum up my longread.

We must understand that as a result of all these events, the West will look at us differently. Understanding this view is important in order to sometimes try to go beyond our usual actions and achieve what we want where before it may have been a little more difficult, but where our negative qualities can hinder us.

The West knows us and our shortcomings very well. He also has a pretty good idea of ​​what our strengths are based on - he has long since learned to work around this whenever possible, like a mongoose approaching a cobra from the most advantageous directions.

To conclude this article, I would like to list some of our chronically negative qualities.

1. Weak quality study of the pre-crisis and initial stages of crisis planning. This is what we call “Russian maybe”. Unfortunately, this is a factor in our mentality.

2. The chronic decline of military thought and managers some time after the last major conflicts, the transformation of this into an ossified structure, a thing in itself, the more so as it goes on.

3. Big problems with adopting and understanding the experience of our opponents in inter-crisis times. The strong influence of denial, dogma and ideas in our constructions.

4. Traditional problems of our logistics and supply during crises.

5. A high degree of influence of subjective factors in the historical decisions of our elites. Real collegiality in making such decisions is often insufficient, which can lead to unfounded and insufficiently thought-out decisions that are not protected from objective criticism.

6. High degree of influence on our population through more attractive images, including the influence of elites in making long-term decisions.

7. Pronounced significant threshold resistance that prevents the transition from ineffective to effective methods of conflict resolution. If this stage is delayed, a protest asset may be formed, both vertically and horizontally.

8. During the inter-crisis period, big problems arise with the methodical and consistent development and implementation of complex innovations. The more time passes between crises, the more serious these problems become.

9. Within the civilizational culture there is a low focus on results.

10. During the inter-crisis period, propaganda degenerates and becomes unable to creatively evolve in space, using different sources of experience. She is like a chess pawn that either moves forward or stands still. Having reached the limit of quantitative evolution, it stops due to the inability to evolve qualitatively.

11. Unfortunately, our activities outside are often and chronically openly reactionary. The experience of the success of our expansionary operations by “white” figures is not fully analyzed in our country, unlike the West, which values ​​any analysis of successes and failures. We do not have an adequate culture of analysis of both successes and failures. There is only one fat myth that overshadows any attempts to dissect it.

12. In this regard, we may seem predictable to Western countries as an adversary or partner. We strive for stability, but in the negative sense of the word. We have an organic reluctance to make changes even in situations where they are necessary.

While we want to be active players, we can't always fully focus on the game. Because of this, we sometimes find ourselves in obviously losing positions, although objectively we should be in a more advantageous position.

Analyzing how Western countries see us and our shortcomings, how they play on them and influence us through them is a huge topic, and today I have only touched on it in general terms, despite the inevitably large material.

I see my task as raising a debate not around individual, perhaps even controversial details, but precisely in the direction of analysis - what chronically exists in us that works against our successes, through which we can be influenced, that objectively is not our strengths.

Like any problem, once identified, these factors can be targeted to improve the country, which will undoubtedly have a positive impact on our security and sustainability.

Comments

[ivan2022]

Well done author, he made an application on the most pressing topic of our time. Should
discuss traditions and problems of Russian and Russian public relations. Here the field is unplowed.
I’ll re-read his article again in my free time today.

[vasyliy1]

The author of the article correctly noted our inertia and ossification in decision-making and the long build-up, but as always, Russia harnesses slowly, but drives quickly! In addition, from the history of major conflicts between the West and our country, it is more correct to compare today’s conflict with the Winter War with Finland and the subsequent Second World War. And here and there we delivered a preemptive strike against the aggressor, who, lulling us, was preparing to deliver a fatal blow. In addition, unlike the USSR, we also have allies in the person of China, Iran, the DPRK and the countries of the global South, who understand perfectly well that the collective expansionist West, having dealt with Russia, will take on them and further strengthen globalization and deprive them of their sovereignty completely. Therefore, in the emerging 3rd World War, we will not fight the West alone. Let's believe in the strength of the spirit of our people!

[Civil]

For some reason, the author put equality between the USSR (the Red Army acted in the interests of the working people) and the Republic of Ingushetia (the tsarist army acted in the interests of the nobles). And even more so with the Russian Federation (Deputy Secretary of the Russian Security Council D.A. Medvedev personally stated that our state is young).

For example, the USSR and its allies carried out an exemplary operation "Danube" against the counter-revolution in the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic, and before that there were no less successful operations in Vietnam, Hungary, and the German Democratic Republic. Thus, there is no need to blame the problems of the rotten tsarist regime on the Soviet government. Tsarek escaped from the First World War and the Whites lost the war. The USSR, led by the communists and personally comrade. Stalin won the Second World War. SCOREBOARD.

[Knell wardenheart]

I point to the factor of unchanging mentality, unchanging habits. A number of things in certain periods of history could be in better condition because there was a fair focus of attention on it. So, for example, even a chronic drunk can not drink for some time if he tries with all his might to control himself. But such an improvement will be temporary while his attention is focused on this problem. Then, without comprehensive elaboration, it will return to the natural state of the model. I'm trying to pick up on this "natural state of the model" because we need to try to think apart from the legend - we've had too many bad crises to have the luxury of repeating them.
Vietnam was not “our war” - it was support for someone else’s military, which, by the way, was relatively small in volume and scale. If we compare it with Spain, for example - where there were a decent amount of volunteers who fought and a decent amount of equipment was brought in - but our side did not win the war.
Hungary - the suppression of a spontaneous rebellion, the seething masses had, at best, small arms and they were decentralized.
Czechoslovakia - in power there were “peaceful people” who did not set goals and did not organize resistance.
GDR 1950s - isolated unrest, is that what you mean? Considering how many forces we had in that region at that time, it would be surprising if we did not suppress these unrest.

There are mistakes that we chronically repeat, regardless of the formation, the name of the car changes but the crew remains.

[Cananecat]

I was pleasantly surprised by what I read.
Yes, generals always prepare for past wars, and the beginning of the Northern Military District once again confirmed this expression for us. But the closer I came to the end of the article, the more acute was the feeling that at the end of this reflection the author could draw conclusions about the upcoming steps of the West, the conflict with which had entered its hot phase. However, it did not come. I agree with the listed mistakes inherent in our mentality, but that’s what analytics is all about, it allows you to calculate the success of some actions, both your own and the enemy’s, which in general will allow them to be quite successfully resisted in the future.
It is necessary and extremely necessary to change our local consciousness, otherwise another one, indicated to us by the West, will be added to the total number of our problems...

[Knell wardenheart]

Good afternoon ! It all comes down to volume - it’s better to break down complex topics, IMHO.
How they see us in the West is important for understanding how they will act based on how they imagine us. If you see an angry dog ​​behind the fence, but you know that you can feed it and then it will start wagging its tail and will not bark at you, you are unlikely to attack it head-on, because this is a risk and an unfavorable configuration. You have an idea of ​​how and what, and you use this idea - it is based on experience, observation, analysis. If time is not critical for you, then you choose the most optimal strategy - less energy costs, less risks, higher probability of predicted success. The better you know this dog, even without coming into direct contact with it, the better your prognosis.
Probably very good. This is a rough analogy, and I in no way synonymize it with our situation.

The West's upcoming steps are based on what adjustments the Northern Military District has made to our “already existing portrait.” I believe they still do not believe in our readiness to move on to existential war, they probably still have a low estimate of the evolutionary capabilities of our propaganda and a high estimate of the potential of their own complex. They probably treat our government without reverence, modestly assessing its intellectual level and modernization-creative ability. They also most likely regard situational decisiveness with much more skepticism than is commonly believed among us. At the same time, they are aware of the potential of the “contrary” factor in this area. This factor is taken into account and it has a certain range of significance. If we compare our vision and theirs, they probably have this factor much less than ours (in vision). But it definitely exists - that’s why they prefer a smooth, creeping escalation. The West understands the meaning of the “threshold of existential threat”, understands the potential of our propaganda to pump up society in advance (a la pre-war Stalinism) with alarmism, but they apparently believe that a combination of unwinding in time, economic strangulation, viscous defense, creep and the need to raise rates for us (with the simultaneous sub-threshold value of escalation) they will eventually achieve internal disintegration of our system (this or that degree of catastrophism), which will bring them what they want on a platter without Rubilov-Mesilov.

Something like that.

[Cananecat]

Yes, the topic is very interesting... especially in terms of how a dog thinks... should I take him for fillet now or let him bring some treats first...
Thank you.

[depressant]

. They probably treat our government without reverence, modestly assessing its intellectual level and modernization-creative ability. They also most likely regard situational decisiveness with much more skepticism than is commonly believed among us.

Knell... )))

[72jora72]

Hungary - the suppression of a spontaneous rebellion, the seething masses had, at best, small arms and they were decentralized.
Czechoslovakia - in power there were “peaceful people” who did not set goals and did not organize resistance.

As I understand it, you got information about these riots at best from Wikipedia... (by the way, I heard exactly this description from Radio Liberty in my distant youth)
Pi SI About the “spontaneous riot” I was especially amused.....

[Knell wardenheart]

Already answered at the very bottom, you are not the first to ask this question.

[72jora72]

We decided to conduct the Winter War with Finland to demonstrate our power outside of military training grounds and test it in practice.

Already answered at the very bottom, you are not the first to ask this question.

That is, you simply take some historical event and give it your personal interpretation, even if it has nothing to do with real events. (Or you engage in the usual substitution of meanings)

[Knell wardenheart]

Yeah, that is, apparently there was some other “real” goal of the attack on the Finns? They apparently threatened us with their 3-4 million population and one cartridge factory? Maybe the Germans were openly preparing a bridgehead, airfields, and military bases there? Well, if this is the logic, why didn’t they help the Finns then?
And finally, logically, we wrested a piece of land from the Finns - perhaps the security of Leningrad should have increased? Have you grown? After all, they quickly pushed back with the beginning of the Second World War to their old border.
So what was the logic of events, given all this?
Come on, irradiate me with the rays of truth about the Finnish War. So that I do not remain in heresy and do not engage in substitution of meanings.

P/s, what other “interpretation” is there besides the personal one? Red Book? Books are also written by people, it is not the Lord God who throws them from above in the form of tablets. The whole story is a CONTINUOUS interpretation of facts. All analytics is the interpretation of facts.

[Msi]

squeezed

It seems like you write so competently, and some slang...

[Andy_nsk]

In general, I agree with the arguments and conclusions presented, but I will make one remark (please forgive the tediousness).

Hungary - the suppression of a spontaneous rebellion, the seething masses had, at best, small arms and they were decentralized.

My father served as a conscript in 1956. in Hungary, I know something first-hand. The resistance was ORGANIZED. The army, which also had heavy weapons, in particular anti-aircraft guns, went over to the side of the rebels. As an example: my father served in aviation, one of the IL-28 planes was photographing Magyars’ positions under heavy fire and was shot down by anti-aircraft artillery. The crew died. Then this area was processed by our artillery. That's not how you fight a civilian.

[futurohunter]

Knell wardenheart
An absolutely incorrect assessment of events in other countries, associated with ignorance and misunderstanding of history.
Another "ugly single-engine aircraft with an archaic air intake"

[futurohunter]

Knell wardenheart
I would like to ask only the simplest question. Somehow Russia (not even Rust) has existed for more than one century, and has even managed to grow to the size of the largest country in the world. Over these centuries, Russia has withstood the bloodiest wars, and was able to defeat even the most insidious invaders, before whom the countries of the West, so beloved by the author, folded. And even survived the greatest disaster of the 90s. During this time, the most grandiose empires arose and collapsed - the Ottoman, British and Spanish. Hitler conquered all of “progressive” Europe, and broke his teeth in Russia. Russia has survived them all and is still alive. With its backward and archaic “mentality”. And now she’s also started reformatting the world order.
How so? Eh, the author?

[bayard]

Quote: Knell Wardenheart

. I'm trying to pick up on this "natural state of the model" because we need to try to think apart from the legend - we've had too many bad crises to have the luxury of repeating them.

In order to evaluate the collective unconscious of the authorities and society of our beloved Fatherland, you need to understand what is considered normal and the “natural state”. For it is one thing when the state (country) is in an archaic state, when a bunch of parasites and the oppressed, maximally oppressed and devoid of initiative and social elevators People are in power... And it’s a completely different thing when the State (country) is in a state of Solidarity Society with equal rights of citizens, equal access to quality education and social elevators. In the second case, the basis for social elevators expands by orders of magnitude and the quality of selection into management structures, think tanks, and command hierarchy in the Army becomes (sorry for the tautology) better. For closed social structures, such as aristocratic families and the noble corps (service class) have the property degenerate Because the lottery about which family and from which parents a genius will be born... is just that, a lottery. And if such people are born outside the closed environment of “those crowding in power,” and if slobs and slackers are born in “well-born houses,” then such a state will face great trouble. This was precisely the phenomenon of the unprecedented rise of the USSR under Stalin in terms of the quality of public administration and in general - Economy, Science, planning (Gosplan), training and selection of personnel. And the result that we came to under Gorbachev is not a pattern at all, but a program that was played out over a long period of time to eliminate the Solidarity System in the USSR and return the country to the archaic state of feudalism with elements of wild capitalism.
That is, what we have come to is not at all the “normal” or “natural” state of our Society. For Normal is precisely the state in which the potential of the People and their State is revealed to the maximum. And for our People, the natural state is precisely the Solidarity Society and the implementation of universal justice. It is then that all the talents and potential of Society are realized. And the question is not at all about “-isms” (socialism, communism, capitalism, fascism), but about the internal state of Society. Total .
Soviet Society during the Stalin era was internally mobilized. And the leadership, and the People, and the Economy... and Logistics were built precisely to solve the issues of the Country's security, because the threat to our security was recognized by the Authorities and they kept the People in proper tone.
And this is about the role of the Personality in History. And about state ideology.
And when the ideology of the parasite and the “slave” is imposed... A parasite, by definition, thinks very poorly. And the enslaved people are ready to fight only if the danger for them is existential - i.e. threatens his very existence. Here is the reason for the secret of “late ignition”. So if we want to change reality for the better and get rid of these shortcomings... the status of the PEOPLE must change. And the authorities must buy at least a fraction of the brains from the People.

[Knell wardenheart]

To begin with, I will say that for the most part I agree with you - however, there are a number of important details here.

And it’s a completely different matter when the State (country) is in a state of Solidarity Society with equal rights of citizens, equal access to quality education and social elevators

We did not have such a state “as the norm”; in fact, such a state in our case was a deviation from the traditional one, arose for very short time periods and degenerated in a completely natural way within the reactionary system, no matter what it was called. We take Peter’s modernization and his social lifts, we take the period after the abolition of serfdom (although it was a longer, but at the same time more “liquid” period), yes, we take the Stalin period of the early 1930s (until 1935-1941) and Stalin’s period 1941-1947-1949. Of course, it is possible to unite the 1930s to the 1950s, but this would be a strong assumption because the system in that period was actively devouring its own created personnel. There was some rise under Khrushchev, but it was rather focal and not complex - associated with Nikita Sergeevich’s manicures. A number of areas have gained momentum, and a number of areas, on the contrary, have blossomed and been updated with personnel.
Analyzing these periods, one can notice that basically the “elevators” and solidarity you mentioned are strangled by the bureaucracy and repressive bodies, which see in them a threat to their own privileged position and “caste”. This is how it all ends in the case of our model. Elevators and solidarity themselves arise only during periods of growth of pronounced threatening trends from the outside, BUT they do not arise if people in power are NOT ready to show volitional efforts.
That is, in our case, only the principled position and will of the authorities and only TEMPORARILY breaks the traditional trend for us of fading/suffocation of civic activity, social elevators and solidarity.

And for our People the natural state is precisely the Solidarity Society and the implementation of universal justice

This is where I categorically disagree with you. What is the "state of nature"? . A condition that we WANT to accept as the norm, or a condition that has been the norm for a long time in a chronic sense? In our case, for the overwhelming period of time the state was NOT even close to being in a state of “moral norm”, and this was its natural state. From crisis to crisis, we rode on the backbone of the peasants and the ability of the repressive component to exploit it in depth. There was no smell of solidarity here - the authorities simply rubbed various things into people’s hands and combined illusory carrots with a real stick, periodically throwing down the bones so that everything would not be bent there at all.
Speaking about some special desire of the nation for “justice”, it is ridiculous that we are now at the point of the quintessence of our efforts of the last centuries - so how is it? Fair ? Maybe we have a “Solidarno” society? Latent indifference should not be interpreted as solidarity...

Well, in the part where you talk about “how it should be”, I agree with you. Another thing is that it will not arise on its own - it is worth rejecting these illusions about the “naturally positive state of the system.” The system tends to move harshly from crisis to crisis, showing a trend towards a reduction in its sphere of presence over the last hundred years. This points to complexly incorrect views and incorrect paradigms. It is worth rethinking the experience from “position 0”, otherwise we will repeat chronic mistakes until collapse.

[bayard]

Quote: Knell Wardenheart

We take the Stalin period of the early 1930s (until 1935-1941) and the Stalin period 1941-1947-1949. Of course, you can combine the 1930s to the 1950s, but this would be a strong assumption because the system in that period was actively devouring its own created personnel.

Absolutely not, it was a period of cleansing/self-purification of power from the “parasites of the new generation” of the Trotskyist-Zinovievsky or, more precisely, the Sverdlovsk-Trotskyist bloc. And throughout the 30s we have been observing the struggle of this bloc of “new parasites” and “Stalin’s team”, which relied on building Socialism (Solidarity Society) in a single country, relying on its own forces. And all those repressions (which were highly multidirectional) were a manifestation of this struggle for power and the image of the future of the Country. Ideas for building a Soviet Superpower and ideas for making the USSR/Russia an armful of brushwood in the furnace of the World Revolution. And by the end of the 30s, Stalin's team won.

Quote: Knell Wardenheart

There was some recovery under Khrushchev, but it was more of a focal rather than a complex one - associated with Nikita Sergeevich’s manicures

No . The period from 1955 when Khrushchev seized power (and even from the spring of 1953 - after the death of Stalin) was a revenge of the Trotskyist parasites and a purge of Stalinist cadres. There was no “new rise” then. There was still a powerful inertia of Stalin’s development programs, but all Khrushchev’s reforms were precisely a pogrom of Stalin’s programs for building a Solidarity Society and an effective system of Public Administration. And already in the early 60s, a simple economic catastrophe struck the USSR. The statistics were closed (they went to the post offices). At that time, we had a crisis in the production of consumer goods. In some industries, the decline in production was not even by percentages or tens of percentages, but by several times.
Why
Yes, because in the mid-50s, about 50% of all consumer goods in the USSR were produced by consumer cooperation enterprises, those same cooperatives. For example, children's toys were produced in the USSR only by cooperatives. Actually everything. Televisions, radios, radios, the first radios, furniture... many cafes and restaurants were cooperative. Remember the movie "The meeting place cannot be changed"? The restaurant where Manka Bond was taken during the raid on Fox was just a cooperative one. Remember the milliner from the same film? So, clothing factories and ateliers were predominantly cooperative, as were shoe factories and cooperatives. And Soviet citizens then could dress fashionably and with high quality, in variety and beauty. And there were enough consumer goods THEN.
And Khrushchev “nationalized” all this. And the Crisis struck. Including food. Because Khrushch hit subsidiary farms and consumer cooperation in the food sector.
So it was in 1955 that the period of the Reaction of the parasites who returned to power began. Even without taking into account their external engagement, this was already a harbinger of the Great Trouble.
Khrushchev was then removed, and it was precisely because of his economic policy and its results, and not because he waved his shoe at the UN.

Quote: Knell Wardenheart

Basically, the “elevators” and solidarity you mentioned are strangled by the bureaucracy and repressive bodies, which see in them a threat to their own privileged position and “caste”.

Exactly . But a lot depends on who exactly makes up the ruling caste. Her intellectual potential, moral and business qualities, engagement with external enemies and the ability to demonstrate state Will over a sufficiently long period of time. For in power we need not only smart and morally healthy people, but also people capable of a high degree of tension and manifestation of Will for a long time. It is the People of Long Will that are needed.

Quote: Knell Wardenheart

From crisis to crisis, we rode on the backbone of the peasants and the ability of the repressive component to exploit it in depth.

The authorities always ride on the peasants' backbone. Only the relationship between the rider and the “horse” is different. There is a warrior and his war horse, who seem to merge into one whole. And sometimes there is a fanatic who does not care about his horse, because he stole it and simply uses it according to his whim.
Russia needs exactly OWN rider. Then she will trample any dragon.

Quote: Knell Wardenheart

It is worth rethinking the experience from “position 0”, otherwise we will repeat chronic mistakes until collapse.

But this should definitely be done. The only question is WHAT is meant by “position 0” and what practical measures are necessary in order for the System to become Alive and Effective, capable of self-cleaning and life-giving renewal. If only the awareness of such a need reached the minds of those who hold and possess. The first step would be to renew the executive branch in favor of purely technical figures - responsible professionals. The key word is RESPONSIBLE. Possessive - to own, but in the interests of one's own state and therefore also responsibly. Otherwise, apart from another revolution, there will be no chance for renewal and recovery. And I would REALLY like to avoid such a scenario.
And thank you for raising the topic. This is important and very timely.

[Knell wardenheart]

Absolutely not, it was a period of cleansing/self-purification of power from the “parasites of the new generation” of the Trotskyist-Zinovievsky or, more precisely, the Sverdlovsk-Trotskyist bloc

I mean that “for the company” they almost cleared themselves of such people as Rokossovsky, Korolev, Chelomei and many other, to put it mildly, untalented people. Many of the system's post-war successes came from people it nearly killed - and many of its successes were lost because it did kill someone. Like Saturn, who ate his children, the Stalinist system also loved to feast on them; this was not at all the kingdom of intelligence or shrewd cunning. Many things were achieved because of active personnel, some because of good strategies, but there was also a lot of bloody game. It can be compared to a good racing car that runs on meat.

The only question is WHAT is meant by “position 0” and what practical measures are necessary in order for the System to become Alive and Effective, capable of self-cleaning and life-giving renewal

“Position 0” is a critical position, which postulates that life has never been good in our country. There were periods when life was better, periods when life was worse. But attempts to isolate a certain mantra from periods when life was better (in the past) are doomed to failure; from this one can only extract the experience of some INDIVIDUAL but in no way SYSTEMIC successes. We need to tell ourselves that now we are in “position 0” - we have nothing to rely on from the past, everything that was past has outlived itself and has been discredited in concept. And we will either build something completely new from “position 0”, based on an analysis of the past and ideas about the traditional depravities of our models and what we REALLY want to achieve, both at the state level and at the level of the aspirations of the common person, or we are doomed Until the end of time (ours), ride in a vicious circle with “rethinking” leftists, leftist radicals, soft and hard liberals and other smaller audiences.
Our temporary successes previously led us to collapse; we did not achieve what we wanted, no matter how much we wanted and no matter how much effort we invested. We need a zero reference point for actions and we need analysis и preparation the past, but its idealization.

About how and what we needed in my first articles here, I summed it up for a bit for a long time through indicators and reflections, but in general it is still relevant.
Everything should be based on the economy and a focus on increasing the population, living standards and stimulating domestic demand - with the further release of competitive products outside and laying the foundation for supporting the birth rate and socialization of citizens not through letters and appeals, but through real monetary instruments.
In principle, we should abandon any Ideology and move on to Ideas because an Idea is much more specific than an Ideology.

And finally, I will separately note that I believe that no leftist dogma or holy books will help us in the future - we are on “terra incognita”, in the 21st century. Either we learn to see with our own eyes and measure with our thermometer, to think with our own heads “in the moment,” or history will bury us and our place will be taken by those who know how.

[bayard]

Quote: Knell Wardenheart

In principle, we should abandon any Ideology and move on to Ideas because an Idea is much more specific than an Ideology.

In any case, it’s definitely worth getting rid of all sorts of “-isms” and speaking in normal human language.
For example, the Chinese initially translated the word communism into their hieroglyphs and do you know how it sounds to them?
"Union of Clans"!
How could it be otherwise if a “commune” is a “community”. Only in French. But how brilliantly it turned out in hieroglyphs.
So in Russian villages, before Stolypin’s intervention, people lived in peasant communities... And if in French, then it turns out they were already living under Communism. And Stolypin turns out to be our first domestic Anti-Communist.

Quote: Knell Wardenheart

I will separately note that I believe that no leftist dogma or holy books will help us in the future - we are on “terra incognita”, in the 21st century. Either we learn to see with our own eyes and measure with our thermometer, to think with our own heads “in the moment,” or history will bury us and our place will be taken by those who know how.

Dogmatics definitely not. But here are some books as a textbook for teaching Political Economy or simply the History of one’s Fatherland, why not. But definitely with your definition of the term

Quote: Knell Wardenheart

We need to tell ourselves that now we are in “position 0” - we have nothing to rely on from the past, everything that was past has outlived itself and has been discredited in concept. And we will either build something completely new from “position 0”, based on an analysis of the past and ideas about the traditional depravities of our models and what we REALLY want to achieve, both at the state level and at the level of the aspirations of the common person, or we are doomed until the end of time (ours) ride in a vicious circle

and I completely agree with the idea itself.
And I’ll even chant “Bravo!” if such an approach is developed. I'm even ready to discuss this topic.

Quote: Knell Wardenheart

I mean that “for the company” they almost cleared themselves of such people as Rokossovsky, Korolev, Chelomei and many other, to put it mildly, untalented people.

My great-uncle also came under attack back then, in 1938. He commanded the 25th Chapaev Shock Division. He took command after the death of Vasily Ivanovich, before that he was deputy and commander of the 1st brigade. In the film of the same name, Chapai showed him on potatoes the place of the commander on the march, in defense and attack. Okay, I got distracted.
I wouldn’t like to start talking about this topic again, because I just recently completed an active correspondence on this topic and I don’t want to do it again. But it was not for nothing that I wrote above that those repressions were of a multidirectional nature. First, the Trotskyists rushed to seize, imprison and shoot their political opponents and “formers” (nobles, monks, priests, former officials, officers of the tsarist army), and then the Organs, already taken under the control of Stalin, began to cleanse their own ranks (for this purpose a massive " Stalin's Call" for working youth in the NKVD). That’s when all these “innocent victims” and “victims of the regime” appeared. Who were shaking with their suffering in the 60s and 80s, and are still shaking to this day... already descendants.
But their victims (these “innocent victims”) and their descendants are not shaken by their suffering and executed ancestors. Although they shot, they were increasingly given time for correctional labor in an ecologically clean area.

[your1970]

For example, the USSR and its allies conducted an exemplary operation "Danube" against the counter-revolution in Czechoslovakia it would be exemplary absence such an operation. And when henchmen The USSR slept through EVERYTHING and EVERYTHING - it’s stupid to boast about that. Because the West clearly saw that without SA bayonets - such regimes will not last long. And he began to stagger. And literally in 20 years these regimes collapsed

[Alexey Lantukh]

The USSR, led by the communists and personally comrade. Stalin won the Second World War. SCOREBOARD.

The USSR won the Second World War, but “... a holiday with tears in our eyes...”. The losses are horrific. Both material and human. As for the protrusion of Victory, almost everything is in order here. As for the analysis of our losses, much is hidden, and perhaps has not even been analyzed. It is clear that in the USSR the communists were almost infallible, but in Russia this is far from all smooth sailing.

[Alex 22 22]

Quote: Civil

RI (the tsarist army acted in the interests of the nobles)

And merchants, and officials. Did the Tsarist army not act in their interests? Yes, and Lenin was a nobleman, and forgive me the working people.

[dmi.pris1]

China is not our ally at all, just like Iran. They are just fellow travelers, they proceed from their own concepts and expediency. And the DPRK? Yes, we ourselves had to go to the well that they didn’t care about

[Dmitry Ivanov_1991]

Mikhalkov in Besogon has one episode about how China attacks our Siberia and the Far East.
This series will probably be 10 years old soon. It was also filmed under Medvedev.
Its main message is that when China launches an attack, Moscow will know in a day, react in two, and start thinking and doing something in three. By this time, China will almost win the “war” and everything it plans will be cut off and taken. All we have to do is sign a truce.
A surreal series that once sounded absurd... But everyone and everywhere laughed at Zhirinovsky, and yesterday at Solovyov’s they called him a prophet and devoted half an hour to his personality and statements, which (suddenly!) turn out to be prophetic in current realities and are confirmed in life.

This series was filmed in response to the situation with the war with Georgia, when Medvedev only on the second or even third day decided to take retaliatory measures and start at least some kind of hostilities. Putin was then out of the country, and if I’m not mistaken, in America or Australia, i.e. in another part of the world altogether. But the “president” of LADIES was unable to do anything on his own.
The auto article points out this through every paragraph - the inability to make decisions in the ranks of generals.

[WIS]

This series was filmed in response to the situation with the war with Georgia, when Medvedev only on the second or even third day accepted decision on response

Do you want to say that you noticed a significant disagreement? their with Putin? This is LJJ What kind of stubbornness do you have to have in order not to see the DIFFERENCE?
PS: the turkey also thought that it ended up in the soup (about YOU AND I)

[Dmitry Ivanov_1991]

somehow you pulled your thoughts by the ears?
I am writing again. How could DAM make any independent decisions? Therefore, I tried to contact its nominal owner, who was absent from the country. According to Putin, he doesn’t have a phone at hand like Merkel, everything is either brought to him on a piece of paper or he asks through Peskov to contact this or that person. That’s why the deadline is almost 3 days. Peskov is also a person - he could simply have caught a cold or be busy with other things.

Who is DAM anyway?
I'll tell you the dark secret. DAM appeared in the Ozero cooperative as a lawyer-economist who knew how to pull off tax evasion schemes. This is why the founders of this Lake liked him. The fact that he “grew up” to the position of President of All Rus' is not his merit, but the trust of the one who gave him this post to hold until the constitution was changed and the terms were reset at the request of the nameless people, who, in their non-stop request, sent letters in bags to Mrs. Tereshkova , which she herself reported and announced the people’s request to a certain Putin that the people want to endure him for 2 more terms. And Putin was so happy that he thought - why am I going to rule for 2 terms of 4 years each? There will be a total of 8. What if you can do 2 x 6 =12? And he changed the constitution to suit his beloved.

[WIS]

but this is not appropriate briefly..., according to the rules.
You made me smile, and even though I didn’t see anything new for myself, a revelation is always pleasant.
PS: I guess I just choked...

[Nastia makarova]

But why would China take the Far East by force? and so all resources are given

[Msi]

and yesterday at Solovyov’s they called him a prophet and devoted half an hour to his personality

I haven't watched this propago...don's programs for a long time. Thanks for the info. I wasn't mistaken, I'm doing the right thing by not looking...

[crack]

The collective expansionist West, having dealt with Russia, will take on them, further strengthening globalization and completely deprive them of sovereignty. Therefore, in the emerging 3rd World War, we will not fight the West alone. Let's believe in the strength of the spirit of our people!

The people will receive nothing from these victories, and the state... is a blind idol, a grandiose pyramid erected by people in an insane blindness, a cobweb, an ugly organism...

[Doctor]

In addition, from the history of major conflicts between the West and our country, it is more correct to compare today’s conflict with the Winter War with Finland and the subsequent Second World War. And here and there we delivered a preemptive strike against the aggressor, who, lulling us, was preparing to deliver a fatal blow

It's in the wrong place.
Were the Finns planning to deliver the killing blow? Doubtful. Why did they stop at the old border in 1941?

[Non-fighter]

The Finns themselves are not. But they could have missed those who could.

[Mikhail Drabkin]

…. what chronically exists in us that works against our successes, through which we can be influenced, that objectively is not our strengths.

The vastness and ethnic-confessional heterogeneity of Russia means unevenness and delay in development... the time in the system - from decision to notification, and execution - was long, and incomprehensible due to ignorance, misunderstanding and space. This is the objective reason for manual control, poor controllability of Russia... “... 1878 Field Marshal Christopher Antonovich Minikha “Russia is controlled directly by the Lord God. Otherwise it is impossible to imagine how this state still exists.”

Why rush - they will also change their minds - the best is the enemy of the good - don’t break it, it works - either the donkey will die, or the emir will die... and behind all these changes there is always uncertainty and new decisions that will only shake the status quo.

The bonds in times of peace and times are the fear of a weak central government and worsening uneven development.

[Mikhail Drabkin]

There are too many fractions with prime numbers in the denominator, so by definition there is no commonality, and approximation always suffers from uncertainty, both for the specific component and for the result

[futurohunter]

The only success of the author is that he touched a nerve. And even me)))
I would like to ask only the simplest question. Somehow Russia (not even Rust) has existed for more than one century, and has even managed to grow to the size of the largest country in the world. Over these centuries, Russia has withstood the bloodiest wars, and was able to defeat even the most insidious invaders, before whom the countries of the West, so beloved by the author, folded. And even survived the greatest disaster of the 90s. During this time, the most grandiose empires arose and collapsed - the Ottoman, British and Spanish. But Russia has survived them all and is still alive. With its backward and archaic “mentality”. And now she’s also started reformatting the world order.
How so? What will our “brilliant analyst”-author say? Not a fan of single-engine aircraft?

[Lech from Android.]

We must understand that as a result of all these events the West will look at us differently

The West looks at us like a predator looks at prey and prey... so it has always been and will always be.
Now the United States has again launched its favorite worm as bait... like they are ready to return to compliance with the NPT treaty... while not a word about the lifting of sanctions or the withdrawal of NATO troops from the borders of Russia.
Let's see if Putin will allow himself to be deceived again by their false promises.
Further, the author did not mention the role of the individual in the history of our people... one person like Gorbachev or Yeltsin is capable of destroying the country in a very short time... destroying all the gains of the state and the people using sweet rhetoric and fooling the people with some kind of promises.
People can reformat their brains in a very short time by historical standards... as was done in Ukraine... this topic requires very close study.
How skillfully the US CIA brainwashed an entire nation through its agents is simply amazing... it’s surprising that the Kremlin missed the consequences of this operation... the grave consequences.

[kalibr]

Quote: Lech from Android.

How skillfully the US CIA brainwashed an entire nation through its agents is simply amazing... it’s surprising that the Kremlin missed the consequences of this operation... the grave consequences.

In the USA, the word PR was used in 1827. Our first book was published in 1989 and was a translation of an American one. The difference in experience is obvious.

[Knell wardenheart]

3. Big problems with adopting and understanding the experience of our opponents in inter-crisis times. The strong influence of denial, dogma and ideas in our constructions.

It seems like I didn’t forget to mention this) We really don’t like to learn from “filthy pagans”, this was the case during the time of Ivan the Terrible, and it remains the same, well, maybe, having changed somewhat for the better, perhaps. But this, alas, is a factor. We consider ourselves different, we deny the strong influence of science, we believe that activity is above the laws of existence.

[Alexey Lantukh]

It is no secret that during the Soviet era, philosophy and social psychology were in a corner. At least they are closed to society. It is possible and most likely that even the highest administrative apparatus did not master these sciences. It was in the 90s that Russia, especially its youth, suffered from various Soros philanthropists.

[Knell wardenheart]

Well, cybernetics was driven partly for this reason. “The Science of Management”, is it a joke - how could you fuck at the top, seeing this name))
Lenin had a great mind, he read and studied even what he did not like, argued even with those who were his opponents, and did not shoot them like temporary detention centers. Those who came after Lenin preferred to hide tendencies, like children, believing that if they closed their eyes, the light would go out for everyone.
Perhaps Andropov or Gorbachev mastered some things intellectually (the latter is debatable), everyone who came before was not about this at all. But mastering, digesting and using are completely different things. Our leaders in the USSR were not very well-read people and not very educated among the masses. There could be specialists and smart heads among them - but the team, the squadron, always moves at the speed of the slowest ship.

[futurohunter]

Knell wardenheart
Gorbachev “mastered” nothing except foreign handouts. The US paid him a pension until his death

[gsev]

Quote: kalibr

Our first book was published in 1989 and was a translation of an American one.

Czechs and Russians are very close in mentality. But the way they carried out the transition from socialism to capitalism looks strikingly different. Around 1993, the reason for the different style of reforms was pointed out to me. In the Czech Republic, during the Prague Spring, they openly talked about how state security agencies manipulated the will of field players accused in political trials. In the USSR, the method of how Yezhov, Yagoda and Beria broke the will of the old Bolsheviks in open trials was kept silent. That is, during perestroika, the Russian elite did not strive to build a democratic society, but to find new forms of governing the common people after the Stalinist-Leninist forms of governing the people began to be ignored. In a centralized society, public relations are replaced by direct instructions from Nicholas 1 or Stalin. For the people, this information (about public relations technology) is kept inaccessible in Russia.

[kalibr]

Quote: gsev

about public relations technology

I have published a textbook for universities - “Technologies for Managing Public Opinion.” A long time ago, 7 years ago.

[gsev]

Quote: kalibr

I have a textbook out

Literature on this topic is published in Russia, but probably 2 orders of magnitude less than in the West. I like what Sergei Kara Murza wrote from his series “Manipulation of Consciousness”. However, neither central television nor the resources of the liberals nor the resources of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation are focused on this topic.

[Knell wardenheart]

This can be explained by a purposeful concealment by the authorities, or it can be explained through a lack of interest in this topic “among the masses.” In our country, people are not interested in many things, even if there is a ton of data. For example, data about the dangers of smoking or alcoholism or fatty foods - they don’t care about this data)) They will give up, mutter something routine about “everything is harmful, living is harmful” and move on.
I don’t know how it is with the Chekhovs, we’re probably still different mentally because the society there is more compact, the surrounding states create a more competitive environment that requires output in the form of innovation and, therefore, accelerated processing and response - but in our case the need for This is absent in the process of population selection. Our population is neither mobile nor deep-digging, and people have mundane interests - they will know about tin but will not delve into it, because there is a lot of tin and this is a kind of escapism, among other things. The Czechs had and have less tin, and therefore they can afford the luxury of greater response.. But you intrigued me, I’ll have to read about the things you mentioned, although it’s disgusting to read about all these manipulative gizmos..

[futurohunter]

Knell wardenheart
Sorry, but the level of your understanding is “stuck-druken,” as you deigned to put it yourself.
The population is approximately the same everywhere. While life is calm and prosperous, no one is “digging” anywhere, everyone is minding their own business. People become interested in politics only in times of great upheaval. And practice shows (at least from your example)))) that only a few people carry out a deep analysis. Yes, and your example shows that very often, when trying to make such a deep analysis, people analyze not the surrounding reality, but their own myths...

[Reptiloid]

how masterfully the US CIA brainwashed..... an entire nation

It should be remembered that this effective flushing occurred during a time of shortage, a shortage of goods and products on sale, for several years. Then there were salary delays, rising prices, deteriorating living standards.... that is, propaganda was combined with reality. At the same time, Gorbatov and Pyanov made promises that now everything would improve.....
If we recall the time before and after the Revolution of 1917, the specific promises of the Bolsheviks were fulfilled, there was attention to the problems of the population, the average life expectancy in the Republic of Ingushetia at 30 years, noted in the only population census in 1898, began to increase. This was also combined with propaganda, which for that time was effective compared to the attempts of white propaganda

[Knell wardenheart]

This was also combined with propaganda, which for that time was effective compared to the attempts of white propaganda

Bolshevik propaganda is early (and up to the end of the 1940s), with some small temporary drawdowns, however, it is generally a masterpiece of efficiency. Here I really take my hat off - we then had a hundred points ahead of the Western one. After BB2, they began to get their hands on the intersection of military necessity and commercial sales, and only then they bypassed us.

I am abstracting from whether the Bolsheviks were “good” or “bad” in this material. My task is to highlight the line of our traditional schools of mentality that pass through ALL our authorities and remain in the way we organize everything. These things need to be highlighted and worked out, like how a bacterial culture is isolated and processed - then we may become stronger and a number of our problems will be solved.

[Reptiloid]

About Bolshevik propaganda. I've often thought --- where did that come from? After all, poets, composers, new printing, cinema, artists - all of this was in one direction. For the Soviet future. That is, the right goal was chosen and people, energy, and means appeared to achieve it. That's what, in my opinion, is the most important thing. The right goal.

[DenVB]

Quote: Reptiloid

About Bolshevik propaganda. I've often thought --- where did that come from? After all, poets, composers, new printing, cinema, artists - all of this was in one direction.

You can also think about where it all went, starting somewhere in the fifties and sixties.

[Reptiloid]

where did it all go

This is just understandable

What one person has done, another can always break! ---- film Love Formula

Probably, excessive criticism or self-criticism appeared on purpose. Or, on the contrary, did jokes turn into ridicule? Ridicule and condemnation of Khrushchev turned into ridicule of Brezhnev, ridicule of Brezhnev ---- into ridicule of the CPSU, the USSR.... Something like this, probably
And then the long-term programs of the Anglo-Saxons worked.... and Kochetov in 1969 wrote WHAT DO YOU WANT, for which they began to subject him, to persecute him.... And Kondratov in 1967 wrote a reproach to the term, for which he was not only not subjected, but the impression, that perhaps a support group was found, although this was not published later poem , but they printed something else

[Non-fighter]

The target audience has changed.
1918-1920. The bulk are semi-literate peasants, slightly more literate workers, who lived hard under the Tsar-Father. “We are ours, we will build a new world, who was nobody will become everything.” Yes, and demonstrations with kumach slogans worked well.
30s. A more literate population who can already be told about the situation in the country and abroad. "Let's defend our gains!" Demonstrations, parades, "We are together!" Here comes the militaristic pumping. Do we remember GTO well? Ready for Labor and Defense.
50-60 - we will restore the country, then we will help our brothers throw off the yoke of colonialism! The slippage has already begun.
70-80. There are many engineers with higher education, brains are appearing in society. So what do we have? The same demonstrations with kumach slogans. DOES NOT WORK!!!

[Knell wardenheart]

A lot has accumulated for the first leap “towards a bright future”; it has been accumulating at least since the Decembrist uprising, and among the people even longer. The classics were imbued with all these aspirations, like Nekrasov. So when this happened and was picked up by early propaganda, it was very... high percentage of involvement and resonance. Until sometime in 1937.. Then there was the wave of the Second World War and also unity. Then there was a post-war upsurge and hopes that there would be dramatic changes. Well, then, there are echoes of the Khrushchev “thaw”, hopes for a “radical turn”. But this was already the “Autumn” of the process.
And they started, yes, cheerfully. It was just like a fountain.
All this leads me to sad thoughts about accumulating a certain amount of trust in society. This is a consumable credit - if they are low, then changing the flag will practically not help. This loan has to accumulate one way or another.

[Reptiloid]

Autumn process

In my opinion, it began when the leadership abandoned big global goals and reduced support for liberation movements to achieve socialism. And the West equated the termination of the Warsaw Pact with defeat in the war. The destruction of the entire system began. And it didn't end
After all, before 1917 the credit of trust did not accumulate, no one wanted it, as if

[futurohunter]

Knell wardenheart
There are no "gotchas" in mentality. Read what mentality is. The fault of the one who ascribes non-existent attributes to concepts

[Knell wardenheart]

The author mentioned this twice - once in the text, and once in the results:

5. A high degree of influence of subjective factors in the historical decisions of our elites. Real collegiality in making such decisions is often insufficient, which can lead to unfounded and insufficiently thought-out decisions that are not protected from objective criticism.

Voluntarism and the absence of the habit of collegial decisions are “subjective factors”.
Formatting of the brain corrects (partly) the conscious, somewhat moving it to the opposite range of extremes (which is practically unchanged), but the subconscious, the mentality, remains minimally changed.
A small but important example - before the revolution, mysticism flourished in our country, there were various spiritualists, psychics and miracle workers. popular. Then there were 74 years of anti-mystical and anti-religious propaganda, 100500 books written about materialism, the pioneers, the Komsomol and so on.
And then we have the 1990s - and Alan Chumak, Kashpirovsky, Dzhuna and other comrades. And now - “Battle of Psychics”.
This nonsense flew like a neutrino through the entire processing and flew onward, practically unchanged. This is “deep mentality”, HOW a person will think at a deep level, bypassing official training.

[Reptiloid]

Of course, in years of hardship and trials, people try to find support anywhere. Some in religion, some in magic and witchcraft, psychics, parapsychology , Pavle and Tamara...For example, now, when the population is completely unaware of the leadership’s plans for Russia, they pay great attention to the predictions of an Indian boy, a South American shaman, tarot readers, runologists, and of course spiritualists --- how would we be without them? -That

[DenVB]

Quote: Knell Wardenheart

Voluntarism and the absence of the habit of collegial decisions are “subjective factors”.

History shows that our collegial decisions are even worse than our authoritarian ones. Actually, this is why we always slide into authoritarianism - it constantly turns out to be the lesser of two evils.

[your1970]

How skillfully the US CIA brainwashed an entire nation through its agents is simply amazing... it’s surprising that the Kremlin missed the consequences of this operation... the grave consequences. not yesterday, not 20 or even 50 years.
Bandera’s supporters had 1940% support from the population in the 50s and 100s - otherwise they would have been caught quickly. As in Germany, Werwolf - almost completely by 1946.
But no.....
If in 1988 my colleagues from Ternopil told me about “Ridna Nenka feeds the mos!” - then this was what their parents, born in the 1940s, told them.

[Alexey Lantukh]

This is all a consequence of the fact that students at school are not taught what comes from where. That not only feeds Nenka, but also supplies Nenka with oil and gas and much more.

[your1970]

This is all a consequence of the fact that students are not taught at school what comes from where - Meetleennnoooooo, according to syllables, they told me this in 1988 (one thousand nine hundred and eighty eight!!!)
They were told this by their parents in the 1940-50s, they are already 54-55 and they told this to their children. And their children to their children...
Who will believe what they say at a boarding school if the parents say the exact opposite?

[kalibr]

Exceptionally good material, congratulations!

[Knell wardenheart]

Thank you, Vyacheslav! I'm very glad you stopped by)

[futurohunter]

kalibr
Exceptionally good material

What's good about it? The author came up with his own personal myths and analyzed them

[kalibr]

Quote: futurohunter

What's good about it? The author came up with his own personal myths and analyzed them

Anatoly! I am a candidate of historical sciences, taught the history of the CPSU and defended myself on it. Then, from 1995 to 2017, he taught PR, advertising and was involved in PR in practice. Naturally, this is also sociology. Plus the same amount of teaching of cultural studies. Plus several textbooks on these subjects in the Russian Federation and Germany. That is, the fusion of all this allows me to evaluate this material very soberly.

[futurohunter]

Vyacheslav, I know about you, I have several of your books, which is why I was very surprised by your high assessment of such a strange opus. The author whom you praised so highly is famous for his assessments such as "The old design of the F-16 air intake... looks kind of ghoulish".
The idea of ​​the article is quite interesting, but as the analysis progressed, the author quickly retreated into the fictional reality so familiar to him. I assume that he has a fairly broad, but at the same time absolutely shallow erudition on various issues, in the absence of education on the topics on which he loves to talk so much, as well as a well-developed ability to fantasize

[kalibr]

Quote: futurohunter

such assessments as “The old design of the F-16 air intake... looks kind of ghoulish.”

Dear Anatoly! This text has nothing to do with the article. And the article itself... I liked it. It takes a long time to explain why. Probably with all my life experience. And I do not impose my opinion on you, and I would not at all want to put pressure on you with authority. You may well have your own opinion about it. The only bad thing is that you cannot write your own material in response. It would be great to compare points of view, right? I will soon try to provide a couple of materials with my point of view on such processes.

[futurohunter]

Vyacheslav, I just wanted to write something similar. Not much time to write something not related to work, but work has some relevance to the topic

[kalibr]

Quote: futurohunter

Vyacheslav, I just wanted to write something similar. Not much time to write something not related to work, but work has some relevance to the topic

Be sure to try it! Moreover, you are in the subject!!!

[Wildcat]

We must understand that as a result of all these events, the West will look at us differently.

OMG
IMHO:
The conventional “West” no longer views the Russian Federation as the Republic of Ingushetia and the USSR.
In 1991, the West was interested in where the Russian Federation would go. In 2024, even if you look at India and China, where the Russian Federation will go is no longer interesting to the West. The last surge of curiosity in the West is in 2022, on the topics “Europe is freezing” and “how long will the NWO last?” Even from the point of view of “Arms Race 2.0” the result is clear at the start. Perhaps OSV is interesting, “but that’s not certain.”
From an ideological point of view, everything is also approximately clear; we no longer reach the level of interest in the USSR “socialism/communism in a single country.”

The West looks at us differently: a country formed in 1991.
By the will and cunning of three politicians, it inherited nuclear weapons and other “goodies” from the USSR, including a seat on the UN Security Council,
According to Rosstat, the permanent population of Russia as of January 1, 2023 was 146,4 million people - this is between Bangladesh and Mexico. Decreasing trend.
GDP (PPP) is about 2-3% of the world, between Germany and Japan (simply GDP - between France and Canada). You know what the trend is.
What are the prospects for cooperation/business - everything is clear.
So the Russian Federation is of less interest to the West than in its time the USSR or the Republic of Ingushetia.

Brief conclusion: the mistake of the article is that the Russian Federation is no longer looked at as the Republic of Ingushetia or the USSR - because the indicators are not the same. But in general, the attempt to “look at the Russian Federation from the outside” is entertaining, a plus for the author of the article!

Let's end this topic with a quote from Lee Kwan Yew, to whom all supporters of authoritarian modernization prayed: "What are Russia's long-term prospects?
Russia's future is no different from what it faced 10 years ago, or even 20 years ago when the Soviet Union collapsed, except that it has lost control of energy resources in the Caucasus and Kazakhstan. It has failed to develop an economy that creates wealth independent of energy and natural resource exports.
The Russian population is declining. It is not clear for what reason, but alcoholism plays a role; so does pessimism, declining birth rates and life expectancy. Vladimir Putin's problem is to give Russians hope for the future: stop drinking, work harder, strengthen families and have more children.
Siberia and Vladivostok are filled with increasing numbers of Chinese. The lands on the banks of the Amur River will be repopulated by the Chinese. Russians may suddenly decide that it makes sense to live longer and have more children and thereby reverse this demographic trend, but I do not see such a reversal happening in the near future [257].
They could live much better if they could get the right system. Their system doesn't function... because it's broken. They have lost control over their various provinces... They have a huge nuclear arsenal, but what else do they have? Their army is now completely different... The population is declining... Every year more Russians die than are born, because people have lost optimism. In America, people are full of optimism and say: I will bring a child into this world. But when your life is hard and sometimes it gets better, when the price of oil goes up but it's temporary, you have a very different outlook on life [258]." https://libcat.ru/knigi/priklyucheniya/prochie-priklyucheniya/foreign-edu/112581-36-kollektiv-avtorov-singapurskoe-chudo-li-kuan-yu.html#text

[Reptiloid]

people have lost optimism

Unfortunately yes. Unfortunately, as it turned out, it was delicious to eat 30 varieties of sausage or cheese, the opportunity to buy rags and household appliances did not influence the emergence of optimism. It turns out that the country needs an understanding of its high role in world processes, it needs its own goal, its own main task

[DenVB]

Quote: Reptiloid

It turns out that the country needs an understanding of its high role in world processes, it needs its own goal, its own main task

Here! We cannot live without the meaning of life. We will deteriorate without it. We need a great goal. And not the complacent Eastern European satiety.

And a great era
A trail at every step
In crowded, in turmoil,
In the tire marks on the snow,
...
And in double meaning
Life, poor in appearance,
But the great one is under the sign
Losses incurred.

[Knell wardenheart]

In my opinion, now we need an understanding that we CAN do it at home, that it will be SUSTAINABLE, and that it will look CONVENIENT and ATTRACTIVE to us.
The goal itself is huge, and having tasted this, you can already take aim at our William Shakespeare.

[Reptiloid]

what can we do at home

You know, in theory, I don’t have anything at all. Unfortunately, those who knew well and could talk about it and give explanations no longer come to the site. Probably someone is no longer alive, I often remember them. For some, health may have been difficult. But it was. After Stalin’s death. Downplaying the goal, simplifying, something about material things. Or under Khrushchev already So we came to the destruction of everything and loss of trust. After the cancellation of a big goal

[Knell wardenheart]

To do this, it seems to me, we need to try to understand what we are in an approach to the objective (strengths and weaknesses, what we want (objectively and not situationally or from the point of view of various dogmas). Then ask the question - can we build this and what prevents this. In short, this is an engineering-architectural-analytical study. In my first series of articles here, I touched on these issues, something, of course, is outdated, I may return to something again, I returned to the question not so long ago. solutions to the demographic problem. All these are details of the whole, but here we need to understand the picture “below.” While our society is floating in depression and the endless ritual leftist “flagellation” of reality, the endless ritual liberal denigration of the past, we are in a stupid cycle that is getting worse. also by our traditional shortcomings. Only by breaking this cycle of endless circular walks will we have a chance to move forward.

[Reptiloid]

breaking this cycle

In my opinion, this cycle can be broken by setting a big goal that is clear to everyone and accepted by everyone. And then, when solving this problem, others will be solved as accompanying ones. As it was after the Civil War.
On the way to the World Revolution and preparations for the defense of the Motherland ---- the country's first stadiums were built, medicine came to plants and factories, schools and villages. Dormitories and houses were built for workers, factories, schools, institutes and Palaces of Culture, Theaters were built , nurseries and kindergartens, sanatoriums, pioneer camps. ...

[Reptiloid]

But we still get to the Ganges,
And we will still die in battles,
So from Japan to England
My motherland shone!

These poems were written by Pavel Kogan. Died on September 23, 1942, was a scout. So he saw a big goal --- Victory!
But the fact is that there is no big common goal in sight right now. And 30 varieties of sausage are complemented by 30 TV programs, many Internet stories, smartphones, games, and other gadgets...

[DenVB]

Quote: Reptiloid

But the fact is that there is no big common goal in sight right now.

Only the Soviet nation will
and only people of the Soviet race...
If there are no stars on the caps
tie it on the crown - gauze... red...
Raise your rifle, smeared with blood,
rise to human height!

Already back to the gray borders
secret trains are coming,
and communism is so close again,
like in nineteen.

[Reptiloid]

And communism is so close again
Like in nineteen

After all, what’s interesting is that after the Civil War, with the threat of intervention, in the face of hunger, disease, with a shortage of everything and everyone ---- metal, construction supplies, household goods, food, specialists ----- huge goals were set! The slogans of the Bolsheviks were specific, aimed at a happy future
Universal education, medicine, acquisition of specialties, improvement of the living conditions of workers with an increase in the working class, which was required by industrialization. At the same time, it was known that there would be war again. They were preparing for it. It was necessary to survive. When working to achieve a global goal ----- everyday goals are achieved, life improves. Just as during the restoration of the national economy after the Great Patriotic War, the life of the population improved.

[Doctor]

But we still get to the Ganges,
And we will still die in battles,
So from Japan to England
My motherland shone!

These poems were written by Pavel Kogan. Died on September 23, 1942, was a scout. So he saw a big goal --- Victory!
But the fact is that there is no big common goal in sight right now. And 30 varieties of sausage are complemented by 30 TV programs, many Internet stories, smartphones, games, and other gadgets...

Cool poems. Now imagine how, after reading them, the Indians, British and Japanese see us.

[Reptiloid]

I think they won’t read them or translate them. Maybe they know their poets, but they definitely don’t know ours, who were born in the 20th century and died during the war.
How do they see? Maybe we should remember some of their films about Russians. I just remembered the film VIY 2014. Produced in Great Britain, Germany, Czech Republic, Russia, Ukraine. True, Ukrainians are shown there, but I think that they see Russians too. Just 2014. That is, at this time they formed thoughts about a war between Russians and Russians.

[Doctor]

I think they won’t read them or translate them. Maybe they know their poets, but they definitely don’t know ours, who were born in the 20th century and died during the war.
How do they see? Maybe we should remember some of their films about Russians. I just remembered the film VIY 2014. Produced in Great Britain, Germany, Czech Republic, Russia, Ukraine. True, Ukrainians are shown there, but I think that they see Russians too. sad Just 2014. That is, at this time they formed thoughts about a war between Russians and Russians.

Well, just imagine, Rabidranath Tagore wrote the following poems:

But we will still reach the Volga,
And we will still die in battles,
So that from Finland to Taiwan
My motherland shone!

How will we perceive Hindus after this?

[Reptiloid]

Why imagine this? But in England the phrase appeared

who owns the Heartland......owns the world

The Heartland meant Russia.
And they didn’t think we’d like what plans they were making.

[Doctor]

Why imagine this? wink But in England a phrase appeared
who owns the Heartland......owns the world

The Heartland meant Russia.
And they didn’t think we’d like it, what plans they were making request

Then, to understand the West.

Unlike the author of the article, who dug something very deep, for example, I know perfectly well how the West perceives us. And the East too. Simply because I directly asked them about it many times.

The West perceives us as a huge, aggressive, unpredictable country, which is huge because it is aggressive.

Like a monkey with a grenade, literally. From nuclear.

[Reptiloid]

huge, aggressive

And mind you, if it’s just like the movie, then it’s an eternally drunk, dark, wild country. And this is in 2014. So nothing in their ideas has changed since the time of Grozny. And it won't change. We need an external enemy, an attack against which is justified and necessary for survival.

[Knell wardenheart]

Thanks for the comment !
You see, I specifically added the word “in conflicts” in the title because we are not talking about the perception of us “as a whole,” with culture, potentials, archetypes, etc. We are talking about our traditions as a participant in conflicts - our habits.
An image is an image - a madam can come to a ball in an impeccable dress, with a fly and pleasant perfume, and carry on cutesy conversations - this is part of her Image. But when no one sees her, she can blow her nose into the curtain, quietly pass gas, or pick her teeth with a toothpick for a long time - these are already her Habits. You can put on any image, but Habits are part of you, they are a projection of your personality and its qualities.

[Knell wardenheart]

If you assemble Humpty Dumpty from parts of Humpty Dumpty, then, for the most part, it will be Humpty Dumpty :-)
Of course, you can deny this, of course there are also evolutionary factors - but these factors are veeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee. So I cannot agree with the thesis that mentally the Russian Federation, the USSR and the Republic of Ingushetia are SUCH different mental constructs. There is a deep mentality, and there is a training part. The training, yes, has changed. The deep one remained almost unchanged.
Training is what we talk about things for the most part. The deep one is how we REACT to these things when no one is watching.

[Reptiloid]

there is a deep mentality

And then you wrote that the deep part remained practically unchanged.
In my opinion, this means that the people recognize themselves as Imperial, and want to unite like-minded people around themselves, “brothers”! And help like-minded people, “brothers”, and the unjustly oppressed in general! Various examples: Russian partisans in the Balkans, during the time of Catherine II, the liberation of Bulgaria from the Turkish yoke, Russian participation in the Anglo-Boer War, assistance to the great Ethiopian people... The earliest recorded case is the Battle of Grunwald!
Of course, the liberation of the proletariat of the whole world from the landowners and capitalists through the World Revolution! Liberation of the Whole World from fascism in 1945! And this deep-seated mentality --- pride in the Victory, the desire to help other nations --- existed after the Great Patriotic War, for another ~20~25 years!!! The country was recovering, life was getting better, they were the first in space, they also fought against colonialism in Africa, helped the oppressed, Vietnam, Laos... Probably at this time, the “damned caste”, the party nomenklatura, began to think that “something needs to be changed." From that time on, optimism began to purposefully decrease... Popular science fiction began to gradually, surreptitiously, be replaced by fantasy. Also political detectives

[Wildcat]

You see, it was Tolstoy in “War and Peace” who could talk about the “club of the people’s war” and other wonderful things, the bearers of which are the Platon Karataevs. Because "War and Peace" is a work of fiction.
You are writing an article about the military sphere of activity, without bothering yourself with an analysis of even recent historical events, for example: “Then we took a wait-and-see attitude and spent a whole year watching the “phoney war” and the French campaign. We decided to conduct the Winter War with Finland to demonstrate our power outside of military training grounds and test it in practice."
You are also trying to replace the analysis of military campaigns with a certain concept of “states of threat, minor conflict and threatening conflict,” explaining their development with a certain “mentality of the people.”
Your main thesis is "I believe that back in the 19th century, Western thought put forward a number of theses about “what we are” and how we make decisions and implement them, how we think, what we are ready to do and what we are not ready to do - and in what cases." - is absolutely not confirmed by anything and, even more so, is not applicable to the Russian Federation for the reasons stated above.

In general, it’s not that you have gone far from racial theories (with the same effectiveness), but thank you for the very attempt to “look at the Russian Federation through the eyes of the West.”
The fact that the West views things completely differently is not so bad.
The second half of the problem - it would be nice for the West to at least sometimes look at the Russian Federation through your eyes, because, apparently, many events could be explained through the factors you apply, and not through the banal factors of reality, benefits or comparison of the potentials of opponents.

If you assemble Humpty Dumpty from parts of Humpty Dumpty, then, for the most part, it will be Humpty Dumpty :-)

Even here you manage to make mistakes, although the original source is available.
"Humpty Dumpty
Sitting on the wall.
Humpty Dumpty
I fell in a dream.
All the cavalry,
The whole royal army
Can not Humpty,
Can not Dumpty,
Humpty Dumpty
Dumpty-Humpty
Collect Humpty Dumpty! "

[turembo]

Well, unfortunately, in addition to all the historical weaknesses, modern ones have also been added. I'm not talking about throwing dust in the eyes or throwing hats, it just sort of comes out naturally. I would add the degradation of diplomacy and political elites. It seems like everyone has already joked about red lines and markers; when you say something and don’t do anything, your authority falls; when you promise something and also don’t do anything, your authority also falls. Appointing a person to important negotiations who is not only not particularly competent, but in principle looks like a person who is ready to sign everything just to come home on time is not comme il faut. Threaten the whole world and wave your arms in front of cartoons, and then chew snot on camera making excuses, that’s the same thing. And here, if it weren’t for the ordinary guys at the front, who stood in difficult situations, sometimes at the cost of their own lives, the adrenaline would have flowed into their boots. Well, in some places they just lied, everyone around them already knows everything, and they parrot it like a mantra. Well, the incompetence of some people is also amazing, and most importantly, the complete lack of responsibility for their mistakes.

[turembo]

Well, duplicity in all its glory, today they shout: Wow, damned West! And tomorrow, dear partners, dear Bill, and my friend Emmanuel... Well, many of them don’t live in Russia, somehow it’s not patriotic, and dachas with vegetable gardens abroad, it seems, the buses don’t run anymore, but they don’t sell dachas .....

[Knell wardenheart]

Well, we already had the rattling of a lid on a frying pan - during the time of Mr. Khrushchev, for example, with this “We will bury you (of course, he didn’t say exactly that, but I remember it that way)” and “We make rockets like sausages.” Before Nikitos, this was the sin of the early Bolsheviks, who tore their throats out in the nightmare of the West by the world revolution, and as a result achieved its maximum consolidation and torpedoed their idea. Under the tsar, yes, they also liked to throw dust in the eyes, it’s just that the tools were weaker back then - there was no powerful radio, samizdat technologies were just emerging, grassroots ideas were also still quite a fresh phenomenon.

I agree about the decline of diplomacy, alas! We lost the “Gorchakovs” somewhere, but no new ones have grown..

[your1970]

Threaten the whole world and wave your arms in front of cartoons, and then chew snot on camera making excuses, that’s the same thing. sure sure...
"Little bloodshed on foreign territory!!
The red army is the strongest!!!" - and then bam and 200 total losses in 000 days near MinskMinsk in 10

Well, the incompetence of some people is also amazing, and most importantly, the complete lack of responsibility for their mistakes. Rokossovsky wrote in Russian that “Zhukov cannot be given staff and teaching jobs.”...
And?
How was Zhukov punished by the General Staff of the Red Army for the lost Border Battle?
Shot? Private to the front? Impaled?

So the West does not see anything new for itself - everything has already happened. And then we’ll definitely come up with myths - how the next a brilliant commander of something...

[DenVB]

Quote: your1970

How was Zhukov punished by the General Staff of the Red Army for the lost Border Battle?

The chief of staff is not responsible for a lost battle. It is the commander's job to win battles.

[Edward Vashchenko]

I see my task as raising controversy not around individual, perhaps even controversial details, but precisely in the direction of analysis - what chronically exists in us that works against our successes,

But how does he know that this question, as Mayakovsky wrote, must be addressed to Moscow, to the Comintern?

The author argues in the paradigm: good king, bad king, “good boys - bad boys.”
And the key is the society or social system that exists in the country.
The defeats of Russia, which began after the Industrial Revolution in European countries, are due to the fact that without the transition to capitalism, the country would have been doomed, and with the transition, it began to play only by the rules of the senior participants in the capitalist hierarchy.
So the country, without any wars, became a semi-colonial appendage of Western countries, and a “sufferer” during World War I.
The randomly chosen socialist path was able to give Russia a chance; moreover, a technologically lagging country was able to create “challenges” for the technologically advanced West.
But what happened, what happened, the current rebels then rushed to the West for jeans and chewing gum, took their example and for another two years they actively implanted Western, read capitalist, orders, while simultaneously defeating the fundamental foundations of Russia - the socialist state.
Now, having been in the “bourgeoisie” for thirty years, they suddenly began to talk about what is wrong with us...
It’s time to understand that we have a bourgeois country, and not the country of Malchish Kibalchish, no matter how much you look in the mirror and conduct psychoanalysis: there is not some special Russian outside of time and space, but a bad boy. Here's the analysis.

[paul3390]

And society is key

Exactly. Our main weakness is our ruling class. Whose interests do not coincide with the interests of the country and people.

[Edward Vashchenko]

Our main weakness is our ruling class. Whose interests do not coincide with the interests of the country and people.

The ruling class is not weakness, it is a given. And he alone determines the vector of development in any country.
It is possible to talk about the divergence of interests only on the basis of one, the recent past of our country, the USSR, and even then the period of the 60s and early 80s. or WWII.
In all other cases, there is no coincidence: the feudal nobles always needed exactly the opposite of what the “people” – the serfs – needed.

[parusnik]

the opposite of the “people” - the serfs.

“You, Gavrila, have yours, and I have mine.” (c)

[parusnik]

Our main weakness is our ruling class

Explain how, under the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, the dictatorship of the ruling class, its interests should coincide with the interests of the people? Do you propose to exchange bad capitalists for good ones? Whose interests will coincide with the interests of the people? Then in the Constitution, it is necessary to prescribe St. George’s Day, so that on this day the people can move away from bad capitalists to good ones.

[paul3390]

Sometimes, in very rare cases and for a short time, interests may coincide. But these are rather exceptions.

[parusnik]

But these are rather exceptions.

Name these exceptions, very interesting.

[Knell wardenheart]

Interests MUST not coincide, but interests CAN coincide. You got into an elevator with a beautiful girl - the fact that you meet SHOULD not happen, but CAN. If you're lucky, if you try, if you need it.
Predetermination of any type (categorically MUST or categorically MUST NOT) fundamentally contradicts leftist views, because there the model tries to deny predetermination (with the exception of the thesis about the inevitability of world revolution and change of formations) - leftists believe that it is the will of the masses that can change and rebuild the world .

In order for interests to coincide, it is necessary to work on the architecture of where and how these interests could coincide.

[parusnik]

Let’s do it without “if”, without “we need to work on architecture”, without “could”, specifically. Are you so naive and believe in “pure” democracy? I won’t bother you. Believe.

[Knell wardenheart]

I believe in a good plan and quality work, and I believe in collective creativity, but I do not consider these factors to be absolute and overwhelmingly decisive.
I didn’t seem to mention democracy, don’t attach your demons to mine) The procedures are indifferent - the result is important, at the top there is a group of people with close to adequate ideas, the ability to form a good plan and the ability to refine it during implementation.
Dictatorship, democracy, monarchy - strictly don’t care. These are intermediate details - such as whether there is a forest or a river outside the window while you are traveling by train from point A to point B.
There must be tools for removing frankly worthless rulers - but how competent people will get to the top is already a matter of wide discussion.

[parusnik]

Dictatorship, democracy, monarchy - strictly don’t care.

Got it. You are far from such sciences as the theory of state and law and the history of state and law. All the best to you.

[crack]

Got it. You are far from such sciences as the theory of state and law and the history of state and law

But what is that state? A gigantic trust, a joint-stock company, an enterprise. Marxism, conservatism and democracy are links in one chain. The main task is to pump more money out of the people. Whatever it is called, oligarchy, monarchy, democracy, even ideocracy or eidocracy, in any case it is nothing more than a collar around the neck and a sword attached to it on a chain - an instrument of violence.

[kalibr]

Quote: paul3390

Our main weakness is our ruling class.

Where did he come from? This is the flesh of the flesh of the people, our people. Those who grew up, including in communal apartments and in Khrushchev-era apartment buildings.

[paul3390]

That is why this is precisely our weakness..

[Knell wardenheart]

And this is exactly what I want to capture - there is a set of code that is the same both above and below. This code prevents adequate vertical sync. This is not so much a product of power (which can somewhat compensate for these factors due to the manual mode, for example), but rather a problem of the original filling, basic settings, so to speak.

[Edward Vashchenko]

And this is exactly what I want to capture - there is a set of code that is the same both above and below.

Best help here "Occam's razor".
Best regards,

[Edward Vashchenko]

Vyacheslav Olegovich,
I greet you,
where the “leaders” grew up, in communal apartments or palaces, does not change anything.
The world's great literature, starting from the 19th century, is all about how someone from the slums became a millionaire (billionaire). And our “Cherry Orchard” is about this
Which does not change the nature of capital and capitalism in any way.

[parusnik]

where the “leaders” grew up, in communal apartments or palaces, does not change anything.

Absolutely right, let's start with the fact that palaces, castles and other “excesses” were not created by aristocrats with their vassals by the sweat of their brow, and not with money they personally earned during, well, let’s say, collecting horse “apples” while cleaning the streets.

[crack]

The most beautiful castle, the most majestic fortress is just an attempt to escape.

[crack]

If you assemble Humpty Dumpty from parts of Humpty Dumpty, then, for the most part, it will be Humpty Dumpty :-)
Of course, you can deny this, of course there are also evolutionary factors - but these factors are veeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee. So I cannot agree with the thesis that mentally the Russian Federation, the USSR and the Republic of Ingushetia are SUCH different mental constructs. There is a deep mentality, and there is a training part. The training, yes, has changed. The deep one remained almost unchanged.

I believe in a good plan and quality work, and I believe in collective creativity, but I do not consider these factors to be absolute and overwhelmingly decisive.

Our main weakness is our ruling class. Whose interests do not coincide with the interests of the country and people.

The ruling class is not weakness, it is a given. And he alone determines the vector of development in any country.

Where did he come from? This is the flesh of the flesh of the people, our people. Those who grew up, including in communal apartments and in Khrushchev-era apartment buildings.

In any state, the Leaders fight, first of all, with their own people, and the people themselves, weak-willed, like a herd of ungulates, look at how they are ruled by the most base and unworthy cowards, scoundrels and money-grubbers. And he obediently obeys them, starting to grumble when, to put it mildly, it’s already a little late. No one holds on to each other and does not care about the exaltation of the people; everyone is only excited about their own well-being.

A small fraction of the best representatives of the people go to die for a huge herd of cowardly self-lovers. How does this end? The best die. Cowards and scoundrels remain. And they raise children in their own image and likeness - the same cowardly money-grubbers who care exclusively about their personal well-being. Out of personal interest, I asked my friends who were already born in the Russian Federation, how many of their friends were there who had undergone emergency medical treatment, the proportion was 1 to 30, yes and then this one simply didn’t find the money to save it. These are echoes of the First World War, World War II, civil war, and of course the 1s and the politics of the 90s.

Many people are cowardly, greedy and care only about themselves, or at least about their families, and even then not all of them. They don’t care about anything that doesn’t directly concern the filling of their own stomach or wallet. They are led by rulers who have absorbed all the basest traits of the human tribe. They (ordinary people) can only complain about their hard fate, oppression and injustice, shout in a crowd, and nothing more. The whining crowd is dispersed by the guards, the instigators are thrown into prison, and everyone falls silent. Moreover, the guards, in their free time from duty, whine about the hardships and injustices of life no less than those whom they disperse and imprison in dungeons during their service.
Sometimes Maidans happen: ten thousand riot, ten million sit at home. They are either indifferent to the indignation of their fellow tribesmen, or are too afraid to take up arms. And if suddenly ten thousand win and gain power, then it immediately turns out that the rest are no less dissatisfied with it than with the previous one! But that’s where it all ends, because they are in no hurry to take up arms and establish justice. They are only good at complaining. And in general, it is customary for ordinary people to bravely hide behind the backs of their children. The expression “I have children” among ordinary people and, let’s say, warriors, has the opposite meaning. If a warrior goes to fight for truth and freedom because he is concerned about the future in which his children will live, then the average person, on the contrary, diligently avoids battle, so as not to inadvertently die in it. Otherwise, his children will remain orphans and will be of no use to anyone.
Ordinary people behave condescendingly and arrogantly as long as they consider themselves superior to you. If you seem to be their equal, then often veiled familiarity is used with a hint of the fact that of you, two equals, it is not you who is smarter and of higher quality. If they find out that you are a businessman, then their respect for you increases, and no one tries to make you angry. And if, in addition, you are a high-ranking businessman or, what a horror, an official in general, then respect increases to the skies, and in it it becomes easy to discern ordinary fear, but more often - even more ordinary envy. For most of them hate those who are better than them. Moreover, nonentities do not need real reasons for hatred. It is enough for them that someone is superior to them in something. One was born tall and strong, the second was born small and stunted, and that’s a reason for hatred. One girl grew up to be a beauty, the second was not so purebred - again hatred, and even more so, as if it was not the weak blood of her parents that was really to blame for her unattractiveness, but her rival. And even if from birth two were equal, but after one achieved a lot, the second achieved less, then there is hatred here too! For the more successful one, of course, did something mean to curry favor or was simply undeservedly lucky! Definitely undeserved, because, from the point of view of the envious person, only he can deservedly be lucky. However, as soon as People see a representative of the upper class in front of them, they immediately try to look better than they are.
This is the modern mentality.

[crack]

society in the country was divided into three parts: the first - the Stalinists, even if they do not recognize themselves as such, the second - those who don’t give a damn
the third is the liberals, the most numerous. The same monster that is huge, mischievous, yawning and barking,
the second group is not completely indifferent; it strives with all its might to enter the third. And ideally, replace it.

[Knell wardenheart]

I would divide society in the country a little differently.
Right Front -
1) Old liberals are people whose brains are still floating somewhere in the 90s or finishing off leftists in the late 80s. For them, the ostentatious struggle with the odious is important, through this they believe a kind of karmic cleansing, after which their thought ends, because “SUCCESS” must come. Like this. Of course, on the wings of pure capitalism. These people remind me of “hipsters”, if you watched the Russian film “Hipsters”, there is a moment when the main characters encounter their old acquaintance, also a former “hipsters”, and he tells them that he was in the west and saw how it is there everything, and that their former ideas are just pathetic baby talk and playing Easter cakes. Very good similar story .

2) New globalists are people who sincerely believe that being turned off to the global. project in its current iteration, we will automatically get rid of all our disadvantages, merging in a single impulse of blurring ecstasy. We can say that this is a new reading of leftist chants about “destruction to the ground and then we will build a “New World” ...” but in a right-wing way. A kind of right-wing international. Such is the paradox.

3) Westernized layer of ordinary people - for these people the picture prevails over the essence. Their ideas could be described as “If everyone wears wigs, leggings and lorgnettes for a long time, then the surrounding reality will eventually be saturated and rebuilt to suit this.” Well, or at worst, they just want ritual cuttings off of the odious and see evolution through this. This is, if you like, the “Navalnists”, but I will separately note that in this “trend”, if you can call it that, there is now a significant split and I have identified it very well. conditionally. They differ from #2 in that they are much less deep and dogmatic, much more prone to compromise and are an organic transition to the center.

Center

4) Traditionalists. People who believe that it is possible to sculpt a homunculus that is conceptually new, fresh, life-giving - from pieces of old flesh and decayed bones, reading incantations for a long time and tediously over this, the great books and poems of Pushkin. Hard case . Like #3, they focus on form, believing that it can change the essence.

5) Sovereigns. They believe that it is possible to haphazardly rip out certain instruments from Western models and, from time to time, sculpt something based on them, screwing or gluing them to an existing one, but even without this, it is quite suitable in their opinion. If you've seen a picture of a dog drinking tea in a burning room, then you can roughly imagine how impenetrable these people are.

6) Modernizers. A great example is DAM. iPhone in hand, new, juicy words in your mouth. They postulate that the current can be modernized quite deeply, without having a conceptual plan as such. Just trying to keep up with the times. As another “modernizer” used to say, “The main thing, comrades, is to start...”.

Leftists

7)Rosy cheeks. "SRovskoe" community, in short. They think in the style of “Oh, everything was before, of course it was hard but at the same time good, but at the same time it’s hard, we like the red flag and don’t like capitalism, but not that much of both.”

8) Adherents of the cult of the USSR. For these gentlemen, the most luxury is mythically spread somewhere between the victory in the Second World War and the late Brezhnev. The top future for them is to go “back” along the notches and, like “Terminator,” simply sew on Sarah Connor (Gorbachev). And - Success.

9) 100500 loyal Stalinists of Oorfene Deuce. A sect of wet dreamers and singers of the unity of sadism and masochism. The road to a bright future must always be made of whips and straps with thorns; this is an indispensable attribute of the thinking of these gentlemen (and madams).

Neutrals - 10) Dull state employees 11) Apolitical indifference 12) Growing locusts.

[crack]

In detail and to the point, I simply meant exclusively the middle class, although there is practically none in our country, in other words, ordinary people, when I wrote about the division into three parts. Being a supporter of the socialist idea myself, I understand perfectly well that nothing can be returned. Once, in a conversation with a cousin, the topic of the USSR was touched upon, in which he had just been born, but had a very positive attitude towards the Union, so I simply asked him: would he like his wife to work at a factory. He became very thoughtful. Although, when talking with one, he was very Not a poor businessman heard the following phrase from him, literally: “I would gladly exchange this prosperity for that stability.”
Empire does not mean a form of government, but only a certain type of state thinking. And Russia has always been an empire! By Stalinists, I meant supporters of a strong, albeit tough, government that will lead the country to prosperity. There is a book by Divov “culling” that describes the society they would like to see. according to your classification, these are groups 1,8 and 9 Well, all those who are tired of the mess. There is nothing to say about groups 10,11,12, they don’t care. And from 2 to 7 we can safely classify them as liberals; I would choose another consonant word, but they won’t let me through. :)
In order to return socialism, even in Russia, the country would wash itself in blood, it is enough to remember that during the formation of Soviet power the nobility, merchants, clergy, and officer corps were completely destroyed, and the total losses, together with immigration, amounted to about 35. Now the same thing would happen again. most. So this is a utopia. And the mentality has changed a bit; the further we civilize through consumerism, the more we will degrade.

[Knell wardenheart]

I like the way you think, I haven’t seen you in the comments before. It’s nice that new faces appear here, otherwise sometimes it starts to seem to me that bots reproduce by budding)

I have a slightly different attitude towards “Liberalism”; in our country this term (like many others, however) is used significantly distorting its meaning and characteristics, often inappropriately and inappropriately, or generalizing something completely different in essence.
Liberalism is the direction of EXPANDING the freedoms of the broad masses. Consequently, a Liberal is a person fighting for the EXPANSION of freedoms of the broad masses or large groups of the population.
If he does not fight for freedom, he is not a liberal, because this has nothing to do with “liberte”, with freedom. If he fights for the freedoms of small groups of the population, he is also not a liberal, he is simply a “fighter for rights.” Liberalism is a movement of a broad plan and broad meanings - otherwise it is not liberalism but a “movement for rights.” For example, women, or gays, or people with disabilities, racial minorities, smokers, and so on.

Those whom we call with the generalized word “liberals” are really a hellish mix and there is more chaos there than among those who are called “fascists” today. Classic domestic “liberals” are those who in the USSR demanded the expansion of human and civil rights to a certain international minimum. Nowadays this is an almost extinct species because these rights were acquired long ago (and some have even been lost again since then), this formation was replaced by those who went with them in the same stream - Stylistic Liberals, whom I designated as point 1, conditionally " Old liberals." Old - because they were firmly stuck in the former war with the "communies", which replaced them with any further searches. An absolutely toothless group now, people like Novodvorskaya have died out or gone crazy, those who have survived now are mostly the aging intelligentsia. Along with them were also the Gaidarists; these comrades were not classic “Liberals”; in fact, they were stupid lobbyists for capital monopolies and any large capital. At the VERY beginning of their activities, yes, they tried to promote the expansion of rights across a wide spectrum - this was necessary for their lobbying area. Beyond the boundaries of this, they were NOT interested in expanding rights - because they were niche fighters for rights + lobbyists for the most affluent and interested group of the population.
Calling them “liberals” is absolutely incorrect, this expression has firmly clung to the local rednecks; many automatically call Putin and DAM and their entourage “liberals.” These people CANNOT be liberals, because their legislative and actual activities deliberately reduce the rights and limit the access of the broad masses; they postulate a restrictive and punitive line of further development. It turns out to be cruel nonsense.

[Knell wardenheart]

And the second point is that there is nothing wrong with consumerism; without it, all high-tech industries would survive on starvation rations from the military and government funding. We've already been through this, it turned out sour.
However, any consumerism, like anything else, taken to the point of absurdity, can be bad and very bad. Within the borders of our country, with its population, the “nightmare of consumerism” is infinitely far away; we have so many resources and areas per nose that we wouldn’t be able to pollute it in a hundred years, even if we tried really hard.
Consumer demand can be kept in check by limiting or prohibiting the promotion of overconsumption and associated lifestyles.
For example, by curtailing advertising in public space and providing it with highly informative and high-quality spaces for targeted searchers (marketplaces with catalogues), you can achieve a significant reduction in thoughtless consumption. By redesigning production models to produce modular products or more durable items, a more sustainable consumer culture can also be achieved. To compensate for the inevitable surges in popularity (booms), it will certainly be necessary to significantly develop the culture and recycling capacity. This is something that needs to be taught from childhood - I wrote about these approaches in the article “On the importance of a culture of interaction”, and although for the most part it was about the fact that people should be taught to communicate and build relationships from childhood, a broader layer was implied and mentioned the direction of raising an organized individual who thinks about the consequences and environment.

Capitalism, like money, is a tool - by making a monument out of a hammer, we devalue it as a hammer. We must treat the burl or plank as tools, and not as a holy dogma. Disassemble, assemble, plan - until something usable is assembled, just like constructor sets are made.

[crack]

Freedom is “from something” and “for what”. Before you fight for someone’s freedom, you need to resolve this issue. And then one individual once asked me a question: what is better, to be or to seem. These are different things. Freedom is when you think with your own head, answer for yourself with your own strength and feed on your own hump - no one can impose anything on you. You are free.
And when you don’t bother thinking about decisions, you don’t strain to be responsible for yourself and your actions, and what to eat is a free spirit.
In our country, various personalities, acting under the guise of liberalism, have completely discredited this idea, however, no one considers them to be liberals in the direct sense; people call them liberals. It’s more convenient, so modest. :) And it doesn’t anger censorship.
As for consumerism, it depends on the taste of color - all markers are different. This topic is very controversial. I’m a Soviet person and for example the slogan: guns instead of butter! is much closer, well, junk doesn’t make me happier in any way, but I’ve seen a lot of examples of what this consumerism leads to.
And I rarely write comments, today there were two hundred in 10 years, I don’t see the point in arguing with anyone, although I read regularly, for general development. :)

[Knell wardenheart]

Well, as you may have noticed, I try to be as precise as possible in my wording. To the point of outright non-lapidarity.
So this is an important point for me, but I understand your position. Although I don’t approve - the colors of the world exist for a reason, leftists usually try to reduce everything to a two- or three-color model, and many of us also ostentatiously deny the complexity of the processes. Well, we have already walked along these paths - and where did it lead us all...
Maybe it's time to try to see the complex in the complex?

Regarding consumption, I have always thought in terms of “volume, exceeding which is frankly unnecessary.” By analogy with two chairs, a normal butt cannot sit on more than two, and therefore more than two chairs are already unnecessary for it. Not by the number of chairs, of course, but by this logic it is possible to calculate optimal and extremely rational needs, simply based on physiological boundaries, limited life time and other limits of the body. Existence within the boundaries between the optimal and the extremely rational is an environment sufficient for development. A smooth increase in its level is the best goal for society because it expands people’s opportunities to develop. The fact that in the case of imperfect states or societies they MAY prefer gluttony and degradation to development does not mean that this is the essence of things in principle.
But I understand you - there are frameworks within which we can allow and reflect, and there are frameworks within which we feel comfortable and stable. Self-limitation of search is a natural right because it is aesthetics, after all. The main thing is that this “self-restraint” is not extrapolated from “I” to “Everything”. This is how I understand true Liberalism, in addition to the desire to expand Law and Freedom to rational limits.

And, also about “Freedom”. I understand Freedom very simply - the possibility of activity within boundaries that do not impose direct or destructive restrictions on other specific individuals and the realization of their Freedoms. In the case of the USSR, this was freedom of activity and freedom of conscience, as well as a number of other freedoms.
In a number of cases, attacks on Freedom are an attack on the Habitual, the imposition of the Unusual where it is not justified by the objective safety of non-abstract people.

[Knell wardenheart]

In our country, various individuals, acting under the guise of liberalism, have completely discredited this idea

+1, unfortunately this is true. Similar individuals among us have polluted both the leftist idea and Orthodoxy (to some extent), and the very concept of “idea” has also been polluted.
Ugly little hands work bad miracles, in a word.

I rarely write comments

Rare but accurate! It is pleasant and interesting to read you. Sincerely !

[kalibr]

Quote: kreck

This is the modern mentality.

Everything is very well noted!

[Qas]

It’s just that the “ruling class” has communal apartments and Khrushchev apartments that are somewhat more comfortable, and are located in more elite and green areas. And they communicate strictly within their own circle, where some decisions are made.
And yes, flesh of flesh: two arms, two legs and one head.

[Knell wardenheart]

The fundamental mistake of the left, one might say the other side of the extreme mistake of the National Socialists. National Socialists (like Aloizovich) believed that it was the exceptional properties of the material (real Aryans, Nibelungs, etc.) that determined the vitality and power of structures, the leftists believed the opposite - that the power pumping ideology into the masses could mold these masses into anything they wanted, and so it will remain, as if the sun dries clay.
Both of them were wrong.
The masses do not have EXCEPTIONAL qualities, the masses are inert, but at the same time they live with their characteristic microfluctuations, like Brownian motion (however, it is a characteristic motion, and not a completely chaotic one).
Our ruling class is flesh and blood of our “deep mentality,” which is quite well expressed in our proverbs and sayings. We make fun of this, but in fact this is our “code” that works outside the focus of attention. In the focus of attention, you can really blind anything, and outside its zone, characteristic degradation will be observed. Focus is limited and this is why we can combine flabby guts with strong-willed and powerful things. However, we can really work on the first one, it’s like an analogy of a muscular frame, which partly compensates for a less than ideal skeleton. The main thing is to understand that there is a problem, and not to engage in our traditional denial.

[your1970]

Exactly. Our main weakness is our ruling class. Whose interests do not coincide with the interests of the country and people. - I'm embarrassed to ask - but when did our interests of the country, people and elites coincide?
And suddenly it turns out that all this coincided literally 6-7 years ago ALL history of Russia. And the rest of the time, someone fell out of this trinity of interests... And most often people...

[Reptiloid]

bad boy

And, of course, the Russian “elites” understand this very well, they know it, they are aware of it. And they don’t want to change anything. On the contrary, they are thinking about how to contrive and leave the people in subjection, and so that the people would not figure out this bad guy, but would rely on Malchish Kibalchish. But calmly, without protests...

[KCA]

Local Crimean War? Good localization, from Crimea to Kamchatka

[Nikolay Malyugin]

Western analysts consider only the technical aspects of different countries. They will not be able to answer why the serfs did not go over to Napoleon’s side, to whom he promised freedom. Trying to get closer to the West economically, we at the same time began to destroy our own mentality. Society has not even gone to a third party. Although in all matters it is the ability of society to pay a high price to achieve results for each member of society. Only Truman noticed the high organizational ability of the leadership of our country. It was with this factor that war was declared. Organize society at a high level in all matters, from healthcare to defense system.

[Knell wardenheart]

They will not be able to answer why the serfs did not go over to Napoleon’s side, to whom he promised freedom.

They didn’t know how to read, had no idea about the “freedom” that revolutionary France postulated, and organically hated all the “filthy” from foreign countries since ancient times.
For these people, Napoleon’s mummered soldiers were not much different from our mummered soldiers, the only difference being that among ours there were ours (including their relatives), they spoke Russian and were immediately understandable.
You can promise a “delicious donut with boiled milk” as much as you like to a person who has never tried either a donut or boiled milk in his life. It won't impress him.

[crack]

They will not be able to answer why the serfs did not go over to Napoleon’s side, to whom he promised freedom.

Sometimes freedom is the ability to simply lock the door behind you.

[Alex 1970]

How do they represent us? yeah like that.

[ivan2022]

Traditional inertia and rigidity have an obvious reason: it is a consequence of the tradition of the feudal class.

The bulk of the people in Rus' have long been called the “vile class”. In modern cultural terminology - “common people”.

The “simple” tradition is to survive by any means necessary. Even among the wonders of technology of the 21st century in the richest country in the World and under any government. “Simple” people are not supposed to think about morality. Their job is to survive!

Issues of morality and justice must be decided by the “highest” - that is, the “authorities”, as well as the “strong”. For the rest, it is not their rank to meddle in the Kalash row.....Attempts to defend justice by “simple” people cause general laughter, angry popular condemnation and mockery of fools....

The authorities must “rule wisely and fairly” because “they already have everything.”

Thus, a harmonious picture of the Russian worldview is obtained, an ancient “paradigm”: “... Here he prays, Japheth has power, and Ham sows grain - - and all that stuff.”

This is how we lived, how we live, and how we will die.

[Valery Mamai]

How do we know? the boyars know that. No match for us (C)
It was, is, and will be

[parusnik]

“Everything was mixed up in the Oblonsky house” (c) Different eras of Russia’s development. But the collective West remained, which, according to the author, was always collective, like a collective farm, only the chairman changed.

[Knell wardenheart]

At the time of the Napoleonic Wars, with which I began, the West was extremely consolidated (as far as possible then) against Napoleon. Of course, we didn’t come to this right away.

At the time of the Crimean War, we also see a picture of a high degree of consolidation - both France and the World Bank are fighting against us, Austria is threatening to join them, and there are frankly no “ours” among the states in central Europe. I don’t know what you call it - I call it consolidation.

At the time of BB1, England and France were in the same cart, the neutral USA initially understood where his ears were pricked up. Germany was new to these situations and tried to create lawlessness - with the exception of Germany and Austria-Hungary, the entire “West” was completely consolidated.

When we say “collective West,” what do we even mean? WB, France, USA. Germany is only attached to this and it has always not been important whether it (or Italy) was attached to this or was separate.

After the 19th century, there were no wars between England and the United States; after the Napoleonic Wars, conflicts between France and the World Bank were openly focal (such as the operation to remove the Vichy fleet) - these states, from the first third of the 19th century, sailed in the same boat, trying more or less calmly and, based on an agreement, cut the world into slices.

[parusnik]

after the Napoleonic Wars, conflicts between France and the WB were frankly focal (such as the operation to remove the Vichy fleet)

Eka, you brought the Crystal Owl into the studio of the Club "What? Where? When?"

[teron]

The author raised an interesting topic. Plus for him. A lot of points are noted correctly. Regarding the analytical culture - suppose it appears or grows, but will it be of interest to the authorities operating in our country at that time? Some consider the current system of government in Russia to be ineffective and corrupt, but it depends from what point of view you look at the interests of our elite.

[Knell wardenheart]

It is not very important whether it will be of interest to the authorities - power sooner or later emerges from the grassroots, either in fact or through an array of functionaries. We should create a philosophy and edit the existing fragments of it in order to compensate for our shortcomings. If it is interesting at the bottom, if the benefits and purpose of this direction are clear, it will reach the top.
Well, and vice versa - if this is not understood and appreciated below, then the model will continue to be replicated, making the same mistakes endlessly.
Here we need to start from the bottom, at the basic level of society, by inspiring a discussion.

[aybolyt678]

the problem of ensuring the security of distant territories, and poor logistics in crisis situations, and bad hierarchy, and the archaization of military technologies and military art

what is a bad hierarchy??? -traditionally rotten tops?

[Knell wardenheart]

A bad hierarchy is when the system is filled with functionaries who received their positions not for ability or merit, but because of kinship, “nobility” or political factors.
During periods between crises, it is traditional for us and in the world in general to assign “our little people” to various sinecures, but in our case, over time, these people even end up in places where outright specialists should be. And in large numbers. As a result, we get a tree that is intact on the outside but well worn out by termites on the inside.

[ArchiPhil]

What is not clear? Alas, but in Russia they are traditionally... rotten. Yes, s. Exception? J.V. Stalin. And this is a fact.

[Il'nur]

bringing him into Afghanistan was truly a masterful combination by our enemies.

They also got caught up in a trap in Ukraine, slowly reformatting the boneheads, and our leaders did not notice the existential threat from there... And then, when the threat could no longer be eliminated, they began the SVO, guided and acting according to:

1. Weak quality study of the pre-crisis and initial stages of crisis planning. This is what we call “Russian maybe”.

[Sancho da Vinca]

Thanks to the Author for the opportunity to brainstorm in his spare time - what’s wrong in the “Kingdom of Denmark”? I agree with many forum members - our government did not come to us from Mars, these are the same people, some even from the “ordinary” people, so to speak, but what’s interesting is HOW the psyche and self-awareness of the ordinary “Petya” is transformed when he succeeds “from rags to riches”, that’s where the field is unplowed for discussion! After all, the police colonel from the window of the Mercedes was once Vanya from the first B class, like everyone else, and now - hello, Master!!! What happens to people when they grab Fate by the beard? It would be interesting to hear from the Dear Author on this topic.

[Knell wardenheart]

Thank you ! I’ll try to work on this issue, a good topic was raised - personal evolution “from the bottom up”.
There are already outlines.

[ArchiPhil]

And? You know, my friend, but? Photo from 41? No. No. Those people who defended the Motherland. Just as there are no those who will go into battle with the slogan * For Putin and United Russia!!!! * From the very beginning, the SVO said that The owners of GDP need this. Bottom line? No me. All this *SVO* is needed precisely by those who need to minimize the Slavic population! GDP is just a puppet. *in deft and loaded hands......*A. Makarevich.
Like this one....

[crack]

HOW does the psyche and self-awareness of an ordinary “Petya” transform when he succeeds “from rags to riches”?

It is very rare when a person, becoming a major official, remains a human being. And not a lump of greed and abomination. In appearance, he is important and impregnable, like a mountain, but inside everything has long since rotted, and the benefit in the human heart almost always outweighs moral values.
And here’s one rhetorical question: What will our official do when he steals on a bun with butter? No, not for himself, but for the grandson of his butler. That is, yachts, several modest palaces in picturesque corners and women under the motto “There are no impotent people, only a little money!” he already has it. Have you ever wondered why a person goes out of his way to climb the pyramid of power? Why do truly tough men remain foremen, colonels and department heads? They don't need anything. They don't have to bust their ass getting what they already have. Their gene pool, ability to survive themselves and ensure the survival of their offspring attract women to them better than a limousine and a yacht. Well, who do girls not like? He, of course, is forced to climb the mountain, because love is love, and a woman knows in her gut: the higher the tree, the fewer snakes.
Now the object of our precious attention crawled up the hill, and for some reason my soul became sad. Just three, five, ten. Everything seems to be there, and I want something. Don't worry about him. If he climbed the hill, he will probably come up with the correct answer.
He will want to fuck everyone.
By this time, he will understand that the girls still did not love him, and the only way to cheer himself up is to add beautiful and proud men to the beautiful and proud women crawling at his feet.
A weirdo and a pervert? In the sense that you wanted to say “Loyal son of the fatherland and hope of the nation”? But in order to achieve this, you need money, a lot of money. Money turned into power. Or power converted into unlimited power. This is the way.
But those who are at the top, most likely, will not want to see a new snout at their trough. Especially one that pushes everyone aside.
And he seemed to have everything. But the little worm of desire had already dug a hole in the armor of fear and duty, and now he was fully aware of what exactly he lacked.
And what he lacked was not even power, but the very little things. Ingratiating looks, asking for smiles, and so that if you suddenly want to go to Courchevel, then a private plane is at your side, and if, for example, some kind of cattle, it could not even come up for a cannon shot.
And all this, perhaps, would have appeared to him over the years. Moscow Chaldeans are excellent at playing the game “You are a boyar - I am a lackey,” and an airplane in the sovereign’s service is a profitable business, but they want it not sometime, but now or as quickly as possible.

[Alexey RA]

Despite the fact that in 1939 we were better armed than the Germans, had more strength and the level of militarization of society, and despite the open antagonism of fascism and communism, which began since the Spanish War, we chose to come to an agreement and divide Poland rather than increase confrontation.

We decided to conduct the Winter War with Finland to demonstrate our power outside of military training grounds and test it in practice.
Unfortunately, the results were not very good. The show of force had the opposite effect and once again confirmed the German thesis about “feet of clay” and exaggerated power in general.

We were better armed than the Germans, had more forces, but were unable to demonstrate strength in the conflict even with Finland.
Mutually exclusive paragraphs - our everything!

Seriously, the entire ceremonial power of the Red Army is perfectly shown in the “Act of Reception of the People’s Commissariat of Defense of the USSR Union of USSR Comrade S. K. Timoshenko from Comrade K. E. Voroshilov.” There are no war plans, no mob plan, no exact numbers, no staff, no regulations, no training, mediocre.
Moreover, in 1939 the situation was even worse: right before the start of WWII, the Red Army lost its mobilization component. In August, the NKO began disbanding troikas and forming two and a half times as many cadre divisions.

In accordance with the decision adopted, on August 15, 1939, People's Commissar of Defense Marshal K.E. Voroshilov gave directives No. 4/2 / 48601-4 / 2/48611 to the Military Councils of the Leningrad (MVO), Moscow (MVO), Kalininsky (KalVO), Belorussian (BVO) and Kiev Special (KVO), Kharkov (KhVO), Orlovsky (OrVO), Volga Volga Federal District), North Caucasian (North Caucasian Military District), Ural (UrVO) and Siberian (Siberian Military District) military districts, according to which they should form 25 departments of rifle corps from August 1 to December 1939, 18, transfer personnel divisions to the new staff of 8 people and deploy 900 divisions of triple deployment in 36 divisions of b 92 people.

© Meltiukhov M.I. Soviet-Polish war. Military-political confrontation 1918-1939
Moreover, this transition was not traditionally provided with weapons, equipment and personnel - deliveries were supposed to last until 1940.

[Negro]

This is just clear.

The USSR was extremely strong both quantitatively, if we judge in terms of the number of divisions and the size of the mobilization resource, and qualitatively if, again, we look at the number of tank divisions (brigades) or aircraft.

However, the winter special military operation showed that understanding the quality of troops as the number of expensive types of weapons is not always correct.

[Deputy]

Author, regarding the Crimean War, the statement is somewhat controversial: 1) Russia has not decreased territorially, it even retained the Nikolaev shipyard,
2) retained the right to build patrol ships, and then it was not difficult to revive the Black Sea Fleet
Regarding the REV. Logistics and the lack of will of the high command.
These are the reasons for the defeat.
Regarding the fleet, in general they are right. Our fleet is capable of secondary tasks

[Alexey RA]

Quote: Intercessor

2) retained the right to build patrol ships, and then it was not difficult to revive the Black Sea Fleet

In the distant future.
But in fact, in the next war we had to fight with armed steamships and mine boats against armored ships. And constantly look back at the British fleet.

[DenVB]

namely, in the direction of analysis - what chronically exists in us that works against our successes

Our problem is that we are basically petty and too rational. And our enemies, oddly enough, have always been ideological and fanatical. We are planning at the level of “we will build a gas pipeline and we will live.” And their planning horizon is centuries. They are driven by an idea that we cannot even perceive, constantly reducing the understanding of this idea to platitudes like “they need our resources.”

An indicative illustration: we have been praying for the coming of Trump for almost ten years now. When Donald arrives, Donald will help us. He is a businessman, he will want to come to an agreement with us. After all, it must be beneficial for them to come to an agreement with us, right?

Despite the fact that everyone interested is well aware that the deep vector of US foreign policy does not change with the change of presidents. Donald couldn't help us even if he had such a wild desire. They'd rather treat him to a snuff box.

[Knell wardenheart]

They are driven by an idea that we cannot even perceive, constantly reducing the understanding of this idea to platitudes like “they need our resources”

That's Riley, hats off! Well written, right on the mark

[ArchiPhil]

You...are smart! Excellent article. You know? I’ve said more than once, but I’ll repeat, that someone like Stalin needs to be deserved. We? We didn’t deserve it. The 91st year in our generation. And this is a fact. Just like the fact that it was necessary to change the system itself, but? Although probably not the system itself, but a systemic approach. How was this done? How? The sad thing is that they lost a great country. I won’t write about the empire. But I did.

[WIS]

Quote: Dmitry Ivanov_1991

This series was filmed in response to the situation with the war with Georgia, when Medvedev only on the second or even third day accepted decision on response

Do you want to say that you noticed significant differences? their with Putin? This is LJJ What kind of stubbornness do you have to have in order not to see the DIFFERENCE?

[nikolaevskiy78]

Dear Knell!
With all the depth of immersion in the topic of how we are perceived “out there,” you seem to have missed one detail.
Namely, the deepest and completely sincere contempt for our “elites”. This happened in the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th, which is well deserved; after the 1990s there is nothing to say. They consider the period of the mid-century of the 20th, when the USSR was at its peak, simply a historical zigzag, a single surge. It is clear that they do not want a repeat. But an important point: you can love, you can be afraid, you can be afraid, you can do a lot of things, but the contempt of the West will constantly accompany our elitists. They are not losers of the Cold War, but traitors with a price tag. And on the sole of the shoe there is always a sticker “price N cu.”

[parusnik]

Michael, You know, I like your comments more than your articles. Your articles are like a patter, the ships tacked, tacked, but never tacked. But your comments differ from the articles in the clarity and clarity of presentation. I write without irony, with everything respect.

[nikolaevskiy78]

This is normal The articles are simply part of an analytical model, which is quite at odds with what we have become accustomed to. But you can draw conclusions from it. But the very conclusions drawn from these conclusions look, of course, strange in modern times. Accordingly, when conclusions 1, 2, 3 are simply drawn... everything becomes somewhat simpler.

[Knell wardenheart]

Thanks for the detail, Mikhail!
Their contempt for our elites comes from the perception of these elites as “native”, of course, not at the level of some African tribes, but at the level of an alien, less well-organized, more “barbaric”, simpleton. I would not single out this view as characteristic - we had different elites and the West treated them somewhat differently. The view of some temporary detention center and Khrushchev was very different, as was the view of Brezhnev or some Yeltsin. I myself would not single this out as a strong factor, but as a factor, yes, it does exist. least in the 20th century. At 19, I didn’t observe this because there were monarchical and dynastic ties. There has always been some contempt, but over the course of a century this situation has gradually worsened (or somewhat improved) depending on the depth of our epic fails or epic wines.
I would highlight what is characteristic here (from the Western point of view) as “Inability to long-term stability and coherence.” Each new government in our country broke the traditions of the previous one quite significantly.
In the end, they broke down to Gorbachev and Yeltsin; of course, they could not help but despise these characters, because these were precisely the native leaders who sold everything for firewater and glass beads.

[nikolaevskiy78]

It seems to me that this attitude began in the era after Catherine. The penetration of Anglo-Dutch and French stock exchange capital has firmly placed our elites in the position of “purchasers”. Do you know what expression about us is still popular among Arabs? "Pocket Empire of Great Britain." The attitude towards the USSR was, of course, different.

[Alexey RA]

Quote: Knell Wardenheart

Their contempt for our elites comes from the perception of these elites as “native”, of course, not at the level of some African tribes, but at the level of an alien, less well-organized, more “barbaric”, simpleton

More precisely, from the perception of Russia as a backward and barbaric country. And what kind of country is the elite.

In terms of cultural development, the French and Russians are not on the same level. Russia is one of the most backward countries in the world: out of 180 million inhabitants, 150 million are illiterate. Compare our army with this ignorant and unconscious mass: all our soldiers are educated; in the forefront are young forces who have proven themselves in art and science, talented and sophisticated people - these are the cream and color of humanity. From this point of view, our losses are more sensitive than Russian losses.

I insist even more on my accusations; I prove with figures that Russia could have done three or four times more for the war; France, meanwhile, is bleeding.
“But we lost a million people on the battlefield!” - he exclaims.
- In this case, France lost four times more than Russia.
- How?
— The calculation is very simple. Russia has a population of 180 million, and France has 40. To equalize losses, your losses must be four and a half times greater than ours. If I'm not mistaken, then our losses currently reach 800 people... And by this I mean only the quantitative side of losses...

© Diary of Maurice Paleologue. Saturday, April 1, 1916

[MCmaximus]

Oh well. In terms of organizational abilities.... Throughout the war, except for the very end, we had fewer workers in the national economy than Germany and its allies. In 41 we evacuated industry. And before 43 they could not have had an industry even close to somehow competing with the German = European one. What does this author mean by his German name or pseudonym? It would be better to turn to the history of Ivanov III, IV or V. And look at his organizational skills. Without iron, without silver and without gold, without ports. Yes, even Alexei Mikhailovich. And then he made up his own nonsense. Maybe then he realized what the semi-literate Russian tsars had long understood. That wars are won by politics and perseverance, and that the general battles of war are won by losers, such as Napoleon.

[Radical]

Quote: Knell Wardenheart

I point to the factor of unchanging mentality, unchanging habits. A number of things in certain periods of history could be in better condition because there was a fair focus of attention on it. So, for example, even a chronic drunk can not drink for some time if he tries with all his might to control himself. But such an improvement will be temporary while his attention is focused on this problem. Then, without comprehensive elaboration, it will return to the natural state of the model. I'm trying to pick up on this "natural state of the model" because we need to try to think apart from the legend - we've had too many bad crises to have the luxury of repeating them.
Vietnam was not “our war” - it was support for someone else’s military, which, by the way, was relatively small in volume and scale. If we compare it with Spain, for example - where there were a decent amount of volunteers who fought and a decent amount of equipment was brought in - but our side did not win the war.
Hungary - suppression of a spontaneous rebellion, the seething masses had, at best, small arms and they were decentralized...

One could take your article seriously if it were not for your qualification of the events in Hungary in 1956 as a “spontaneous revolt.” Do you know the history of these events poorly, or did they deliberately call them that? This, like other “spontaneous riots” in the Warsaw bloc countries, were well planned and carried out. There are many documents about this, both open and still closed. So the author, go ahead, the road will be mastered by those who walk.

[Knell wardenheart]

Good day!

Do you know the history of these events poorly, or did they deliberately call them that?

I deliberately indicated it because in the context of what I was writing, “Form” was important and not the essence. The form was precisely in the form of a “spontaneous revolt”, where the VT was captured by the “dissatisfied population”, and then quite sporadically. That is, this was not a classic confrontation between our Armed Forces and some organized militaristic formations. I also leave out the degree of cruelty and brutality of the Hungarians in these events.
The essence of these phenomena, of course, would go beyond the scope of the material since I wrote about how the West sees us in conflicts and not about its clever insinuations.

[Radical]

Quote: Knell Wardenheart

Good day!

Do you know the history of these events poorly, or did they deliberately call them that?

I deliberately indicated it because in the context of what I was writing, “Form” was important and not the essence. The form was precisely in the form of a “spontaneous revolt”, where the VT was captured by the “dissatisfied population”, and then quite sporadically. That is, this was not a classic confrontation between our Armed Forces and some organized militaristic formations. I also leave out the degree of cruelty and brutality of the Hungarians in these events.
The essence of these phenomena, of course, would go beyond the scope of the material since I wrote about how the West sees us in conflicts and not about its clever insinuations.

Again I see a simplified approach, to these in particular, and in general to the rest of the processes described in your article. However, as you know, an attempt is not torture, so on the whole you can give an overall grade of “pass”.

[Knell wardenheart]

Physicists depict an atom as a ball, whereas this is a strong simplification due to the nature and configuration of electron shells, the probabilistic position of electrons, and so on.
However, the ball copes with its task without overloading with details where its task is to convey the concept.

I’ll quote myself at the end of the opus:

I see my task as raising controversy not around individual, perhaps even controversial details, but precisely in the direction of analysis - what chronically exists in us that works against our successes, through which we can be influenced, that objectively is not our strengths

[Radical]

Quote: Edward Vashchenko

Our main weakness is our ruling class. Whose interests do not coincide with the interests of the country and people.

The ruling class is not weakness, it is a given... .

Well, firstly, one does not exclude the other, and secondly, these concepts do not contradict each other.

[miry_mir]

Compared to the pre-war years, now we have no propaganda at all, the people are mostly on their own, the youth even more so, and it should also be noted that there is a total preference for everything imported as the best, although there are our analogues, but we all consider it shameful to buy ours. and corruption is everywhere, no matter where you look, it’s like a cancerous tumor, and even if we don’t stop it, we’ll still be marking time.

[Negro]

Mad tea party at the March Hare.

Someone is talking about how the “West” (who is this?) perceives “us” (who is this?) in “conflicts” (what is a conflict in this text)? Moreover, they recall some cases 200 years ago that were not have a relationship with no one living.

The capabilities of the Russian Federation in military conflicts over the entire existence of the Russian Federation have been demonstrated several times (PChV, VChV, Georgia, Donbass, Syria, Northern Military District), and all this time they were approximately similar. Anyone who was interested could draw all the necessary conclusions.

[futurohunter]

The author lives in a somewhat fictional reality. He portrayed the West as always a chess player, and Russia as always a figure. This is wrong. The West also had many strategic omissions. And there is no such single analytical center there

[futurohunter]

I didn’t bother with the article or the numerous comments. Apparently, the only success of the author is that he touched a nerve. And even me)))
I would like to ask only the simplest question. Somehow Russia (not even Rust) has existed for more than one century, and has even managed to grow to the size of the largest country in the world. Over these centuries, Russia has withstood the bloodiest wars, and was able to defeat even the most insidious invaders, before whom the countries of the West, so beloved by the author, folded. And even survived the greatest disaster of the 90s. During this time, the most grandiose empires arose and collapsed - the Ottoman, British and Spanish. But Russia has survived them all and is still alive. With its backward and archaic “mentality”. And now she’s also started reformatting the world order.
How so? Eh, the author?

[Kmon]

Well, I didn’t survive it. The Russian Empire and the USSR shared the fate of the Ottoman, British and Spanish. The Russian Federation is a pale shadow of both of them.

[futurohunter]

Wrong. Compare what was left after the Ottoman, British and Spanish empires, and what was left after the USSR. Still the largest state in the world

[Kmon]

Most of this territory is unsuitable for life and agriculture. The strength of a power is determined not by its physical borders, but by its economic and political power. The British Empire, by the way, disintegrated only formally; in practice, Britain still governs its dominions. And Türkiye is quite a strong state.

[futurohunter]

Türkiye does not govern anything except its territory. And Russia has not only territory left, but also a large Russian-speaking space in which it is necessary to conduct the right policy.
If you don’t like Russia, this does not mean that it is not one of the most influential and economically powerful states in the world, despite all the turmoil

[ada]

"... Author
Knell Wardenheart"
Greetings!
They swung at our...
I want to support you, otherwise they’ve thrown everything at you, and apparently they’ll also “put on you”
You don't stop and that's a sign of ability. You build a structure, penetrate, notice, reason, evaluate, generalize and draw a conclusion - this is the work of an inquisitive mind. I wish you to continue not to rest on your laurels.
But please listen to my comments from a military point of view.
What I pay attention to in the structure of the analysis is the probability of obtaining a result in the form of data with a sufficient degree of reliability and a formalized form for use - making a decision (controlling influence on the situation). The very construction of the issues being studied plays an important role here - the true vector. In fact, the analysis is always carried out descriptively separately for countries and government entities, and generally - for their unions and blocs, but always highlighting the role of each participant in the contractual organization. This is specific data for each subject separately and only when the vectors in individual directions coincide, can it be generalized, that is, a certain “general view” of us is not formed as a single object “from-Tedova”, or “from-Tuda”, which means there is no way to evaluate the object of the enemy’s research as a single entity - the subject “West”. Therefore, your research is very descriptive, has comparative aspects, retrospective and perspective, follows the rule you established, that is, it is “correct,” but the conclusion cannot be accepted as a basis for action, since it is assessed as “false” in one case or “ insignificant" in another, in view of such a meaning of the thing being studied - united into a subject under the false pretext of identity, in one case, or non-existent - in another.
The next thing I want to note is that the overwhelming majority of information is taken from living “material”, another insignificant part is taken from “still living” material, and then nothing at all, because reliability... . That is, a retrospective is certainly good on paper, but, for the most part, it is not relevant in relation to actually existing trends and their obvious manifestations.
I don’t get involved in the assessments of military companies; this is a separate system.
But what scares me is the lack of consistency in terminology and the use of such fresh terms that are not related to the real mechanisms on our “earth”, which have their own developed terminological base. Therefore, let’s say, it’s not at all clear to me what is meant by the term “logistics” or what exactly is the method of “supply” tied to, where, what and how, in what type of support? Again, I do not give my assessments of the work of the rear in various time periods, but during the period of the USSR this was assessed by many parties as a very outstanding activity, especially starting from the Second World War, but they will write something else, of course - these are the rules of the struggle. (Yes, pay attention - here you have a “black man”, you are being watched... Yes, and by the way, he knows the “secret” of the size of the ammunition load of the self-propelled gun 2s3 for a long period of time..., I believe that only He alone knows this, or “not only not everything.” Take a closer look.)
In general, I, as a reader, would like more academicism, the alignment of a weighty word with your tenacious look into the depths of the historical process, and so on. In general, everything is interesting, but you do not have enough analytical power, say, several groups of specialists on the main military-political areas or a number of individual specialists in countries, but I can wish this for you?
We wish you progress and creative success! (By the way, some of us previously distorted the phrase and wished for “creative Uzbeks” - that’s where the grimace of the times lies!)
Good luck!
Best regards

[Knell wardenheart]

Good day, Dmitry!
I wanted to highlight, first of all, the topic itself - and perhaps this will encourage a number of VO authors to delve into it more than I myself want and can, due to my professional qualities. The topic is interesting, potentially huge - we have little coverage of it. As a rule, the analysis of Western actions proceeds from the constructions of the West on the basis of practical goals and structures of the “profitable-unprofitable” type. Here I point out that the West has well-established views To us, I point out on the basis of what events these views could systematically develop and evolve, pointing out our potentially weak factors that we could demonstrate (to the West) on the basis of these conflicts.

Then from this we can crawl into retrospect, but I don’t see the value in this, because history before the Napoleonic Wars is already a very long historical layer, these are less technological wars, let’s put it that way. You can go deeper into the “our” conflicts I mentioned - but in this case, apart from the array of particulars that mostly confirm the whole (and a couple of elements I missed, I admit), it’s unlikely that anything significant will be found, at least until the conflicts of 1991+. The experience of the Northern Military District is still beyond the scope of my analysis because this is an active campaign and I cannot approach the analysis without subjective distortions, and the West itself, in my opinion, at the moment cannot have an unambiguous perception of us in this conflict - its designated expectations are changing as and rhetoric.

Regarding “logistics” and “supply” - perhaps I chose a generalized term of not the best quality, but, alas, it is difficult to find a more precise term). The West is conducting “long arm” campaigns relying on delivery and mobility capabilities that are qualitatively superior to ours - a qualitatively larger naval and air fleet, numerous bases in the regions, and proven actions with allies to support them and infrastructure. I believe that from the point of view of THEIR real experience in this direction, our experience looks imperfect and logically incomplete. From OUR point of view the situation may be different, but I am interested in THEIR view of things.
We had problems with supplies, repairs, evacuation - in the Russian-Japanese, VV1, Soviet-Finnish, at the initial and further stages of the Second World War until 1943, there were certain problems in the Afghan campaign. During the Cuban missile crisis I mentioned, we were simply unable to do anything about the American “blockade” of Cuba, and I believe that this was also a logistics and supply problem.
In general, I point out that from the enemy's point of view, our ability to conduct long-arm operations supported by adequate supplies is our weak point, something that we do not do very well chronically.
I do not devalue the Second World War in my analysis, but if you read carefully, I distinguish between existential and non-existential conflicts. With the first, everything is clear - in the end we reach Berlin-Paris, but in the second case, the result is much less certain. This is our weakness, this is the enemy’s analysis area. Knowing the strengths is very cool in order to avoid them, but it is the knowledge of the weaknesses that allows us to influence - at the moment we are being influenced and this is not very good, we need to fight it. And for this we need an analysis of our weaknesses.

P/s Dmitry, I also sometimes love collective farm mysticism, smoke and mirrors, but here you are greatly outplaying me - I often don’t get your salon style of vague hints and allegories at all. All these black men are magical, but if possible, explain yourself a little more clearly :-)

[ada]

Thanks for the detailed answer!
Of course - this was not necessary, you presented everything perfectly and clearly in the article, which you compiled at your own discretion and in your own style, and in this construction - everything is quite indicative. You can take my word for it - I am sure that I understood what they wanted to convey. Maybe
I just would like something a little different. Here is the designation of the task, the method and conditions for its implementation:

... I see my task as raising controversy not around individual, perhaps even controversial details, but precisely in the direction of analysis - what chronically exists in us that works against our successes, through which we can be influenced, that objectively is not our strengths parties. ...

The point is that you defined the method and then you yourself correctly noted the plurality of the object - “Western countries”, and this is subjective diversity:

... Analyzing how Western countries see us and our shortcomings, how they play on them and influence us through them is a huge topic, and today I have only touched upon it in general terms, despite the inevitably large amount of material. ...

We will have to take the point of view of the observer of each side separately, because, to paraphrase the well-known: “What is good for an American is death for a German!” An absolutely accurate description of the situation into which some want to put others, but they do not want to, by and large, and here our strengths and weaknesses, in particular the use of military force, are directly opposite for accomplices in the outrage in the form of long-term military planning like NATO -91. Now try on the Poles here, and they always walked there in the first echelon and it was they who had the honor of being the first to burn in their T-ashes on the Belarusian borders. I believe that you can guess the fate of the middle countries of Europe using the example of Ukraine, and they are the ones who are tied to the new theater of war in their territorial expression in all NATO planning since 91. The phrase “Scorched Meridian” is not a term from our headquarters. What “logistics” conditions will the parties have? For what period? There is a fight going on for this now. By the way, “logistics”, without even looking in the dictionaries, is something logical and algebraic. We have adopted specific types of comprehensive support for the armed forces, which have the same mathematical basis and their own historical experience on their own and foreign territory. And here too - in particular, you cannot do without “confluence” if you are preparing an analysis.
And so, everything will continue to be the same. These are very, very voluminous constructions and, as a rule, they are greatly cut down for the “underlying ones” and given “in the touching part.”
In my opinion, if you continue the topic you set as an analysis of “seeing us from the outside,” then you will still have to act in the same way as I indicated earlier - “in divisions” and for many years I have not seen another “view of this matter” - there is no common vision there, there is another - “targeted influence on ...”, or - “concentration of efforts in the direction of ...” and this is controlled by specific figures or organisms, regardless of the “vision” of other countries. Here you need to know exactly what and when, with what forces and in what specific direction. Such information is constantly refined and studied, resulting in updated data for decision-making. And so on all the time. It is difficult to “mirror” yourself.
Otherwise, it is probably possible to simply consider our shortcomings ourselves. Are they known to the enemy? Without a doubt. What will they do? Yes, everything is different depending on the situation and the degree of subordination - interdependence to each other. My grandfather, he worked during WW2 in Romania to prepare and conduct negotiations on the part of SMERSH, I don’t know when it was, but he noted the fact that on one of the tables in the negotiation room a table was set for snacks and there were plates on it with canapés for snacks, negotiations went on and on and passed with a known result, but the snack on the canapes never appeared, but the protocol was followed. This is the vision, attitude and reality at the front. And then, starting in 1946, during the period of drought and post-war famine in our countries, we constantly helped Romania with food, but there were no snacks for canapés.
Yes, regarding the “collective farm” - sorry, this has little to do with you, your “territory” was just used a little, I hope it didn’t do any harm.
In general, this is just my opinion and if you cope with this task, then I will be only happy.
Good luck!

[Knell wardenheart]

Aha, I finally understand you! Thanks for the details.
I agree that the “collective West” is very good. a strong generalization and simplification, suitable for propagations, but it is not good to choose it for analytics.
I chose this term for one simple reason - at the moment, despite the shaking of the air by France, the periodic sorrowful cries of Germany, the dissatisfied growl of Poland and the groans of Japan (although Japan is not in the West, many people add it to KZ through “J7” and outright pro-Americanism ) - all these parties individually do not have either a strong and deep analytical school for us, or this school does not seem to me a serious phenomenon, reminiscent of gatherings for the talk of our “experts” on TV, unsuitable for serious analytics and forecasting.
The World Bank can do it, the USA can do it. And the rest have simply grown to their analytical udder and are sucking milk, their own “expert” community is simply chewing this milk, and not creating something conceptual based on their own observations. They eat the food produced by American and British intellectual structures, their materials, articles - theirs is in a rather rudimentary state. So on the basis of this, I used this blasphemous assumption about the “collective West” in the direction of analytics. Their vision, so to speak, is from a common root now - there is no need to share this vision. They can add something of their own - the Germans, the Poles in particular. Based on my “in-depth” experience and shared stories, so to speak. But this will be precisely an addition to the American or British root.
You can separate the British and American segments because this is a slightly different approach - but beyond this division there is no need to deal with the layering of pains and sorrows of our beaten neighbors. There is a lot of subjective stuff, fantasies, assumptions. Analytics is dangerous when it is cold.
The Britons have been strangling us for a long time and they have accumulated a fairly successful case for this, the USA knocked the USSR into the First World War, so their analytics also deserved a place at the table. What have the Germans achieved? French people ? Poles? Japanese? In this field. Nothing fresh. Their constructions failed - Japan did not receive a negotiating platform on the basis of the neutral USSR at the end of the war and the Kuril Islands after the war, the Poles did not receive anything at all except independence (once again), which was stupidly given to them from the master’s shoulder, by and large, the Germans had cheap gas and when “someone” gave them access to it, they stupidly and fanatically began to make everything worse without far-reaching plans - where is the analytics of our actions behind all this? Where is the use of this analytics to harm us or to extract what we need from us? I don't see this, I don't see success. The French have been getting crap for years in Africa - is this what they wanted to achieve by having good analytics on us?
To summarize - they now have one double potty for the entire kindergarten group and because of this there is no reason to sign it somehow

[ada]

For the “double pot” - special thanks, I laughed!
Yes, of course, if in general, then it’s not worth “signing”, but the specifics will still come and the older comrades will definitely put someone “promising” or two in the pot. This is where we need precise indicators - quantitative, temporal and spatial parameters and our problems in this regard, as the “receiving party” with all our “heritage”, emphasized in the article (without discussing fidelity and truth).
By the way, I consider the assumption of the constant inheritance by generations of people of certain environmental information characteristic of an isolated area and its constant transformation as a result of the activities of the community of these and other people (at least) in this territory, based on modern ideas of the interaction of elementary environments, to be justified at the physical level on Earth and in the Black Sea, not to mention the directly transmitted heredity of the family. Previously, this was found only in theoretical research and actually speculative conclusions of strategists about the origins of wars. So, “habitual dislocation” or “rakes” are likely our legacy, which must be eradicated on the eve of war.
Will you take the next step - an article about some of our particulars in the development of the topic or will you wait for others?

[Knell wardenheart]

There is one idea in particular, but I can’t find the key to it yet. This is not directly related to war, but it is an important element in the confrontation between civilized models and an element of the stability of society. You just need to find the right string and write, I hope something will work out this week..

[ada]

I wish you success!
Everything has something to do with war; even peacetime has its own military periodicity according to the degree of threat. By the way, it may be useful to you on the issue of the existentiality of armed conflicts; in our case, in fact, there is no such division into “examples” and “non-executives,” but military conflicts have their own degree of threat to statehood, and their gradation is determined doctrinally by the place and scale of what is happening, which is insufficient description taking into account the modern potential of any VC, since in the modern world its escalation potential directly depends on the efforts of its operators, regardless of direct dependence on remoteness and zoning, including the conditions of the state border regime, although it has a certain degree of weakening depending on the magnitude of these factors/parameters (other conditions). In fact, we consider any VC on our territory and most territorial spaces adjacent to the GG as threatening, that is, consider it as an “example” and there is a justification for this, it is taken into account in military planning, although you will not find this in doctrines.

[ivan2022]

They say “what is written with a pen cannot be cut out with an axe.” But traditions have been written in the soul of the people for centuries and live among the people for centuries.... And cutting them down “in anticipation of something” is a hopeless matter. For the “cutters” themselves are cut from the same cloth.

Those who do things only “in anticipation”, and before that have been playing the fool for decades, will end up making fools. This is fair.

Let's look back 40 years and this will be enough to understand what awaits us next.

[ada]

Quote: ivan2022

... Let's look back 40 years and this will be enough to understand what awaits us next.

Etna, of course, they can look back - why not? Probably even a very necessary thing, but what is it in essence? Look forward, look back - you can’t see anything from the future or the past, only it is reality, a simple and fleeting perception of the present, and even more precisely, the urgent. Reviewing the past and looking into the future is an exclusively speculative activity that bears fruit in understanding processes or life, but with varying degrees of reliability and the possibility of obtaining confirmation, that is, this is a human or human belief, some approach to the deity of creation or creation. Oh, there is no God, but there are those who want to be

[Yaroslav Tekkel]

A very good attempt, caught in the trap of our own historical myths and false ideas about ourselves and the world. For example, in discussions about 1812, the author proceeds from the opposition of Russia to the West, and the war of 1812 itself - to the previous and subsequent wars of that period.

I will not contrast the position of revisionist historians (in a good sense) with discussions about the existentiality of that war, since it is discredited by Ponasenkov’s clownery and Sokolov’s dismemberment. I will only say that at certain periods in history, almost any country had legitimate grounds to claim that “(almost) all of Europe came out against us.” France during the struggle with the League of Augsburg or countless numbered Coalitions, England during the American Revolutionary War or the Continental Blockade, Prussia during the Seven Years' War, Spain, even Holland... There is a huge field for national propaganda, but little scope for understanding. Yes, European researchers paid tribute to the stubborn Russian resistance - on a par with the Spanish, and even with the French themselves. Otherwise, there is no reason for the conclusions that the author made. The Russians avoided a pitched battle, but only in unfavorable circumstances, when any other armies under reasonable command also avoided it. This has been known since the time of Fabius Cunctator. Having a chance of success, the Russians just gave a general battle. They gave at Austerlitz, they gave at Friedland, they gave at Borodino (it was not a doomed battle at all) and they gave a lot and willingly during the European Campaign. It was more likely that the British in Iberia were running away from a general battle. The partisan movement arose in Russia, but for the French there was nothing new in it, not only after Spain, but even after their own Vendée.

The format of the Crimean War was also determined not by the “lessons of 1812”, but by the harsh science of geography. Crimea, the Baltic and the Pacific Ocean were the only places where the Anglo-French could fight Russia at all. Based on the experience of coalition wars, the British wanted to expand the front as much as possible (including Austria and Sweden), but the experience of wars not with Russia at all, but even with France, when Britain’s allies lost a lot but gained little, played against this. Nevertheless, Russia was not afraid to fight a general battle in Crimea, which, alas, was brilliantly lost. It is no longer possible to write further; the forum engine allows you to type a letter per second.