The Summit of the Organization of Turkic States as a Marker of Our Conceptual Mistakes

53
The Summit of the Organization of Turkic States as a Marker of Our Conceptual Mistakes

The US elections have overshadowed another notable event: the 6th Summit of the Organization of Turkic States (OTG) was held in Bishkek on November 11. “Strengthening the Turkic World: Economic Integration, Sustainable Development, Digital Future, and Security for All.”

Irritant factor


The ATG is a traditional irritant for Russian expertise. The organization and work within its framework is an unconditional and direct competitor to domestic ideas of "Eurasian integration". And it is precisely the pronounced competitive nature that forces us to compare and evaluate how this integration is developing, how great our successes and achievements are in this geopolitical field.



If we avoid polar judgments, the most appropriate word here would be "ambiguity". It seems that investments in Central Asia are expressed in a decent figure of already under 50 billion dollars, and the economies of Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan directly depend on transfers along the migration line from Russia, and the lion's share of oil from Kazakhstan is delivered through our territory, but there is no feeling even within the framework of the EAEU of something unified, let alone "union".

Schools are being built (and not for three kopecks), places are being allocated in our universities, their branches are being opened in the region. This has been done for several years, accelerating since 2022, but even here, to use a peculiar pun, “nothing tangible is felt.”

Just as textbooks wrote about Russia as a colonial monster (and teach), so they write - that with our money, that with American, that with Turkish, that with their own. Somewhere it is expressed more "terminally", somewhere less. The fact, however, remains a fact: domestic policy in the style of "whatever you want" does not work for the elites of this region, and the practice of almost forced "friendship" within Russia itself has long been perceived by those same people as ideological nonsense.

Comparison with the United Territorial Community and work within this organization begins to highlight all these corners and snags. This frankly irritates our ideologists, and this irritation is visible to the naked eye.

However, for the sake of objectivity, it must be said that not only Russian, but also American, European and even Chinese integration strategies fall under similar lamps, they are simply far from us. In this regard, the UTG and its events provide good food for analysis, but the analysis of documents and events gives little if we do not turn to the analysis of conceptual problems, mistakes and solutions. First of all, ours and Turkey's.

General conceptual problem


The organization of Turkic states under the patronage of Turkey is often considered, although an irritant, a potentially weak format, since its support is considered to be the Turkish economy, and it is indeed not in the easiest position.

In reality, the Turkish economy is not as hopeless as it is usually described. In order not to return to the past, these nuances can be seen in previous materials: Some features of the Turkish economic model or why it is too early to bury the Turkish lira и Strengthening the Turkish economy, synergy of financiers and the Middle East crisis.

However, the search for the basis of the amalgamated territorial communities only in the Turkish economic model and its state can lead down the wrong path and give a distorted perception.

The UTG undoubtedly works for Turkish exports, but if Turkey were to broadcast to Central Asia only its model and its political vision purely through it, then it would not even be possible to talk about the UTG as a serious factor. That is why Ankara has been trying for years to find ideological keys to the region and work in the field of meanings. And in this field, strangely enough, we have a lot in common with Turkey.

The meanings that the Turkish media is trying to convey to the region have long been similar in many ways to ours - a kind of eclectic reflection on the “good old days”, correct, or rather, “orthodox” conservatism.

Our Achilles heel is that we do not understand how to adequately fit into the current presentation of Russian conservatism history The USSR with its ideas of a “new social community”.

Similarly, in Turkey they did not really understand how to combine “Ottomanism” with “Kemalism” – a secular technological society with an eye on post-industry and a “holy and pious Porte” with righteous sultans and other similar gilded paraphernalia.

In the finale, the USSR was supposed to literally select a new person from the “World of Noon” by A. and B. Strugatsky, Kemalism was supposed to make Turkey a society of secular progressive technologists and engineers.

Archaic, both beautiful and sublime, both in our chronicle tale with its: "formidable princes, honorable boyars, many nobles", and in the form of frank medieval "chthonicity", is alien to both the Kemalists and the Soviet "new community". In both places it was later used in a limited and purely optional manner.

The USSR did not go to Central Asia as an "empire", although this is how a significant part of regional textbooks try to reflect this period. This is convenient for anti-Russian propaganda, but in essence it is fundamentally wrong. The USSR went with the project of a new man, who was supposed to unfasten the weights of archaism and "chthonicity" from people's feet.

However, Turkey at the beginning of the 20th century did not go to this region with the ideas of "faithful and pious sultans". The Turks went with projects of bourgeois revolution with Islamic flavor, and it is no coincidence that their main fellow travelers were the local "Jadids" - the bearers of the ideology of Islamic modernism authored by I. Gasprinsky. The Young Turks and Jadids at that time were almost ideally suited to each other.

Jadidism embraced all of Central Asia, and it was helped in this by the fact that, together with the rooting of the Russian Empire, a significant, by local standards, wealthy bourgeois class began to form there. Later, Islamic civil-political parties were formed on the basis of the movement. Some of them openly gravitated towards the "Turkish world", but others would later join the Bolsheviks.

Later, the Turks and the British would support the Basmachi movement, involving pro-Turkish Jadids in it. But it is fundamentally impossible not to note that both the USSR and the Young Turks with the Kemalists went to Central Asia-Turkestan as bearers of progressive ideas. Yes, this was inevitable, given the arrival of industrialization in the region and its connection with the large markets of the Russian Empire, Turkey, Europe, and then Soviet construction projects. After all, the structure of society itself was changing.

Kemalism for R. Erdogan's ideologists is what is commonly called a "problem" in the United States. Neo-Ottomanists, of course, do not dare, like our monarchists, to call Ataturk something like a "red demon", a German intelligence agent sent in a train car, etc. But Kemalism is alien to them - a kind of intermediate branch at one of the stages of Turkish history.

In general, everything is sad with the legacy of the USSR in propaganda and ideas “from above”. We inherited Victory Day from the USSR in the information field, that cannot be taken away. However, to admit that the root and ideological content of the “damned Soviet Union” was not some abstract communism, but a new man of the “Noon World”, a progressor who carries civilization all the way into Space (not only as part of space), was a heavy burden for our modern conservatives.

The quintessence of communism is Anton-Rumata Estorsky, Lev Abalkin and Toivo Glumov, beetles in an anthill and Monday, which in that world begins on Saturday. This is already post-industry and postmodernism - a person free from the prejudices and vices of both industry and modernism. It is somehow inconvenient to even talk about archaism here. Could the USSR pull off such a project - this is a rhetorical question, although, most likely, it could not, but the scale of the idea and the ambition cannot fail to impress.

"The Soviet Union" cannot be the bearer of such ideas for a true conservative today - there, in the totalitarian prison, everything good was forced upon them, like "Stalin lost the war, the people won it themselves," and so on. However, the comparison between "The World of Noon" and the modern version of Russian conservatism is striking, it is deafening. And therefore, conservatives must somehow level out the comparison.

This is how Rumata was portrayed in the film "It's Hard to Be a God", filmed in our free and creative time? There Rumata is not a communist-progressor, but simply another organic part of the medieval chthonic. He is not a progressor, in the film he is the same "dung beetle", like all the inhabitants of the "glorious" city of Arkanar.

No one admits it, neither the Turks nor we, but our conservatism, like Turkish Ottomanism, is essentially an ideological Arkanar, just draped. But maybe in Central Asia itself they want not the "World of Noon", but the world of the "traditional" Arkanar? No, they don't.

Nobody here thinks that Central Asia needs modernism


We imagine Central Asia mostly through the process of "cultural enrichment" with the flow of migration. And here, in fact, Arkanar would be a rather soft image for comparison. This flow seems endless, and the more full-flowing it is, the stronger the corresponding opinion becomes.

However, let us rise as high as possible and look from above at the internal processes there. In Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan, constitutional reforms have been carried out in several stages. The reader will ask what to expect from the countries of "bays and khans". But you won't tell us.

As an example, we can cite the material New constitution in Uzbekistan. Social contract in exchange for investment. Everything is laid out in detail there, but even from the title you can already understand the essence - a new social contract with the development of civil society institutions and growth of investment attractiveness. It is especially recommended to read and compare with our provisions on subsoil and natural resources, teacher's work, dozens of new social guarantees. It is clear that such things are not decided at once, but this is a "trend".

Where did this trend come from? Well, from a completely rational understanding by the region of its backwardness and the need to catch up with developed countries. Conservative values ​​are all right there, even in excess, but there are no technologies, no production facilities, the engineering base has disappeared, it is necessary to catch up with personnel and attract investors.

No Arkanar with its archaic Central Asian is needed today, even for free - they need a technological breakthrough, and they are trying to rely on China, then on the EU, then on Turkey. But it seems that Turkey is, like us, a "great conservative power", neo-Ottomanists.

The point is that, having understood if not the futility, then the very weak effect of pumping up conservative narratives, Ankara offered (and offers) a rather specific function for Central Asia - a springboard to the technological West.

Turkey, with one hand, demonstrates its achievements in technology in every possible way, offers education at universities, opens branches, but with the other hand, it shows where and how it got these technologies and competencies. We are Ankara, this is the gate to the West, work with us, and we will lead you to investors and new competencies.

Yes, Turkey does not forget Ottomanism and periodically makes quite strong media products, like the famous series "The Magnificent Century". There, Ottomanism is not Arkanar from the Russian "Hard to be a God", not the sheds from our high-budget film "Viking", where the princes and their centurions are similar in appearance and behavior like twins.

"The Magnificent Century" is beautiful, it is quality propaganda. It is uncomfortable to associate oneself with the characters of our "Viking", and the costumes from "The Magnificent Century" have made a trend in regional fashion. Turkish television is also actively watched in Central Asia.

But in general, the main thing that is needed from Turkey is a springboard and a gateway to the West. Not because they have a positive attitude towards various LGBT people (prohibited in the Russian Federation), but because they need to climb the ladder of technological progress, and as quickly as possible.

It seems paradoxical that in Russia there are as many as 12-14 million migrants from Central Asia, according to various estimates, while in Turkey with its “Turkic world”... from there the maximum is 80 thousand (if you look at official reports).

It is clear that Turkey has low salaries, many people have settled from Syria, and there are some illegal workers, but the ratio is still impressive. And it is all very simple - Ankara takes the intellectual layer, which, having studied, either returns as a guide for "Turan", or goes as a springboard further to the West, remaining again a guide for Turkey.

Moreover, it was Turkey that helped Germany and the UK offer large labor quotas to Central Asian countries. 50 workers in Germany are a future Turkish asset in the EU. Turkey itself cannot offer jobs to all of them, but the degree of influence of mediation in employment in the West is difficult to overestimate.

What we promote


And what about our "great conservative power"? We get exactly what we bring to the region. We put "conservatism and traditionalism" on one scale - here we have 12-14 million real uncompromising traditionalists and conservatives on the other scale. We give them to Russia with joy, they say in Central Asia, because they also bring in income.

We are persistent in our struggle - we will increase quotas for education in our universities and open our branches, build schools, because this is soft power.

So we taught programming and mathematics, but where will this learned man from Central Asia get those same competencies? Do we have “startups” in the IT sphere, high-tech clusters, top projects for the world market?

Hydrocarbon processing is good, but others have it too, peaceful nuclear energy is rare and expensive, a specific area. And it turns out that trained and budget-paid specialists from the "soft power" are quite logically heading back to Turkey or through Turkey to the West. Just as graduates of our schools will later make a similar journey, although, most likely, even without visiting Russia.

Russia needs "conservative builders"? Well, that's exactly what we get. Arkanarians to Arkanar, engineers and programmers to their "startups".

Speaking about a single "Turan" or "Turkic world", the Turks themselves for some reason do not conduct a policy in the style of "whatever you want" in Central Asia. They do not need to butter up the region for the sake of geopolitical schemes simply because there is nothing more important for Central Asia than a technological springboard and investments. Ankara does not need to make significant concessions because they have the main key in the bunch. That is why they wrote off "as much as" $60 million in debt to their partners with such pomp, as if it were tens of billions.

In Central Asia they understand perfectly well that Russia with its energy projects, alas, but the further, the more similar to an aged maiden of marriageable age: "call me in the night - I will come". However, in the most relevant part of energy today - "green", how much and what are we ready to offer? Either the top sphere of electric cars, or... there is too much or.

At the same time, no matter what you do, not a single systemic project has been brought to its logical conclusion. If Uzbekistan, in its relations with us, without entering the EAEU, feels completely free, as if it were in the EAEU, then where is the essence of such a union?

If we are not only a conservative but also an energy "superpower", then why don't we manage the Eurasian energy circuit? There are not even a cartload of such questions there - a trainload.

But the main gap here is still conceptual, semantic. The author has repeatedly emphasized that it is not enough to simply analyze events or adopted documents; they must always be passed through a conceptual filter. If there is an error at this level, then everything that follows will sooner or later fall apart.

The cunning neo-Ottomans figured out in time that Turkish conservatism is just a shell for Central Asia, which can be painted in the colors of the TV series "The Magnificent Century", while in reality the region needs modernism and a technological breakthrough. But they made a decent shell.

We, with amazing consistency, packed our past developments from the sphere of modernism and progress into the wrappers of the “damned Soviet Union”, where “half the country sat, half the country guarded”, and even managed to pack ancient history into “Viking”.

Compare "The Magnificent Century" and our films. There, people are perfectly dressed in expensive and authentic costumes, smart, appropriate. In ours, the tsar in the film "Tsar" is crazy and wanders around in an incomprehensible way, the servants are the same, then in other films the boyars are in some kind of rags, unkempt, stale, then a "midshipman" goes to see the empress unshaven, rumpled.

This is not conservatism, this is mockery of the idea. And God forbid "they" decide to film "The Tale of Igor's Campaign". After all, they can neither display and explain to the world the old Russian, nor take anything useful from the Soviet.

But in the "totalitarian Soviet Union" they approached history much more intelligently. Our creators should have seen the film "Ushakov", how the most serene Prince Potemkin was dressed, how the courtiers behaved and dressed, what kind of speech they had - that was history, that was the heyday of the Empire.

Even after the collapse of the USSR, the film “Ermak” will still be released with its costumes and acting – the inertia of quality will remain.

But this is the correct visual series of conservatism and traditionalism, which we seem to be promoting. But who would want to associate themselves with our modern visualization?

And it is logical that in Central Asia they say, like, take our "conservatives", what do you not like about them, just like your boyars in historical films. Especially since we do not sow or plow them, they are born themselves. If 15 million is not enough, just ask. And take the "traditional preachers" - they will come in handy.

Central Asia needs progress and modernity - we got rid of the best Soviet examples. We want to show conservatism - the visuals in modern films are such that it is better not to watch them. How this happens is a mystery shrouded in darkness.

Healthy conservatism in itself is not bad, and there is nothing reprehensible in healthy traditionalism. But that is why we need quality ideologists, so that the ideas of a “bright, bright and beautifully decorated” land do not eventually grow into an analogue of Arkanar. And something similar happened quite recently, when the USSR itself emasculated the idea of ​​“The World of Noon”, and still - on the rake.

About meanings and substitution of concepts


Of course, it is astonishing that the heirs of the ideas of the "Noon World", working with Central Asia, which was part of this ideological cluster for a long time, do not see that the region needs progress, but the Turks do. And not only do they see it, but they also spend much less money.

Conservative and traditionalist Eurasia (in our usual understanding) is not needed by Central Asia, and this means that if we want to have a long position in this region, we need to reconsider our own ideological basis. Adequately define the concept of progress, describe and rethink old ideas, define the boundaries of "tradition" and "modernity". In our country, digitalization has become synonymous with progress, but this is semantic manipulation, and a very expensive one at that.

And only having defined this - within ourselves and for ourselves, then having translated these concepts into development plans, will it be possible to offer something to the outside world - “here is our vision of progress, here is the image of modernity, here is the transition, these are the technologies we are ready to offer and invest in this way of life, here is the price and here are the conditions.”

Needless to say, if we take up traditional values, we must do so at least with love and respect for history and tradition. Who will respect them from the outside if we ourselves do not value them? Without this, it is not even worth seriously discussing the "fates of Eurasianism".

For now, we are following the path of simulacra, and it seems that our elite even likes it. But we must understand that we are not playing this game alone.

Having surrounded ourselves with simulacra, we let in a stream of people who automatically fit these criteria (no longer imitative). Great Britain has had its hands full with migration issues for decades, and to assume that London will not take advantage of such opportunities and careless extravagance would be the height of naivety.

London doesn't even need to do anything bad in the medium term; they can simply maintain the necessary level of archaism from there, supporting the influx of "chthonic" carriers from outside and blocking the discussion of progress as such.

Simply using images and meanings, in five or six years we will have already ossified and self-reproducing archaism under the guise of “tradition” and a simulacrum of modernity under the guise of digitalization. But it is not only London that finds this state of affairs convenient – ​​all the major players (especially Turkey) would prefer that Russia remain in such a dream for a little longer.
53 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +9
    19 November 2024 05: 21
    A holy place is never empty. Russia itself is a simulacrum. It will not be possible to become the main one among simulacra.
    1. The comment was deleted.
  2. +19
    19 November 2024 05: 28
    The economies of Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan directly depend on remittances from Russia
    It is precisely with our money that the Turkic world is being built. I can also remind you of Armenia, which trades on preferential terms with Russia and is planning to join NATO against Russia. We have a strange foreign policy. wink
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. +5
      19 November 2024 10: 10
      An academic, quality article - essay, with cultural analogies and comparison of the main characters - protagonists. And recommendations - academic: look inside yourself... change. Without this, a dead end.

      This article is a sign of another attack of nostalgia for the great project of the USSR and the new man. What has fallen from the cart is gone, and only force can stop the transformation of the former Soviet republics into inspired enemies of Russia.

      Russia cannot control the development of the "former", control the creation of conditions leading to centripetal dependence. Soft power is not Russia's competence.

      Machiavelli... The great connoisseur of human nature - its unchanging essence - in "The Prince": "do not strive to be loved, love does not oblige you to anything. But be a formidable despot who keeps his word... a despot who protects and threatens..."

      The countries around Russia, whether near or far, have retained their national character, even Germany. Russia must be true to its history and imperial impulses, dressed in modern clothes, with a steel core underneath. To conform is a strategy without initiative, leading not to victory, but straight to oblivion and self-denial.
    3. The comment was deleted.
      1. The comment was deleted.
  3. +7
    19 November 2024 05: 32
    The author almost kept silent about such a common factor for the Central Asian space with Turkey as Islam. Intentionally or without attaching importance? But this is the main connecting base of Turkish expansion, and the second layer is pan-Turkism. And our main problem with migrants is Islam, and not "whoever". Unfortunately, we have disowned everything Soviet, and the Turks - secular Kemalism.
    1. +3
      19 November 2024 08: 10
      Quote: Sunwenmin
      The author almost kept silent about such a common factor for the Central Asian region with Turkey as Islam

      From everything I have read about the movement in the world of Turks, I can say that the idea that is being promoted there the most is precisely Pan-Turkism, based not on religious but on cultural unity. It is also necessary to remember that the Chuvash and Gagauz are Turks, but are not Muslims. Well, and the once former Turkic deity - Tengri, is gaining more and more popularity...
      1. +1
        19 November 2024 08: 23
        Well, Tengri is Tengri. He can't do without an idol anyway. But personally, I don't believe that the tribal god will win. Maybe temporarily, or maybe he will join the pantheon of Islam as some kind of prophet. One way or another, our Central Asian communities are grouped under the aegis of Islamic monotheism.
        1. +3
          19 November 2024 10: 27
          Tengri is not a god, but the “Great Sky” - an abstract force, not an anthropomorphic god.
    2. +1
      19 November 2024 15: 09
      This issue probably needs to be dealt with separately. Simply make a large and separate article "Britain and Political Islam". But, I will say honestly, this topic, given our current realities, evokes a feeling of deep despondency.
      1. +1
        19 November 2024 17: 40
        Nowadays, almost any topic "causes a feeling of deep despondency" request
        Why Britain? However, I'll wait for the promised material. hi
  4. +9
    19 November 2024 05: 37
    Russian liberal historians have been trashing the Soviet past for years. What's surprising if their "brothers" do the same, trashing both the USSR and the Russian Empire. It's convenient for them -- no need to say "thank you."
  5. +10
    19 November 2024 05: 59
    Here we have one problem, behind the beautiful life that many were promised, there was nothing human. While this was actively cultivated, we became a colossus on clay feet, everything is beautiful only on paper, we are shaking from the vectors of development, now we are for balls and for the tsar, now we take the best from the USSR, and then we bashfully cover the mausoleum, and we shout and flew into space, and won the war. Now we are the saviors of humanity, now we are the Russian spirit, and faith, hope, love. Frankly speaking, we can be compared to an apartment building, where different people live, with different goals, and interests, who cannot even agree among themselves. To put it mildly, our house has been deteriorating all this time, and the paint has fallen off, the pipes have rusted, we have not built anything new, we have not done a major overhaul, we have not gathered together and have not cleared the yard from snow. But we continue to write inscriptions in the entrance, litter on the landings, and shit in the elevator. And hope that someone will come and do everything for us, clean up, and we will be warm, nice, clean and cozy. But no one will come, the rich will move to other houses, and we will remain on the outskirts of civilization, and "benefactors" will come, cut off the light, water, and pull out the wiring, with metal, and only we will remain on the ruins of the house, because we have nothing else.
    1. +4
      19 November 2024 07: 14
      What I disagree with you on is the use of the pronoun "we". Like we are responsible for everything everywhere. Only those who can repair a house. At the slightest opportunity will move to another house. Take all the governments. At least for the last 10-12 years. All members of the governments went abroad and, strangely enough, the sanctions did not affect them.
    2. +1
      19 November 2024 13: 07
      Quote from turembo
      Frankly speaking, we can be compared to an apartment building where different people live, with different goals and interests, who cannot even agree among themselves.

      And all because we have banned state ideology. Because ideology is the goal toward which the state moves, it is the instrument for uniting the people into one whole.
      I do not think that "soft power" in relation to the Central Asian republics is an accidental conceptual error of the Kremlin. It is a conscious, purposeful act.
      Don’t our helmsmen understand that Asia and the Caucasus perceive and respect only force?
      1. 0
        19 November 2024 21: 25
        You greatly overestimate our helmsmen. Not only are the people there not particularly smart and strong, but they have different priorities - they always have one thing in mind first and foremost - to preserve their wealth and power. They don't give a damn about everything else, "it will work out somehow."
        About soft power it's funny, they do soft power the other way around - they push aside the strong and rich Russian culture, and promote the senseless, monotonous and aggressive and stupid culture of plov, which has done nothing in its life. I assure you that the current government will go down in Russian history, if we survive this time at all, as the most cunning and vile traitors in the entire history of 1200 years. Not a single ruler has ever thought of voluntarily bringing a yoke to the land without losing a single war. But the GDP - yes.
  6. 0
    19 November 2024 05: 59
    Everyone must choose to cut off the branch for themselves. It seems to me that Turkey has become tired of its affairs. Too much effort and money was spent at the very beginning. But what has already been sown has begun to bear fruit. Unpleasant fruit for us.
    1. +1
      19 November 2024 08: 41
      Everyone must choose to cut off the branch for themselves.
      Yeah, the branch you sit on is the one you cut off, and there’s no need to cut off the branch that someone else is sitting on and cutting it off for himself. smile
  7. +1
    19 November 2024 06: 10
    This has been going on for several years, accelerating since 2022, but even here, to use a peculiar pun, “nothing tangible is felt.”

    Well then.
    In Russia, the results of this policy are clearly felt on the skins of its residents.
  8. +4
    19 November 2024 06: 11
    The very concept of "elite" implies the presence of intellectuals capable of giving the people an idea and organizing its implementation. Am I the only one who thinks that there is a glaring shortage of this in modern Russia?
  9. The comment was deleted.
    1. +1
      19 November 2024 06: 55
      In my opinion, it's not just about being late, but also about making plans that lead nowhere, abandoned "road maps"
      1. +4
        19 November 2024 07: 00
        I have suspicions that the "pharmacy" is teeming with agents of influence of foreign intelligence services, especially Anglo-Saxon ones. That is why there is such passivity in decision-making
    2. +1
      19 November 2024 21: 28
      Yeah, they're incredibly drawn out. All decisions are made when the problem is already overripe and even then they're half measures. This is a clear sign that they just don't care, they do something when there's no other way.
  10. The comment was deleted.
  11. +3
    19 November 2024 07: 39
    It seems paradoxical that in Russia there are as many as 12-14 million migrants from Central Asia, according to various estimates, while in Turkey with its “Turkic world”... from there the maximum will be 80 thousand... It is clear that in Turkey low salaries

    And what about our high salaries? When did we ever have high salaries?
    And here's what's in Turkey:

    . the average salary in Turkey in 2024 is $1200 per month before taxes. After all mandatory deductions, the net income of a local worker is $850.

    The average salary in Russia is lower. It is 78 thousand rubles.
    1. 0
      19 November 2024 10: 42
      From Turkey, the maximum that they can de facto bring is 350-400 dollars. This is already very little. And the working conditions there are much tougher than ours.
      1. +1
        19 November 2024 10: 51
        Quote: nikolaevskiy78
        From Turkey, the maximum that they can de facto bring is $350-400.

        They won't bring anything from there at all. The prices there are outrageous for everything. I was there this year. Meat 1 kg 1000 rubles in our money. Vodka 1000 rubles. Wine 800 rubles. Gasoline 170 rubles. A bottle of beer 300 rubles. You can live there if you eat only vegetables. They are inexpensive.
        1. +2
          19 November 2024 10: 54
          Good prices, the main thing is not to show them to our court economists. Otherwise they will decide that we still have a lot of reserves laughing
  12. +2
    19 November 2024 07: 46
    The task of the current elite is to preserve its power. There will be no social lifts and rotation of power - there will be another form of social transformation, but less manageable.
  13. +4
    19 November 2024 08: 30
    Against Russia, at the expense of Russia and on the ruins of Russia. The axiom from Brzezinski works without fail. And there is no end in sight. Judging by the national policy, the beginning of the registration of many migrant enclaves within the Russian Federation as states, with subsequent sovereignty, is not far off. Oh yes, and in all such gatherings, dear friend Erdogan always appears.
  14. +2
    19 November 2024 08: 36
    Russia, now, is Ivan Tsarevich, descended from the canvases of the artist Vasnetsov, sitting in a swamp and kissing frogs, periodically spitting and repeating: again I was deceived, but taking to kiss another frog, in the hope that she will turn into Vasilisa the Beautiful, but Ivanushka, and even Tsarevich, does not understand that if Vasilisa the Beautiful is brought to him, then after his kiss, Vasilisa will turn into a frog, even if she was not one before.
  15. 0
    19 November 2024 10: 04
    Geopolitical processes are moderated. Turanism is one of the "checks and balances" for Russia (and not only, but first and foremost). In itself, without the support of external forces, it does not pose a serious threat, and no one will strengthen Turkey excessively (the Turanists do not have enough internal resources to strengthen it). The role of a stronghold of traditionalism, and of a frankly caricatured kind, is literally imposed on Russia, regardless of reality. An artistic presentation of such traditionalism in cinema cannot be positive. Obviously, the elite is not delighted and plays out Eurasianism and "tradition" carelessly, without fire. Waiting for a new role in the new season. Apparently, on the assumption that there is nothing to replace Russia with anyway, although such attempts are being made all the time
  16. 0
    19 November 2024 10: 19
    Mikhail, what is culture? In my opinion, culture is a consequence of the survival instinct of a person, a family and, more broadly, the whole society in constantly changing conditions of the external environment. That is, if conditions change, the culture must change too. Otherwise, "foreign" cultures will come into society, which are more adapted to new conditions, with their own, alien to us, archetypes of the "collective unconscious" or, in general, alien, murderous, for the state-forming ethnic group, artificial "constructs", such as, for example, LGBT, juvenile justice and colonial liberalism for the "Papuans" (. Then who, in History, acted and acts as a subject of cultural policy, determines its desired ideal, direction, priorities and emphases? Who forms the system of cultural prohibitions "taboos" or, on the contrary, liberates and changes them? Public power, later, with the emergence of the subject of the state - state power. And today, already supranational structures, funds and corporations. All of them influence the social and individual culture of people and societies in THEIR clan, class or corporate interests. Then, what can be the standard or the absolute truth culture, as such, in our multi-subject, multicultural world? In my opinion, this is knowledge and methods of managing the archetypes of the "collective unconscious" in the interests of the bulk of the working population of the state-forming ethnic group, developing and applied by the subject of public and state power to form the most advanced SOCIAL CULTURE. This means that either this subject constantly develops, changes and improves the culture of the state-forming ethnic group, striving to implement the economic, political and social ideal of the most perfect socio-production relations, or "foreign" cultures and alien "constructs" come into the country, into the public consciousness and individual culture of a person and dominate, to implement the interests and goals of other subjects, civilizations and cultures. And the more precise and perfect this knowledge and methodologies aimed at developing the archetypes of the "collective unconscious" of an ethnos, the better and more promising the social civilizing culture becomes, the more successfully the country develops, the more it influences the surrounding ecumene. Showing "outsiders" that they need to act like us, think like us, feel like us, and showing "foreigners" that they have no chance with us and if they try to interfere with us, they will simply be destroyed. Yes, this is a permanent war of cultures, but this is how our world lived, lives and will live as long as humanity exists.

    P.S. A holy place is never empty.
    1. +1
      19 November 2024 10: 40
      Oleg, culture is the cultivation of something new on the soil of the old and the subsequent cultivation of this new in order to create more complex objects and systems. Well, that's how the ancient Greeks perceived "culture" - as a way of life of a society of increased complexity. Such a complex society, which consists of complex people, is "moral". A simple society, which consists of simple people, is low moral or even immoral. Nowadays, morality is described and defined somewhat differently, but initially moral is complex. The more individuals are reproduced in society who can reason and reason about complex things, the more and deeper the "cultural tradition" takes root. Well, and, accordingly, vice versa. The complex always wins over the simple, if the reproduction of complexity is preserved. But if, instead of the complex, society is consistently foisted a simulacrum of complexity, simple under the guise of complexity, then sooner or later the real "natural" simplicity demolishes such a simulacrum as unviable. Perhaps, at first glance, everything is twisted and convoluted, but if you look into it, it’s all quite logical.
      1. 0
        19 November 2024 10: 49
        Mikhail, what you write is the logic of scholasticism. Why? Because there is always a subject of action and an object of influence. That is, in whose interests, who benefits and who is the customer. And therefore, there is always a "person". And traditions, by the way, are good only as long as they work. But, for example, external conditions of existence have changed and traditions must change, otherwise there will be no ethnic group. Skarchat(.
        1. 0
          19 November 2024 10: 52
          Well, who was the "customer" in ancient times for Basil the Great? Searching everywhere for a "governing hand" is such a path - it can lead far wink
          1. 0
            19 November 2024 10: 54
            Have you ever thought about why the Roman Empire, which at first systematically "oppressed" Christianity, then suddenly took and Christianized itself?) A miracle of the Lord? Did everyone believe?)
            1. +1
              19 November 2024 15: 00
              Well, she didn’t “suddenly” believe – the process took 330 years, and in the 400-500s pagan philosophical schools still existed, where receiving a “classical” primary education was considered prestigious.
              Here's the thing. Religion itself as a complete concept is not the lot of the people, but the lot of its intellectual part. In general, stories about Christianity being a religion of the poor, and Islam being a religion of simple Bedouins, had little to do with reality. In both cases, it was the lot of those who made intellectual work their main labor. Then it flowed into the elite. If the development of productive forces allowed, both in the Middle East since the 500s, on the basis of trade with Byzantium, and earlier in Rome and Greece, the "middle class" layers were formed :-), then it flowed into these layers.

              In Rome, Christianity developed on the periphery - the northern provinces, Asia Minor, Africa - where the elites were independent, and the order in terms of the middle class and the legionaries of the later times who belonged to them was freer. But even there, with the exception of Alexandria, rather strange "versions" of Christianity prevailed. In the north, Arianism was simply rampant. As a result, the dogmas will be reduced to a single code. But even then, even in the 7th century! there was a moment when almost only Maximus the Confessor remained before the heresy.
              1. +1
                19 November 2024 15: 51
                Yes, of course, not suddenly). But the clan "person" of the Roman patricians and oligarchs, as they captured the territories you listed above, were forced (and who else?) to manage the local agricultural population. But, due to different cultures, the Roman imperial "persons" needed a universal religious worldview, forming from the conquered "foreign" tribes and peoples the first peasant "agricultural" Christian PEOPLES, in which social relations are formed through the education of religious consciousness in the population, to create a society of "sheep and shepherds" and are harmonized through the cult of Christian "conscience". And this gave such a powerful breakthrough in the development of civilization that Christian "agricultural" PEOPLE'S societies spread throughout the territory of Central and Northern Europe, survived both the Dark Ages and the Hundred Years' Wars, and existed until the development of capitalism and the emergence of the first bourgeois-urban Nations, which were a "negation" of Christian peoples and developed as "wolf societies", where social relations were based not on the principles of Christian "conscience", but by a bloody and long path of building a rational and pragmatic Social Contract of various layers of large, medium and small urban and rural owners. For example, in Russia, until the beginning of the 20th century. So, the intellectual part had no faith in miracles, but there was a real and big problem of growth that needed to be solved. And then yes... Education, monasteries, lifestyle, religious culture, the creation of the institution of the Church went in the direction beneficial to the Roman elite).

                PS Look who benefits.
  17. +1
    19 November 2024 11: 17
    Ten'eri is Heaven, and in Heaven is God, who can be against this? God threw Satan-Erlik out of Heaven and he lives in the underground dark kingdom with his people, who do not reproduce. A couple of thousand years ago, the Altai hero Maadai Kara descended into the underground kingdom of Satan-Erlik for his sister, defeated the warriors of Satan-Erlik; Kerey and Karash and brought out with his sister the "white people" and these people today do not have "melanin" in their bodies and cannot sunbathe in the Sun, because they lived under the Sun for a very short time ... .
  18. -1
    19 November 2024 13: 31
    Good article, asks the right questions and makes the right conclusions.

    Only the Author does not go all the way - apparently, his calm and restrained, as it seems to me, character does not allow him to make such a conclusion.

    And the conclusion is simple - our ruling class does not have any such concept, at the head of which would be Russia in the Author's understanding. Our ruling class is building its own future, in which it is absolutely unimportant who will speak what language, what the borders, unions or other concepts, secondary for the ruling class, will be. And the main thing for it is its place among the world that will be, and this world is the habitat of the ruling class, no matter what, as long as it can feed and develop further. It is the ruling class that will develop, and not the rest of the population of Russia.

    The trouble with Russia is that the ruling class is completely independent of the rest of the population, so when the population gets tired of this, it simply physically destroys the ruling class, and decades later it grows a new one, which again is in no way dependent on the population.
    1. +1
      19 November 2024 18: 55
      I think that our "ruling class" has firmly decided to copy the model of the English ruling class. But during the copying some elements were "lost". Such as honor, corporate above selfish, personal dignity in the face of similar elites, be they from the West, the East, or the South. All that remains is a feeling of false superiority over the "flock" being shepherded, that's all.
      1. +2
        20 November 2024 07: 43
        But during copying, some elements were "lost".


        You are absolutely right - they just "got lost" quite deliberately and in the interests of the ruling class. Unlike the British, our ruling class does not experience pressure from society and therefore does not depend on it in any way.
  19. +1
    19 November 2024 13: 33
    Turkey itself is still searching for its way as if in the dark, by touch. The Kemalists - Westerners have lost ground after Europe said "Nescio vos", and there were several more unsuccessful coups.
    The rapprochement with the Pennsylvania prisoner Fethullah Gulen is an attempt to combine the pro-Western tendency with Islamic ideology. It is interesting that the peak of Turkish influence in Central Asia was also the peak of the Nursi diaspora (it was then destroyed everywhere).
    1. 0
      19 November 2024 14: 47
      Very informative and valuable comment. hi
      They smashed, smashed, but "didn't smash". These characters have loved to play orders and societies for a long time, and not without success. It is not for nothing that the chameleon of political Islam in its various faces is so beloved by Britain and even the Vatican.
  20. +1
    19 November 2024 14: 07
    One can reproach the Central Asian countries for their pro-Western or pro-Turkish bias, but behind all these biases one can see only egoism, for which it is inconvenient to reproach. Yes, they accept perks from the contenders for the role of "elder brother (friend)", but that's all. The Turks were generally told that they are Oghuz, and we are Kipchaks, we will appoint our own "elder" (for example, Kazakhs), and in general, we are the descendants of Genghis Khan, and Tamerlane twisted your Bayazid like a barrel organ. But, as the author noted, they want to have another outlet to the West, and therefore do not refuse.
    The author kept silent about China, and understandably so. It's scary. You can grab hold of China's locomotive and ride with the wind, or you can end up under the wheels.
  21. 0
    19 November 2024 14: 12
    Lev Abalkin's ambiguous example, "the Wanderers' machine gun"
    1. +1
      19 November 2024 14: 43
      You know, your comment is short, but in essence profound. What is the "ambiguity" of Abalkin? He was neither an automaton nor a machine of the Wanderers, although he was their creation among others. But who is definitely "Ambiguous" is Excellency-Sikorsky. After all, what a curiosity - he is essentially the main one "in progressorism", but at the same time he is a rudiment of the world "before Noon" in the "world of Noon". So how did he come to the conclusion that Abalkin is a hidden and even global threat? The Wanderers in the cycle are outside the framework of perception in design and tasks. But to suspect a threat in the incomprehensible is still the work of those whose service is dangerous and difficult and generally not particularly visible)) This is such a modus operandi. And probably not in vain, a very thin thread in the cycle stretches the thesis that the Sikorskys must lead the people to the world of Noon, but themselves, like Moses, must not enter the world of Noon. This does not mean that someone is bad or good, such a dichotomy would simply spoil the cycle, and the Strugatskys clearly did not intend to simplify it. But still, it was not Moses and Aaron (although the latter had a chance) who entered the Promised Land, but Navin and Caleb.
      1. 0
        19 November 2024 17: 17
        Sikorsky on Earth was responsible for countering external threats. In Abalkin's case, he had no way of assessing the extent of the danger and assumed that it was extremely large, and so he decided as he was taught.

        On the other hand, it was suggested that the Wanderers were counting on exactly this solution, and in this case the Wanderers' machine gun was already Sikorsky himself.

        In general, this story is about how to make a decision with a lack of initial data and time.
      2. 0
        19 November 2024 17: 42
        This is where Abalkin's "ambiguity" lies. He was neither an automaton nor a machine of the Wanderers, although he was their creation among others.


        This is only evident from Strugatsky’s interview, but not from the text.

        So where did he get the idea that Abalkin is a hidden and even global threat? The Wanderers in the cycle are outside the framework of perception in terms of design and objectives.


        How come? It smells of sulfur - get ready for trouble. The very existence of a force that is "outside the scope of perception in terms of design and objectives", but suddenly directly interferes in our lives, isn't that a threat?

        And it is probably not for nothing that the thesis that the Sikorskys must lead the people to the world of Noon, but they themselves, like Moses, must not enter the world of Noon, runs through the cycle like a very thin thread.


        "With an iron fist we will drive humanity to happiness"? I think this thread is very dubious. Sikorski does not lead anyone anywhere, he only guards the path and those who walk along it. Maybe it is harder for him than anyone else, he is both inside and outside at the same time. Perhaps it is not for nothing that Maxim's metamorphoses in Inhabited Island are psychologically quite convincingly shown, but the existence of someone like Sikorski is given without explanation.
        1. 0
          19 November 2024 18: 44
          There was no indication that disks with badges were detonators for bombs, or activators of a hidden program. They were simply used to assuming the worst when it came to "foundlings."


          They not only overdid it, but crossed certain boundaries. Sikorsky is very experienced and old, he can no longer distinguish "maybe" from "should be". That's probably why Maxim was shown on Saraksh with all his elements of growing up and gaining experience, when Rudolf was already an experienced bison. But the experience gradually began to turn into the same program that he saw in the "foundlings". Only here's the problem. His program really worked, while Abalkin's was only assumed without proof. After all, only the connection between the detonator and the personality of 13 was objectively recorded.
          1. +1
            20 November 2024 07: 48
            But during copying, some elements were "lost".


            Absolutely right, but that was enough. Better safe than sorry. If you draw the risks and consequences of certain events in squares on a piece of paper, then the Wanderer acted absolutely correctly. He parried the catastrophic risk by sacrificing the life of one person and destroying the personality of another - his own personality.

            That is, the negative consequences of Sikorsky's actions are many times greater than the risk he parried in the event of his inaction, five points.
  22. 0
    19 November 2024 17: 39
    The "Turkic" world is a soap bubble, all the so-called Turkic states are dictatorships, the Uyghurs in China are in full swing, and the fart "protects" the Arabs in Palestine. When the non-Turkish Turkish fart-grandfather fart-grandfather goes to heaven, Turkey will again become pro-USA, and will go on and on.
  23. 0
    19 November 2024 17: 51
    Well, everything is objective: we have NOTHING to offer in terms of high new technologies.
    IT? microelectronics? - we are trying our best to invent "crutches" so that everything does not collapse after "removals, sanctions, and shamings", at the apogee - "import substitution", i.e., a catch-up position.

    we have an excellent Rosatom (but yes, a narrow niche one), good heavy engineering (TMH), fairly advanced petrochemical industry (SIBUR, though also using Western licensed technologies from Linde, UOP)...
    remnants of the Soviet cosmonautics (legendary, but no longer so relevant in the era of satellite networks instead of human heroes)... Strong metallurgy, but dependent on cheap energy (RUSAL) and deposits with low production costs...

    and what to offer to those who want something fresh, cutting-edge technological?)
  24. +1
    19 November 2024 21: 47
    The Turks are building their Turan there and among those who, wherever they go, are doing well there today!
    The Central Asian republics, having "broke free" from the USSR, were unable to create anything useful except labor migration. No new Khayyams, Avicennas, Timurovs, and others appeared... they quietly buried their Soviet writers, actors, singers, and directors, and that was the end of the search for cultural supports.
    Their main advantage is that they have nothing to lose except their poverty, and therefore they are incredibly free and mobile in their search for new ersatz great ideas, cultures and, most importantly, Money!
    Understanding that the previous relations with Russia will never be the same, they rushed forward as usual, now to Great Turan, look, they will start feeding again and several more generations will be able to live better. And if it does not work out, then they will live poorly - this is usual and habitual...
    So, we'll live and see, but in any case, I really hope that Russia will never again buy such "loyalty", such "friendship" and such "brotherhood".
    These difficult times will end, let's shake off the gunpowder and start building Our Russia again!
  25. 0
    24 November 2024 17: 12
    Nobody will take seriously the losers who were led by the nom for eight years and who had their National Welfare Fund stolen... Welfare. :)))