Military Review

The West without the USSR: the world goes to an ideological explosion


Question: Alexander Gelevich, for more than 20 years in the world there is no such powerful pole as the USSR was. A lot of reasoning is about the reasons for the collapse of the Soviet Union, about what awaits us further. What do you think the West has become without the USSR? How did the absence of a second pole affect the West?

Alexander Dugin: USSR and the absence of the USSR can be considered at several levels. Now let's look from the point of view of ideology. During the existence of the USSR, after the Second World War, when the liberals and communists won a joint victory over the axis countries, that is, over National Socialism and fascism, a bipolar system developed in the world. In an ideological sense, this meant that now there are two world ideologies: liberalism - it is bourgeois capitalism, and, accordingly, on the other hand, communism and socialism. Two ideological models that challenged each other's right to express the very spirit of modernity. Liberal capitalists believed that they represented the last word of progress, development and enlightenment. And the disappearance of the USSR on an ideological level meant a fundamental and, possibly, decisive, irreversible victory of liberalism and bourgeois capitalism in the struggle for the legacy of modernity, the spirit of modernity. It turned out that socialism was not the phase that follows liberalism and which is a more advanced and modern phase, the current within modernity, but is a step to the side. The end of the USSR was also fundamental historical an argument for the defeat of communist ideology in the battle with the liberals for the right to represent a new time.

A world without the USSR is a world of victorious liberalism, which has become the dominant paradigm of all mankind, and only one of the two ideologies remains - the global ideology of liberalism, liberal democracy, capitalism, individualism, bourgeois society in its current state. A world without the USSR is a world of socialism who has lost, which went down in history after fascism and communism, losing a historical duel. It fundamentally changed everything, in particular, it abolished the choice of ideology. If we want the whole global world to be accepted into the mainstream, into the establishment, if we want to be seen as people who meet the standards, not marginalized, not radical, we must recognize the dogmatic foundations of liberalism: individualism, private property rights, human rights , the selectivity of all bodies, and, accordingly, the material inequality that is realized in the course of economic activity with recognized nominal starting conditions. That is, these dogmas of liberalism are now the norm, the one who denies liberalism, already does not look like a representative of another, alternative ideology, but as a marginal. That is what the world received without the USSR.

A world without the USSR is a completely different world in every sense.

Now the second question is from a geopolitical point of view. The USSR and its opposition to the West represented a balance of power model, where two hegemonies, two superpowers reorganized the rest of the space in their opposition. And the space occupied by the countries that joined them, it was also due to the positional power of the two main players. The balance of power of the USSR and the USA determined the political structure of the rest of the world, and if we digress from ideology, we will see a world consisting of two hegemonies, two poles - antagonistic, competing with each other, but which created certain conditions of world order among themselves.

The collapse of the USSR, the collapse of the socialist camp, the collapse of the entire Soviet model meant a transition from bipolarity to unipolarity. When there were two hegemonies in the world, those countries that were at the level of "non-alignment" and refused to make a clear choice in one direction or another (the United States or the USSR) received space for political maneuver, in some cases a rather large maneuver - this is evident from experience India She was at the head of the non-aligned movement. One can argue about how wide the possibilities of those who refused to stand on one side or the other were, but, nevertheless, the basic strategic architecture of the world was based on the principle of countering the two superpowers. When one of these superpowers was gone, instead of a bipolar model, we came to a unipolar one. This is fundamental, since the two poles of the bipolar model represent a system organized on the plus and minus principle and it doesn’t matter who considered the evil empire — we counted them, they counted us — this is a common story in international relations. The friend-enemy pair defines the identity of each of the participants, but when this bipolar system was broken, a completely new center-periphery system appeared, where there is only one absolute pole. This is an American superpower, a developed "civilized" west, and, as it moves away from this core, from this center, from this pole there are peripheral countries, less developed, less civilized. That is, the world without the USSR is a world built on a completely different geometry. If we talk about theories, for example, within the framework of American neorealism, then one of the founders of American neorealism Kenneth Walsh was a supporter of bipolar hegemony, and Geelston was a supporter of unipolar hegemony, it is a theory of hegemonic stability. Thus, a world without the USSR is a world created on a completely different matrix, a different world order.

Well, and the third thing that can be said: after the collapse of the USSR in 90-s, both of these points, which I mentioned, were very clearly and extremely meaningful - at the ideological level Francis Fukuyama, who declared the end of the story to be a total victory for liberalism on a global scale; and another point of view is about the beginning of a unipolar world. That is, the fact of the collapse of the USSR was comprehended in the West in the ideological and geopolitical, strategic vein. And of course, we are very poorly understood, because we have been, and to a large extent we are still in a contusion - we did not comprehend the end of the USSR, we do not have a clear idea of ​​what happened, as clear as the Americans or representatives another world. We cannot even take a rational approach to this, since this event was a shock for us, from which we, of course, have not yet recovered. And in the 90s, when the defeat of the USSR in the Cold War became apparent to the West, that is, the transition from two competing ideologies to one - now universally binding, the dominant, liberal ideology, a certain dispute arose, whether in the West, whether this is final and irrevocable , as Fukuyama believed, or this unipolar world will only be a kind of temporary world order and then be replaced by another.

We can sum up the first results of twenty years without the USSR, saying that the unipolar moment is gradually inferior to the growing multipolar moment. Thus, unipolarity is still preserved, but we already see some vague outlines of the upcoming multipolarity. And this is very important: peace with the USSR, which was understandable for the West in the 90s, is becoming more and more problematic in the new configuration of forces as America fails to cope with the task of organizing effective management of global hegemony. And at the level of ideology, very interesting processes are also going on - capitalism celebrated its triumph in the 90s and, in principle, was ready to abolish liberalism as an ideology, as it became not just an ideology, but something taken for granted.

Now the West is undergoing a fundamental internal implosion, an internal ideological explosion, since it was left without an adversary who could keep it within certain ideological frameworks, because liberalism was very convincing only when it resisted totalitarianism.

People were offered: “either freedom - or lack of freedom”, liberalism was chosen according to the principle of the opposite, the opposite - if we don’t want totalitarianism, then we want liberalism. Well, today there are almost no totalitarian regimes left, liberalism in the polemic sense has nothing more to do. In varying degrees, democratic values ​​have become established everywhere, and now people are no longer confronted with opposing liberalism to non-liberalism. He has already won - so what? Is this the best of all worlds? Did he remove the main problems? Basic fears? Has he made the world more just? Has he made our life happier? And the negative answer to this question today results not in the fact that people are moving from liberalism to communist ideology, for example, as the basic and main critical and opposing theory. Today, this dissatisfaction with liberalism is eroding it from the inside, for many, liberalism is insufficient, unconvincing, not the last word, but since there is no alternative, liberalism begins to decompose and be undermined from within.

The crisis of unipolarity and the crisis of liberalism are what is at the center of attention of Western intellectuals. But without the USSR, this is a completely different matter than in the era of bipolarity, since the crisis of both cannot be appropriated by anyone. If earlier the crisis of capitalism, in general, was replenished, appropriated to an alternative socialist system, then the crisis of unipolarity now leaves an expanding vacuum both ideological and geopolitical, which is gradually being filled in something with Islamic fundamentalism, in something multi-polar, in something critical that have not yet acquired a definitive, intelligible expression. But in fact, the victory of capitalism became a pyrrhic victory for liberalism.

Today we see that this triumph, which seemed irreversible to many in the 90s, turned out to be something completely different than what it was accepted for in the 90s. Once again, we repeat, we are still in a concussion, we must be treated as patients, we have a mentally defective society for some historical period, we will recover, but we will need time and effort. So if in the West it was an understandable phenomenon, today it is called into question.

Even having defeated its main opponent, the world Western system, in fact, has brought its end closer. And the fate of the American empire, American hegemony, and modern unipolarity, and the victorious liberalism can largely repeat the fate of the USSR. When, with all the stability, with all the appearance of control, effective management, in fact, the internal decomposition systems reached a critical point, it seemed to all of us who lived during that period that this could not happen. Despite some critical moments, the USSR to the last made an impression of a very stable, very powerful control system with a huge army, with the KGB, political social institutions, and overnight this did not become. The USSR did not just fall in the war, like Germany, which lost the terrible war and then disappeared. In order to defeat Nazism, it took the real efforts of all mankind, the planet was bleeding to death, and the allies and their enemies fought to the last. The fate of the USSR was completely different - it just disappeared, as if it wasn’t there, a bunch of party cards quietly smoldered, and the heroism of Pavka Korchagin, great construction projects, even the Great War was simply forgotten and crossed out in exchange for a rather small piece of sausage.

That is, the USSR fell because of such microscopic reasons, which actually look ridiculous now, and the people who destroyed it look pathetic and insignificant. Today, liberalism can collapse overnight just the same, and it will not be necessary to finish it, the fate of the USSR clearly repeats itself today at the level of the global system - just as the mighty Soviet Union fell, leaving us in another world, in another reality. And, despite the fact that the appearance of the victory of liberalism is preserved, as an absolute triumph, the global American empire may disappear at some point due to a seemingly insignificant reason.

Question: You have raised an interesting topic - ideological competition. Since the West simply could not defeat the Soviet Union by brute force, as it happened with Germany, since we had a nuclear weapon, and open conflict was dangerous for everyone, America had to develop its "soft power." And during the confrontation with the USSR in the West there was such a creative search for ideological approaches, the formation of the ideology necessary for opposing. Therefore, some processes inherent in him organically were banished from Western society - they were declared communist or fascist. Has the West itself been harmed by such selectiveness in development? What else destructive, paradoxically, did the West bring victory over the communist idea?

Alexander Dugin: I do not think that the Cold War somehow had a negative impact on the distortion of the liberal model. how Nietzsche said: "Sins and virtues grow in a person from the same root." A man, for example, is a brave man — and in war he is a virtue, but when he returns from war, he begins to run amok, he loves radicalism, his fearlessness, courage can lead to instability, aggressiveness, etc., in a peaceful life. Similarly, the collapse of liberalism and the internal implosion of the West are not the costs of the Cold War, they are the costs of victory in the Cold War. Because when the war was going on, liberalism had the most important argument that always saved it, when Western society was in a critical situation. They pointed at the Soviet Union and said: "But they have worse, their gulags, they do not have freedom." And thus, through an appeal to a different kind of liberalism in the era of the Cold War, it solved many internal problems and contradictions. The presence of such an enemy as the USSR was vital for the West. Therefore, I think that the Cold War spurred the West, including the development of "soft power", other technologies, social changes took place in order to compete with the social system of socialist countries. All opposition to the Soviet Union was simply salutary for Western capitalism in every sense, the existence of such a system was the basis of the guarantors of its existence. And having lost such an enemy, beginning to frantically search for another, for example, in the face of Islamic fundamentalism, the West lost the most important thing (Islamic fundamentalism is not as serious an ideology as communism, compared to the communist system of the USSR, is simply ridiculous, this phenomenon is quite serious, but not compared to the USSR).

I'm still convinced that the cause of the fundamental crisis of modern Western society is the result of the victory of the liberal ideology, the victory of the West over the East and the disappearance of the USSR. And the United States will never have such an adversary, will not have the geopolitical situation that existed in this ideological, geopolitical bipolarity - there will never be such a gift anymore. Liberalism was left alone, alone with itself, and it was here that the absence of any positive program in liberalism, as in ideology, emerged. Because freedom, as liberals understand it, is freedom “from”, freedom directed against the state, totalitarian ties, against public religious identities. When the program of liberalism is completed, it can only do one thing — dismantle itself, get rid of itself. This is happening now. Therefore, I think that the West received a blow not from the fact that it was forced to compete with us, but on the contrary - from the fact that it was freed from this.

Question: Was the absolute triumph of victory in the Cold War? Russia has historically become famous as the "graveyard of empires." And the Swedish king Carl, and Napoleon, and Hitler ended their conquests here. All the regimes mentioned are part of the warlike Western civilization. And even our defeat in the Cold War - thoroughly knocked down the enemy, the Pyrrhic victory was enough for them, apparently, not for long?

Alexander Dugin: You say this correctly, I think so too. Although it is very disappointing, but after all, as was the situation of Rostopchin, the governor of Moscow, it was a surrender to the city during the Napoleonic wars. How was the Russian people to retreat in the early years of World War II. In fact, the question is whether we really lost the Cold War or whether we lost a very serious battle, letting the enemy in the form of liberals, Echo of Moscow and other bastards go straight to the center of our Russian life. Of course, the presence of the occupiers is obvious, the occupiers, the Gauleiters, the representatives of Western society — they largely determine our culture, the information policy, the education — yes, we have surrendered Moscow. We really passed Moscow. People who represent Western hegemony - they are already here, they are at the center of our society, in the 90s they simply seized power. Today, of course, we are considering the following question: is there a chance, using the Scythian strategy, the Russian strategy, and, perhaps, the Soviet strategy, luring the enemy deep into his own territory, to provide overvoltage of forces, and then wait for the moment when he simply escapes from here ? When "Echo of Moscow" will begin to collect their stinky suitcases, to get out of here with all the listeners. Now, will we wait until the Germans run from Moscow in the end, or the army NapoleonWhether we will wait for this from the Americans and global American hegemony is an open question. I do not know whether we lost the decisive battles or the whole war. This will be decided as soon as possible, the fact that Putinas a phenomenon, as a political phenomenon - this, in general, gives hope that we have lost only the battle. But maybe, in fact, you need to go to the counterattack, take revenge. And at the same time tightening liberalism, which believed in its global domination, in its victory at the total level, perhaps, we have brought its end closer. I want to believe that this is so, but the question is still open, a lot depends on us. If today we make a choice in the direction that we are slaves of liberal hegemony - everything, then we can make this victory in the Cold War of our opponents truly accomplished.

Much depends on us and on Islamic countries, on India, on China a lot depends. Nevertheless, today it seems that, despite the bravura messages of the West regarding its successful, irreversible, absolute, and final final victory, which we heard about, it is possible that this is not the case. Already from the battlefields sound much more cautious reports, more pessimistic. They say, maybe we should gain a foothold in the positions that we have now? Leave alone the objects we have won? Perhaps, to withdraw its troops from Iraq and Afghanistan, perhaps, to leave Russia alone, at least in its territory? These voices are still heard and audible, but in fact, I believe that everything will be decided. Even those events that we are talking about - the end of the USSR - we still do not understand the meaning of this. Not because we think badly, but because this end has not really come yet. Because, if a multipolar world emerges in the place of the bipolar world, it may be even good. But if the collapse of the global liberal hegemony, the Western empire, the capitalist empire, due to the fall of the USSR, this will also be our victory. That is, in fact, it is early to put the last point in the history of the liquidation of the USSR. This is an open topic and it depends on how we ourselves, living today, will, firstly, understand what happened, secondly, analyze the present and, finally, behave in the future.

Question: And if you take not the ideological component, but military superiority? Is there a degradation of the military potential of the Western countries? Once competition with the USSR pushed for new, more technically advanced improvements in the army. Now the power of the American military is not enough even to defeat the Taliban in Afghanistan.

Alexander Dugin: I do not think that this is so, firstly, it is impossible to win the Taliban - because guerrilla war is ineradicable. When a person fights on his own territory - this is a war of nature against man, and always nature will win sooner or later. Therefore, the Taliban or any other partisan well-rooted tendencies cannot be defeated. And speaking objectively, the West does it better than the Soviet Union. I do not think that the West is fundamentally in such a helpless position today. Yes, he went on decolonization, but because economic control is cultural, informational, it is more effective than direct military suppression. This is simply a more successful form of domination, which is carried out with the help of mass media, networks, the same "Soft Power" (after all, it is not resorted to because it is more humane, but because it is more effective). Since the domination, suppression and assertion of control over others is carried out with the help of "Soft Power" with a greater degree of success, it is not a more humane weapon, but a more advanced weapon. Or, for example, control over former colonies — not by direct administration, but by keeping their influence in orbit. Dominance is increasing. The creation of the British Commonwealth, which includes former colonies, but called otherwise, British Commonwealth of Nations is a more effective way to exploit the former colonies in our new economic conditions - this is a new form of colonization. "Soft Power" is an improved "Hard Power", although the Americans don’t refuse the last. That is, I still would not say a tomb speech over the Western system ahead of time.

In order for the West to collapse, it must nevertheless be destroyed, and today there are such prerequisites. Today we see the weakness of this system, perhaps the West will find some technological moves to cope with these weaknesses, and so far until he has found someone who plays on the side opposite to hegemony, for example, Putin himself, although I even I don’t know whether this is Russia, but Putin clearly does not fully recognize hegemony, although so far neither he is ready, nor our society is ready to throw a hegemony a direct challenge, but Putin is playing against it. China plays against it, but also according to the rules, also in half tones, a number of Islamic countries play against it, especially Iranians, but even more players can play against hegemony, in particular, Latin American countries, Turkey, India, Pakistan. In general, if we try to carefully build the registry of counter-hegemonic potencies, then we can see a rather impressive arsenal of power directed against the West. But these powers, unlike Western powers, are not united. The West coordinates its efforts: the people who run Hollywood are the same people who run the Pentagon. Google and the CIA are not fundamentally different phenomena, they are different departments of the overall strategic process. And the opponents of American hegemony are scattered, coordination of counter-hegemonic potencies is what we need. Today there is no Soviet Union, it cannot be, we need to create an alternative of a completely different sense, multipolar, networked, planetary. This is closely connected with the understanding of the collapse of the USSR, because if we want alternatives to what exists, we cannot simply return to the revival of the USSR, we need to think in completely new terms. The subject of the USSR is not the subject of the past, it is the subject of the present and the future, but understanding should be raised to a qualitatively new level.

Question: That is, the restoration of the Soviet system, the emergence of a new union state on the territory of the former USSR, you consider impossible?

Alexander Dugin: On the basis of the Soviet ideology, it is impossible and simply unrealistic to recreate the USSR. There are no serious forces representing socialism in any of these countries where unification is said or planned. The Soviet experience in the past and any form of association and integration require completely new ideological, ideological, economic, geopolitical, conceptual, theoretical approaches. Therefore, the Eurasian Union cannot be a reproduction of either the Russian Empire or the Soviet Union, this is a completely new concept, and understanding it ahead. Not that Putin knows what he will do, I think that in many ways he acts intuitively, he correctly draws the vector of integration, but no one thought about the structure of this integration, the content of the Eurasian Union either in our society or in the post-Soviet space. Since the ideological changes in our world over the past 20 years are so rapid that we simply have no time, no opportunity to comprehend them. But, nevertheless, they are irreversible, they occur; therefore, it is absolutely equally unacceptable to apply the measures of the European Union or the Soviet Union to the Eurasian Union. There is a new understanding of multipolarity, American hegemony - what the Americans actually can, and what is beyond their control, for example, Russian liberalism, because this is a group of corrupt, weak-minded, hating their country Russophobes, and not liberals.

They act destructively and oppose communism, the Russian idea, but if you ask whether they are responsible for their liberal views, are they liberals complete, convinced, conscious, are they able to act in the liberal paradigm in those cases when this liberal paradigm is bring with you not only benefits, grants, trips and benevolent pats on the cheek of American supervisors, when you have to really pay for your beliefs, I think we will have the same handful of dissidents who Some people make an impression of urban madmen. As in Soviet times, there will be Novodvorskaya, Alekseeva, Ponomarev - here they are liberals, really liberals, and when liberalism is fashionable, and when liberalism is not fashionable, and when it is beaten for it, and when awards are given for it. But there are not many of them - a handful of really similar people from a psychiatric clinic. These are real liberals, and those who in Russia try to be similar to these patients are a post-Soviet conformist, unintelligible phenomenon that is united by a hatred of Russia, of our history. These people think of themselves as planters in cork helmets, drove to some Aboriginal people, but in reality they are not Barons de Coustenes, who travel around dirty unwashed Russia, but these are courtesy, lackeys, who, in the absence of a master, imagined themselves to be barinas. This is the Russian liberals, because the Americans, who rely on them, they can miscalculate, because they are not liberals, but simply a corrupt scum. The Americans will wash their tears out of their agents in Russia with bitter tears, this agency works while it is paid.

Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Dangerous
    Dangerous 28 February 2013 15: 25 New
    First of all, who is this?
    Secondly, every year more and more pride when I say that I was born in the USSR!
    1. Begemot
      Begemot 28 February 2013 16: 12 New
      I am also proud that I was born and lived in the USSR, but we must look forward, there is no turning back. I agree with the author that only the battle was lost and the whole liberal riffraff is the governors of the invaders left to rule us. It’s time to recall how 70 years ago acted with this category. In general, liberalism has gone too far, refined liberal ideas, cleared of reasonable restrictions and not correlated with objective reality, are the essence of fascism. And the localization of liberalism as an acceptable form of organization of society is very limited. Well, you won’t believe it - no one does that the Taliban will become liberals in the foreseeable future. We must stop copying other, albeit more developed countries, diluted over the past 20 years with an influx of colorful religions, gays, pedophilia, feminism and other perversions of the human nature. It’s time for us to start looking for our own path, we are a unique phenomenon, no one except us will be able to manage such a huge territory called Russia and there is no other country like that. That is why neither parliamentarism, nor controlled or market or any other democratic form is organically acclimated to us.
      1. Sandov
        Sandov 28 February 2013 21: 16 New
        Even having defeated its main adversary, the world Western system, in fact, has come nearer to its end.
        And it will be real, our children will see the death of imperialism and liberalism. But Russia does not look to the west, but to protect itself and its people from their rotten ideology.
        1. Ascetic
          Ascetic 28 February 2013 22: 13 New
          Quote: Sandov
          Even having defeated its main adversary, the world Western system, in fact, has come nearer to its end.

          The victory of the West over the USSR gave him about 10 years of prosperity, during which the mobilization resources that the Union created for the confrontation were eaten up on both sides of the Atlantic. After the collapse of the USSR economy, the West received dividends: energy and raw materials from Russia were sold at dumping prices, and the proceeds from them were exported there, to the West (the so-called “flight of capital”). The outflow of specialists from the countries of the former socialist camp, as well as access to the resources of those countries that were previously included in the zone of influence of the USSR, turned out to be beneficial for him. The result was a booming economy and well-being in the United States and Western Europe throughout the 1990s.
          By the end of the 1990s, the West had lost political control over Russia. In the 1990s, the looting of its wealth was so predatory that it was not accompanied by investments in the simple reproduction of extractive infrastructure. Therefore, the extraction of raw materials was constantly decreasing, and prices began to rise again. Since 2000, prices for raw materials and energy have increased in price several times.
          And the current crisis, which began in 2008, has depreciated, including the majority of capital exported from Russia. Thus, we can state that the West is completely eating up the results of its “epochal” victory in the Cold War.
          Today we see the obvious decline of Western civilization. There is no reason to believe that this trend could change radically.
          Full analysis with numbers here
        2. tolian
          tolian 28 February 2013 22: 55 New
          But there is no liberalism. There is a craving for profit. No more. Cover with a root word "freedom." Poussec saw freedom in the museum? Like?
      2. krisostomus
        krisostomus 1 March 2013 04: 49 New
        Why doesn’t it take root - even take root - it even proved to be quite successful in the times of the "Novgorod Republic" - there was democracy, and the market existed for more than 300 years. Yes, and the welfare of the population of Novgorod in Russia was not inferior to anyone.
        I agree that hardly anyone will be able to make liberals from the Taliban, but I also somehow do not really like to take their "special way" to tear off the noses of women. But at least it is quite possible and necessary to wean them.
        Well, to imagine democracy and liberalism only in the form of gays and lesbians is a somewhat hypertrophied view of things, since the percentage of their presence in any nation or social system is approximately the same. They were in the Russian Empire and among the nobles, monasticism and other segments of the population, were in the Soviet Union, there are today. The only question is whether these “sexual minorities” should be driven underground and pretend that there is no such problem, or admit that they have always been, are and are likely to be. It is important that their "freedom" does not infringe on yours. As for pedophiles, they are persecuted in the West no less severely than in Russia and what your idea of ​​a certain “dictatorship” of pedophiles in the West is based on is not clear
    2. crazyrom
      crazyrom 28 February 2013 19: 23 New
      Quote: Dangerous
      First of all, who is this?

      This is one of the smartest people on Earth, a patriot. It’s a shame not to know, it’s even more shameful not to look in Google who it is. I strongly advise you to watch his performances, in particular the "theory of a multipolar world" on YouTube.
      1. Slayer
        Slayer 28 February 2013 20: 07 New
        In general, if you look at the USSR from an imperial point of view, this is a historical precedent. The strongest and most tremendous drezhava was born without annexing any territory, more than half of the planet went under its cap voluntarily, did not start a single war except for Afghanistan, protected weak countries from the Western aggressor. In general, in the entire history of mankind, the USSR was the kindest empire that created world peace, it is a pity that we lost it, there wouldn’t be so much bloodshed all over the world right now (((
    3. tolian
      tolian 28 February 2013 22: 51 New
      I even sing along to Gazmanova.
    4. Bekzat
      Bekzat 1 March 2013 09: 06 New
      Greetings to all, for the Dangerous, do not say, it also takes pride when I say that I was born in the USSR !!!
  2. polly
    polly 28 February 2013 15: 31 New
    "Americans will wash away with bitter tears from their agents in Russia, this agents acts while she is paid"
    For the last rally 23.02. obviously they didn’t pay ... And there were no altruists: you can’t deceive the Russian hamster! wink laughing laughing
    1. Nevsky
      Nevsky 28 February 2013 15: 39 New
      And this in general, touches to tears !!! crying

  3. baltika-18
    baltika-18 28 February 2013 15: 34 New
    Quote: Dangerous
    First of all, who is this?

    A hater of the Soviet system with experience, rejoicing in the defeat of socialism, is shorter than Ch M O from my personal point of view.
  4. Nevsky
    Nevsky 28 February 2013 15: 35 New
    Eh ... somewhere in the parallel Universe, where other decisions and approaches were taken in 1985. a bit from Jacques Fresco and Kosygin, and the USSR in the 21st century:

  5. djon3volta
    djon3volta 28 February 2013 15: 35 New
    if you think about it, then was the USSR a matrix or the real world? I'm interested in evaluating from this point of view wassat Was Gorbachev Neo or Agent Smith? wassat are those who lived in the USSR including me, where did we live, in the matrix or in the real world?
    1. Nevsky
      Nevsky 28 February 2013 15: 37 New
      Gorbachev was the "Architect" fellow

      For Gorbachev !!!! a shame. advertises pizza!

      1. Atlon
        Atlon 28 February 2013 15: 49 New
        Quote: Nevsky
        For Gorbachev !!!! a shame. advertises pizza!

        "Thanks to him, we have pizza hut!" - everything else, no matter how important ... You know, I am also ashamed of this advertisement, but for a slightly different reason ... A young man who argues with a man is my relative ... Sibling, wife of my brother ( how is it right, brother-in-law?). When the video came out (a long time ago), we were all so proud ... And indeed, we were in favor of the young man. Well, right, because everything says! But years passed ... And it turned out that for the sake of pizza, we sold our homeland. Like this.

        NevskyThank you for reminding me.
        1. Nevsky
          Nevsky 28 February 2013 15: 56 New
          Atlon You are careful with such information. Gorbachev is far from being reached, in London ... And then “brother-in-law”, theoretically, can be ranked as the CIA information team and Gorbaty’s media support soldier
          1. Atlon
            Atlon 28 February 2013 16: 36 New
            Quote: Nevsky
            Atlon you are careful with such information

            Well, I did not begin to name, name and place of work to call. :) I can only say that this is one of the Moscow theaters ... wink
        2. Beck
          Beck 28 February 2013 17: 13 New
          And what a noise, and what a cry. It is that regret for a discarded ideology or regret for a lost significance.. I would not say that Russia now weighs less in the international arena than the USSR. The territories have somewhat decreased, but are huge, minerals have not yet been studied. But nuclear weapons, one way or another, became better than they were at the end of 1990. (for electronics). To that, the EurAsEC is being built.

          And the world has never been unipolar. As early as 90 years, China began to enter the world stage; India, Brazil, and South Africa were approaching. The world is evolving. And there will be a time when the USA will leave the axis polarity.

          But Communist ideology, is it so universal that everyone needs it? What was the unipolar world before Marx? If a communist ideology were needed it would not have been thrown out in 90. And do not say propaganda. 300 million people simply did not want it, because it was flawed at the time of its inception and brought nothing except Russia’s troubles. So you can cry and fascism. Like in vain threw the third ideological pole of the world into the dustbin of history. The Germans, well, do not regret or cry at all according to the ideology of fascism.

          Of course there are people who will have a different opinion. Then let them call the differences in the communist and fascist ideologies.
          1. Atlon
            Atlon 28 February 2013 17: 37 New
            Quote: Beck
            And what a noise, and what a cry. This is that regret for a discarded ideology or regret for a lost significance ..

            This is regret at the lost significance of idiology ... Which is not there right now. Unless, of course, the idiology of a full stomach and a golden calf is not considered.

            Quote: Beck
            Of course there are people who will have a different opinion. Then let the differences in the communist and fascist ideologies be called.

            There’s nothing to comment on. There is a brain disease ...
          2. vovan1949
            vovan1949 28 February 2013 19: 26 New
            Communist ideology has won the minds of a large number of countries. And, actually, what is wrong with communist ideology ??? Is there an ideology in the world that surpasses communism ?.
          3. Borisych
            Borisych 28 February 2013 19: 42 New
            Beck, you’re right, you need to take a sober look at the realities of life, and they are such that no one else in the world will allow big wars - a war in the world of transnational capital has ceased to be economically feasible, figuratively speaking, the “world freemason” defeated the “world knight of the empire” - the warrior is now in the service of the builder, and not vice versa.
            This is the main reality of the current world situation.
            1. vair
              vair 28 February 2013 20: 30 New
              What are you talking about? And Iraq, Libya, Syria, they are approaching Iran - this is not for the sake of economic devidents, and who these builders are not the west, led by the Ami case, do not make people laugh.
              1. Borisych
                Borisych 28 February 2013 20: 54 New
                Iraq, Libya, Syria, Iran - these are just warriors independent of TNCs, for which they paid. After all, it would never occur to anyone to bomb China, Brazil, Venezuela - they are firmly integrated into the global economic system.
                1. Sandov
                  Sandov 28 February 2013 21: 23 New
                  Oh do not jinx it. At any convenient moment, liberalists can do this. Do not flatter yourself.
            2. Sandov
              Sandov 28 February 2013 21: 21 New
              These are amers or builders. Reality is ghostly and depends on us all. Communism is a builder.
              1. Borisych
                Borisych 28 February 2013 21: 49 New
                Alas, in construction (in industrial and agricultural production, I mean), they have everything in order, you yourself know that. In Russia, alas, no. I repeat, I wrote in the comments. I have been in industry for over 20 years, I feel like guerrillas driven into the woods.
                1. Ascetic
                  Ascetic 28 February 2013 22: 18 New
                  Quote: Borisych
                  Alas, in construction (in industrial and agricultural production, I mean), they have everything in order, you yourself know that. In Russia, alas, no. I repeat, I wrote in the comments. I have been in industry for over 20 years, I feel like guerrillas driven into the woods.

                  1. Borisych
                    Borisych 28 February 2013 22: 28 New
                    Ascetic, have you been to the USA, talked with Americans, not with primitive Yankees, but with educated people? We visited the prom. enterprises paying attention to endless cultivated fields?
                    If so, compare their picture with ours, and even about the roads - I forgot!
          4. skeptic
            skeptic 28 February 2013 20: 05 New
            Quote: Beck
            If a communist ideology were needed it would not have been thrown out in 90. And do not say propaganda. 300 million people simply did not want it, because it was flawed at the time of its inception and brought nothing except Russia’s troubles.

            In order to write this, you absolutely must not imagine what the USSR and socialism itself are, but judging by the cheap, yellow articles of Western newspapers, it is tantamount to perceiving love for your beloved by porn jokes.

            Quote: Beck
            Then let them call the differences in the communist and fascist ideologies.

            Read at least Vika, for a start, before smearing shit all around, just because someone else is not able to understand.
          5. Kaa
            Kaa 28 February 2013 20: 40 New
            Quote: Beck
            I would not say that Russia now weighs less in the international arena than the USSR. ... In addition, the EurAsEC is being built .... And the world has never been unipolar

            They disappear without the USSR. "For all the flaws The USSR was indeed a great power, which created the best science in the world. And the organization of science in today's USA is an attempt to catch up with us. And the social capitalism that we see is absolutely our merit. And its present inevitable collapse is the consequences of the Soviet absence in the world. The organization of the world was built on a bipolar confrontation. And when one of the two taut beams of this building structure collapsed, the second rejoiced. And why was she glad, what is she holding onto now? . Only Brzezinski spoke more frankly. In 1994 he said: "We have a grandiose political prospect to make sure that the Russian Empire never revives." Promoting post-Soviet reintegration, Putin (or not Putin, be someone else in his place) stands in direct confrontation with the United States, that is, with the West. Once again, I refer to Brzezinski: "Russia is always a power with Ukraine, without Ukraine it is always not." So, the United States must at all costs prevent Ukraine from returning to the cultural, economic, military-political orbit of Russia ... Put “Eurasian integration” in place of “Ukraine” and you will see Clinton quoting Brzezinski. - If the United States reacts so nervously, then probably they have reason to be afraid. Let's listen to our smart enemies, they are telling the truth. We need Russia, a power, but they don’t. Russia is a state, a valuable entity, while Ukraine is not. We also have oligarchic clans, but they are forced to somehow position themselves relative to the state. There is no state there, except for a coalition of semi-criminal clans: neither geopolitically, nor ideologically, nor morally. All post-Soviet republics are ultimately such projects. Small ones - like some kind of Latvia, or big ones - like the great, unbroken Ukraine. But all these are geopolitical projects to destroy Russia, or at least to create permanent obstacles and problems for us. -
            Never and anywhere from ancient times to the present day did integration begin with the economy, including the notorious European Union. Integration begins with a military-political union. There would be no European Union if there was no roof over it - NATO. Only a military-political union can ensure a common political discipline - once, and the second - not to turn the differences of the elites, including very sharp economic contradictions, into political confrontation. . You have to understand that the European choice is for Ukraine, for Georgia, for Azerbaijan, and that’s ridiculous. Europe is closed outside and is likely to fall apart from the inside. If Russia does not show the world, first of all to those whom we want to integrate, the great integration projects against the backdrop of a general crisis, it will not solve anything. . We do not have a sufficient level of aggregate purchasing demand to ensure autonomy of development. At a minimum, we need Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Belarus, and it would be nice to pull up the Central Asian republics. It is necessary to be Navalny’s malorussky idiot in order to proclaim the slogan that Russia should become “a small cozy democratic national state”. In the process of forming a small, cozy and national Russia will destroy itself as a nation, as a state, as a historical subject, as a culture. But there can be no integration separately from the tasks of global reindustrialization of Russia. Without new industrialization, the country will perish. She will not unite anyone and will not restrain herself "-M. Leontyev
            1. Atlon
              Atlon 28 February 2013 20: 53 New
              KaaI put a plus!
          6. liter
            liter 28 February 2013 22: 44 New
            300 million people just didn’t want her. And when these 300 million were asked, what did they answer? Only this answer pedrils led by Humpbacked this 3rd article stuck where? Or is the memory short?
    2. Ruslan67
      Ruslan67 28 February 2013 15: 40 New
      Quote: djon3volta
      Was Gorbachev Neo or Agent Smith? wassat

      Was and remains just a bastard am
      1. TUMAN
        TUMAN 28 February 2013 15: 51 New
        Quote: Ruslan67
        Was and remains just a bastard

        And Medvedev put a medal on him! Looks for merit, before ..........?
      2. djon3volta
        djon3volta 28 February 2013 16: 19 New
        Quote: Ruslan67
        Was and remains just a bastard

        this is understandable. but from the point of view of the film "matrix" when we lived in the USSR, did we live in a matrix or in the real world?
        1. Ruslan67
          Ruslan67 28 February 2013 16: 25 New
          Quote: djon3volta
          but from the point of view of the film "matrix"

          From this point of view, only to a psychiatrist fool And here is a type of military-patriotic site hi
          1. djon3volta
            djon3volta 28 February 2013 16: 44 New
            Quote: Ruslan67
            From this point of view, only to a psychiatrist

            and what is so difficult to answer specifically to the question? Have you watched a movie though? am there were TWO worlds, real, real, and the matrix was. I think that the USSR was a matrix, and with the destruction of the USSR we got into the real world! here is my vision from the point of view of this film. I can not compare it with another film, which what exactly the “matrix” fits under it all. bully
            1. Alexander Romanov
              Alexander Romanov 28 February 2013 16: 49 New
              Quote: djon3volta
              did you watch a movie though?

              No John, you can’t fix it! Give your comments to your friends to read, listen to their opinion, they can tell you what
            2. Ruslan67
              Ruslan67 28 February 2013 16: 55 New
              Quote: djon3volta
              and what is so difficult to answer specifically to the question?

              You can’t give an answer to such a question without being stoned to green snot fool And I absolutely do not take any drugs negative
              1. djon3volta
                djon3volta 28 February 2013 17: 13 New
                Ruslan67, thinking, here I am already an alcoholic, and a drug addict, and a patient, and an Edrosovist and a Nashi, who they just didn’t call ...
                By the way, I don’t drink, I don’t drink, I don’t stand in edra and I’m not a Nashi, but some people call me that. laughing you have a nice man, a fantasy is simply not developed, and it seems to you that I’m writing nonsense. It’s like they burned the pilgrim at the stake for saying that the earth revolves around the sun, and not vice versa.
                1. Ruslan67
                  Ruslan67 28 February 2013 17: 19 New
                  It would be better if you drank and drank edra then everything would be clear And it becomes scary to go out - people with such imagination calmly move around and are not registered anywhere belay Nightmare! wassat
                2. Black
                  Black 28 February 2013 17: 41 New
                  Copernicus was burned “a little” for otherwise.
                  In the "matrix", about it, no!
        2. Atlon
          Atlon 28 February 2013 16: 37 New
          Quote: djon3volta
          when we lived in the USSR, did we live in a matrix or in the real world?

          You are in the matrix, and we are in the real world.
          1. djon3volta
            djon3volta 28 February 2013 16: 47 New
            Quote: Atlon
            You are in the matrix, and we are in the real world.

            those who were born after 1991 live in the real world, they did not live in the USSR, they have only one world, this is reality, they have nothing to compare, and you and I were also born in the USSR and lived in a conscious age, and we have something compare.
            1. Cpa
              Cpa 28 February 2013 19: 54 New
              John, I know who the Gorbachev prototype is in the matrix, Cypher, who killed the crew of Nebuchadnezzar for a steak and a glass of wine, because instead of betrayal they were promised a more colorful illusion. hi
              Interesting question! Checked out! good
  6. 123dv
    123dv 28 February 2013 15: 40 New
    This year is decisive.
    If war does not break out in the coming months, it will already be delayed until the mid-twenties. Because completely different problems will come up on the agenda.
    The period of external wars is replaced by a period of internal changes ....
    1. Egoza
      Egoza 28 February 2013 16: 26 New
      Quote: 123dv
      The period of external wars is replaced by a period of internal changes ...

      And not only in the Russian Federation!
      They want to make the Lugansk region "free from" Freedom ""
      Anti-fascist fronts should be created throughout Ukraine. This was during a regular session of the Lugansk regional council, the deputies said, the polemic correspondent reports.
      The deputies decided to support the statement of the factions of the Party of Regions and the Communist Party of Ukraine in the Verkhovna Rada on the creation of the Anti-Fascist Front and proposed to make this organization pan-Ukrainian for its support at all levels of government. (read more)
      In Sevastopol, an action was held for the independence of the Crimea
      In Sevastopol, near the building of the Administrative Court of Appeal, activists of the People’s Front “Sevastopol-Crimea-Russia” held a picket “Crimea in exchange for gas” in support of the Constitution of the Republic of Crimea from May 6 to 1992, which provided independence to the peninsula, but was canceled by official Kiev. The protesters came with portraits of the first Crimean president Yuri Meshkov and posters with the inscriptions: “NO annexation of Crimea”, “The Rook’s Constitution into the toilet of history”, “We don’t love Ukraine”, “If you want gas, return Crimea to Russia!” . One of the organizers of the action, Valery Podyachyy, addressed the audience with a “Kozak plan” to resolve the gas dispute between the Russian Federation and Ukraine.
      The activist proposed to use the issue of the political and legal status of Crimea “as a“ bargaining chip ”to lift Gazprom’s penalties against Ukraine in the amount of 7 billion dollars.
      "The protesters constantly chanted the slogan" Sevastopol-Crimea-Russia! ", Which appeared at the beginning of the 90 of the last century and still symbolizes the struggle of the Crimeans for their national liberation," Podyachyi said.
      The court should have examined the appeal of Podyachy in his suit about the abolition of the Ukrainian constitution of Crimea of ​​the 1998 model of the year. The reason for the lawsuit was the official response of the Supreme Council of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, which said that "the decision to repeal the Constitution of the Republic of Crimea from May 6 to 1992 of the year was not adopted by the Supreme Council of Crimea."
      “Given that any Constitution can and should be adopted and repealed only by the highest representative body of power of the territorial entity in which its action is envisaged, it is necessary to agree that the Constitution of the Republic of Crimea of ​​May 6 of 1992 acts de jure in Crimea. This may serve as the basis for reaching a compromise in the gas dispute between Ukraine and the Russian Federation, a kind of “Kozak’s plan” to break the deadlock, ”Podyachyi said.
      However, the court session did not take place.
      “The formal reason for his transfer to April 3 is the trip of one of the judges, but in fact the Sevastopol court announced a pause as directed from above. Official Kiev is considering any options to overcome the contradictions with Russia related to the implementation of the gas contract. Therefore, the Kiev authorities took a timeout, including to ponder the issue of changing the status of the peninsula as one of the factors for resolving the gas dispute between the Russian Federation and Ukraine, ”said Valery Podyachy.
      1. 123dv
        123dv 28 February 2013 16: 43 New
        Count it, about eight days ago I had a dream about what I was like at the Navy festival in Sevastopol. And so everything is decorous and cool, the monuments are renovated, well-groomed, people are happy, but I think, well, finally, they are restoring the fleet ......
        And then bam! Police, batons, dispersal of people, a complete pogrom .....
        1. Alexander Romanov
          Alexander Romanov 28 February 2013 16: 46 New
          Quote: 123dv
          And then bam! Police, batons, dispersal of people, a complete pogrom ....

          I used to drink when I later had nightmares too laughing
      2. djon3volta
        djon3volta 28 February 2013 17: 22 New
        Quote: Egoza

        yes it’s not a rally, but a riot for the Crimeans! create an organization, a group of conspirators, come up with a plan to capture strategic buildings, television, a port, an administration, and put forward an ultimatum. also collect signatures for joining Russia and send it to Putin! if people don’t want to be in part of Ukraine, but if they want to become part of Russia, then they need to be given such an opportunity! Why doesn’t Yanukovych want to pay for gas? He wants to receive gas, but he doesn’t want to pay? Is that so? am
        1. Egoza
          Egoza 28 February 2013 17: 52 New
          Quote: djon3volta
          wants to pay for gas? wants to receive gas, but doesn’t want to pay? how is it like that?

          So he hoped that "the West will help us!" I was very disappointed that the European energy organization, of which we are also a member, did not defend the interests of Ukraine. Now he’s hoping for an association - maybe the EU will put pressure on Putin. In general, we are already buying gas in Europe ... where is Russia selling it! And what are you clinging to? Pay-pay ... The Olympic Games can be held in Ukraine, all sorts of championships ... here his eyes are on fire! Well this is how much more dough can be cut! But when the question of pensions is asked (or other uncomfortable questions), then he sighs heavily and says: "This is a difficult question!" crying
        2. politruk419
          politruk419 1 March 2013 04: 04 New
          One intelligible political statement is enough ..... no, three intelligible political statements about the Kremlin’s readiness to take Crimea as part of the Russian Federation voiced by ORT and VGTRK in the evening news and the next day Crimea will be in autonomous navigation. And the day after tomorrow - in the Russian Federation. And after the day after tomorrow there will be: Odessa, Kharkov, Nikolaev, Kherson, Donetsk, Lugansk, Cherkasy.
          And VGN "Ukraine" will be in the ass.
          Applicants: Putin, Shoigu, Lavrov. Comments on the statements Zhirinovsky. lol
  7. pa_nik
    pa_nik 28 February 2013 15: 46 New
    Alexander Gelievich Dugin (January 7, 1962, Moscow) - Russian public figure, philosopher, political scientist, sociologist. His political activities are aimed at creating a Eurasian superpower through the integration of Russia with the former Soviet republics into the new Eurasian Union (EAC).

    In 1979 he entered the Moscow Aviation Institute (MAI), but was expelled from second year for poor progress [3] (subsequently, while defending his dissertation, he submitted a diploma to the Academic Council of the RSU to graduate from the correspondence department of the Novocherkassk Engineering and Land Reclamation Institute). In 1980, together with Heydar Jemal, he joined the Black Order circle, which created and headed (as the “Reichsfuhrer”) mystic, one of the first Russian “new right-wingers” Evgeny Golovin; he considers himself a student of Golovin. (Golovin’s circle consisted of former members of the Yuzhinsky circle of the writer Yuri Mamleev, but, contrary to the allegations, Dugin didn’t visit Mamleev himself, who emigrated in 1974).
    Together with Heydar Dzhemal, Dugin joined Dmitry Vasiliev’s National Patriotic Front “Pamyat” in 1988, but was then expelled from this organization, according to the official wording, for “having contact and contact with representatives of emigre dissident circles of the occultist-satanic persuasion, in particular, with a certain writer Mamleev ”[13] [14].
    In the period from 1990 to 1992, he worked with the KGB declassified archives, based on the materials of which he prepared a number of newspaper and magazine articles, books and a television program “Secrets of the Century”, broadcast on Channel One.
    From 1988 to 1991 - the chief editor of the publishing center "EON".
    Since 1990 - the editor-in-chief of the almanac “Cute Angel”.
    Since 1991 - chief editor of the journal "Elements", chairman of the Historical and Religious Association "Arktogey".
    From 1993 to 1995 - columnist of the newspaper "New Look" [15] [16]
    From 1993 to April 1998, he was an ideologist and one of the leaders of the NBP. According to Eduard Limonov, he left the NBP because he accused four national Bolsheviks of stealing 248 rubles from him [17]. According to Dugin himself, the gap was due to ideological disagreements, in particular due to the lack of a clearly expressed political position in Limonov [18].
    From 1996 to 1997, he was the author and presenter of the radio program “FINIS MUNDI” (Radio 101-FM).
    From 1997 to 1999 - author and presenter of the program "Geopolitical Review" (radio "Free Russia").
    Since 1998 - Advisor to the Chairman of the State Duma Gennady Seleznev.
    Since 1999 - Chairman of the “Center for Geopolitical Expertise” section of the Expert Advisory Council on National Security Issues under the Chairman of the State Duma.
    In 2000, he taught the Philosophy of Politics course at the International Independent Ecological and Political University.
    Since 2001 - Chairman of the Political Council (leader) of the All-Russian Socio-Political Movement “Eurasia”.
    From 2002 to November 2003 - Chairman of the Political Council of the Eurasia Party.
    Since November 2003 - the leader of the International Eurasian Movement.
    Since March 2008, he has been an unofficial ideologist of the United Russia party, according to information on the official MED website [19].
    Since September 2008 - Professor at MV Lomonosov Moscow State University, Director of the Center for Conservative Studies at the Faculty of Sociology of Moscow State University.
    Since September 2009 - and. about. Head of the Department of Sociology of International Relations, Moscow State University M.V. Lomonosov [20].
    Since March 2012 - Member of the Expert Advisory Council under the Chairman of the State Duma of Russia S. E. Naryshkin.
    According to a survey conducted by the Openspace website, in which more than 40 thousand votes were cast, Dugin took 36th place among the most influential intellectuals in Russia.
    1. воронов
      воронов 28 February 2013 16: 26 New
      It’s clear that an opportunist
  8. kush62
    kush62 28 February 2013 16: 03 New
    Quote: According to a survey conducted by the Openspace website, in which more than 40 thousand votes were cast, Dugin took 36th place among the most influential intellectuals in Russia.

    Quote: even the Great War was simply forgotten and crossed out in exchange for a fairly small piece of sausage.

    According to surveys of all my friends, no one knows and does not want to know him. Maybe he sold for a sausage.
  9. apro
    apro 28 February 2013 16: 03 New
    For the first time in the USSR, for a ship that does not have a goal, all the winds coming against it, the union lost its goal to move forward and unite under its own leadership and gradually began to turn into an average European consumer society with a lack of national and state thinking. Secondly, all these statements about balancing and opposing systems I don’t like it if the system is stable and always in progress, then counteraction only slows down its development, tearing resources away from the confrontation. and good and if the West is falling apart without an opponent that's their system is unsustainable and its victory in the USSR is not logical accident.
    1. Nevsky
      Nevsky 28 February 2013 16: 05 New
      apro The case said good Landmarks were lost by the end of the 70s. (it's still modest)
      1. apro
        apro 28 February 2013 16: 21 New
        Unfortunately, Nevsky’s goals were lost with the death of IVS Stalin, one of his dictum makes me wonder, “death is without theory”
  10. SPACE
    SPACE 28 February 2013 16: 04 New
    Once upon a time there were the USA and the USSR, two powerful pitching, the tug of war rivaled each other, and the USSR took and let go of its end, now we are seeing the result, as the USA went into the distance, with both ends ... and what will all this lead to? That is the question. Everyone scolds Gorbachev, but who knows, and maybe the time will come and we will thank him again ... that we jumped from this engine, in 91 it was our spring, we were ill, but someone has yet to ...
    1. Nevsky
      Nevsky 28 February 2013 16: 10 New

      I never!!! One could compete for the country, both economically and ideologically.

      + personal tragedy. Even here, when I write a comment about Russia, everyone looks at my flag with suspicion ... :( But I'm Russian.
      1. Egoza
        Egoza 28 February 2013 16: 29 New
        Quote: Nevsky
        Even here, when I write a comment about Russia, everyone looks at my flag with suspicion ... :( But I'm Russian.

        It must have seemed to you after some holiday! drinks And in general, there are a lot of US SOVIETS! fellow
      2. SPACE
        SPACE 28 February 2013 21: 59 New
        “he who does not regret the collapse of the USSR does not have a heart, and he who wants to return back has no reason,” we don’t have it, we lost it, weeping. Only after the fight it’s too late to wave our fists, in general we move further and higher.
    2. djon3volta
      djon3volta 28 February 2013 16: 17 New
      Quote: SPACE
      Everyone scolds Gorbachev, but who knows, and maybe the time will come and we will still thank him.

      Do you want to say he was a double agent? wassat in order to create something, you must first destroy ... what
      1. saruman
        saruman 28 February 2013 19: 01 New
        Quote: djon3volta

        Quote: COSMOS Everyone criticizes Gorbachev, but who knows, maybe the time will come and we will thank him again. Do you want to say he was a double agent? in order to create something, you must first destroy ...

        Yeah .... Probably, Gorbach read a lot of American science fiction (A. Azimova "Foundation").
      2. SPACE
        SPACE 28 February 2013 22: 18 New
        Quote: djon3volta
        Do you want to say he was a double agent?

        no was not, just weak.
        Quote: djon3volta
        in order to create something, you must first destroy

        and when was it different?
  11. dmnatbor
    dmnatbor 28 February 2013 16: 05 New
    Yes, a muddy subject.
    When the Soviet Union was okhali him.
    And now, when it became obvious to the blind what was happening, they saw the light. And let's sprinkle articles.
  12. Renat
    Renat 28 February 2013 16: 09 New
    With the collapse of the Union, of course, the hyenas went too far. To dump such a lion. Thanks to your jackals, helped the hyenas. Under the USSR, the world would have been much calmer and less explosive. Or maybe the lion is still alive? just injured badly.
  13. dmnatbor
    dmnatbor 28 February 2013 16: 13 New
    Muddy subject.
    "contacted ... with representatives of emigre dissident circles of the occultist-satanic persuasion ...".
    It was the USSR who was harassed by its dissidents of the occultist-satanic persuasion.
    And now, when it became clear to the blind man what was what, let's sprinkle the "right" articles.
  14. pippo
    pippo 28 February 2013 16: 56 New
    Boring and sad at heart without the USSR!
  15. Rainman69
    Rainman69 28 February 2013 16: 59 New
    very competent article !! Dugin sorted everything out on the shelves, I agree with everything !!
  16. homosum20
    homosum20 28 February 2013 17: 11 New
    Comrade is in a hurry. As if he really wants to use the toilet. Mark Twain once put it this way: "The rumors of my death are greatly exaggerated." Does a man end with death, if his children live, ideas? No. He lives in them. The USSR lives in us. There is such a saying: "The war does not end until the last soldier who fought on it died."
    The USSR did not end and did not die while those who grew up in the USSR who consider its ideology to be the only correct one are alive. And there are many. I am one of them. As time has shown, the bureaucratic class is the property not only of the USSR. Elites and oligarchs do not die with the ranks. What then is socialism worse than liberalism. Everything else is a plus.
    The current is, in my opinion, Alexander Gelevich somewhere in a hurry.
    1. baltika-18
      baltika-18 28 February 2013 17: 24 New
      Quote: homosum20
      The USSR did not end and did not die while those who grew up in the USSR who consider its ideology to be the only correct one are alive.

      I support you. The future is based on a system based on the values ​​of the USSR.
  17. Roomata
    Roomata 28 February 2013 17: 12 New
    Eeeh, what have you done with your patchwork head
  18. Black
    Black 28 February 2013 17: 51 New
    In my opinion, that the West has become shitty only worries us! "How are they poor, without opposition ???? And they decompose, and now they have nowhere to go, the unipolar world tears them to pieces, and blah blah blah.
    IMHO what was the average Westerner afraid of
    - the Soviets will come, and they will drive everyone to Siberia
    - nuclear baton

    No USSR, West defeated, Western man in the street
    _ stopped being afraid of the Russian bear

    Otherwise, little has changed there, people (normal) work a lot, they have a lot of problems (and there have always been) and do not worry about the problem of their “decay”.
  19. optimist
    optimist 28 February 2013 18: 29 New
    Unfortunately, dear forum users, the author partially wishes out as wishful thinking. I’ll make a reservation right away: I was born and raised in the USSR, I love and am proud of this country, and I hate capitalism and everything connected with it. But let's face it: 22 years ago we were just bought as at one time the Papuans for glass "beads". Everyone wanted to drive imported cars, wear imported clothes, and eat 200 varieties of sausages. Now part of us has it all. But it does not have a free and strong country. Socialism "pulled" the person up, tried to make a person out of cattle. Capitalism does the opposite. And he wins, because rolling down a mountain is always easier and easier than climbing it. The stomach always defeats the brain. This is sad, but it is. And the more frequent cries of the experts on the imminent collapse of capitalism and the United States cause only laughter. Do you really think that those people, by the will of which almost everything has been happening in this world for at least the last 300 years, will just leave the "scene"? Rather, we all leave than they are. I do not propose to give up or hang myself: I suggest just a sober assessment of the situation. We are on the eve of a global conflict: as in 1914, and in 1939, when the Ango-Saxons "set the counter on hold" and, at the expense of millions of dead, "earned" huge funds and subjugated almost the entire planet. And in 1991 they made us dance to our tune. And instead of taking seats in the “auditorium” for the play “The Collapse of Capitalism”. you must first understand what happened. Least...
    1. albert
      albert 1 March 2013 02: 07 New
      I don’t know what about the collapse of capitalism, but the collapse of Americanism would surely have been rejoiced by many.
  20. darkman70
    darkman70 28 February 2013 18: 36 New
    Dugin is always interesting to read, although not everything can be agreed.
    But I really liked this:
    These people think of themselves as planters in cork helmets, who have come to some aborigines, but in reality they are not “Barons de Cousteins” who travel through dirty unwashed Russia, but this is a yard, lackeys who, in the absence of a lord, imagine themselves lords. This is the Russian liberals, because the Americans who rely on them, they can miscalculate, because they are not liberals, but simply a corrupt bastard. Americans will wash themselves with bitter tears even from their agents in Russia, this agent acts while it is paid.
  21. skeptic
    skeptic 28 February 2013 18: 38 New
    the fact of the collapse of the USSR was interpreted in the West in an ideological, geopolitical and strategic manner. And of course, it was very poorly comprehended by us, because we were, and to a large extent still are in concussion - we did not comprehend the end of the USSR, we do not have a clear idea of ​​what happened, as clear as that of the Americans or representatives another world. We cannot even take this rationally, because this event was a shock for us, of which we, of course, have not yet recovered.

    We cannot perceive the death of the USSR, how difficult it is to perceive the sudden death of a completely healthy person, villainously poisoned by an envious neighbor.
  22. rocketman
    rocketman 28 February 2013 19: 25 New
    I honestly read the article .... Х_Р-Н_Я full. I won’t even bother reading comments ... Today is 80 years of the naval service of the Red Army (at least in Ukraine). We have always been, are, and will be one people and one country ...
  23. Sinbad
    Sinbad 28 February 2013 19: 26 New
    I read, did not set neither + nor -. Everything is correct, written, everything is accurate, but there is nothing interesting, new, so, blah ... blah ... blah. Not interested.
  24. QWERTY
    QWERTY 28 February 2013 20: 58 New
    I liked the article. And I came up with such a creative idea that it is necessary to use the possibilities of democracy more widely in the fight against the clique of liberals, and indeed to solve a wide range of issues. Well, for example, about winter time.
    General elections happen from time to time, so why not put a referendum leaflet on the ballot papers, for example, on the issue of deprivation of citizenship with a list of persons, as in the notorious ballots, with places for ticks.
    I am particularly annoyed by Novodvorskaya and Borova, who traveled to Latvia to campaign before the referendum there on the recognition of the Russian language as the state language. Persons campaigning against the state language of their country cannot be citizens of this country.
    I do not propose that the future deprived should somehow spread rot. Only a ban on political activity.
    And everything should be in order with legitimacy - for the people are the source of power, and there shouldn’t be indignant references from liberals to the so-called “basman justice”.
  25. Beard
    Beard 28 February 2013 22: 03 New
    Tryndet not tossing bags. In short abstruse tryndezh about anything.
  26. Bigriver
    Bigriver 1 March 2013 07: 22 New
    Whether Dugin is good or bad, those need to be judged who "debunk" his Eurasian vector of the Russian movement and proposes, justifies something alternative.
    Essentially, the local critics did not say anything "counter."
  27. Nick Nick
    Nick Nick 1 March 2013 21: 44 New
    The topic is correct, but there is no presentation, it is necessary to register the courses of eloquence and speech therapy to this comrade no