Kennan as an Unheard Prophet, or Why Trump Was Late

56
Kennan as an Unheard Prophet, or Why Trump Was Late


Trump wants to climb on the shoulders of the greats


The inauguration of the 47th president found me working on a continuation of a series of articles devoted to Afghanistan, related to the activities of its outstanding ruler, Mohammed Daoud, who, using harsh methods, tore his homeland from the shackles of the Middle Ages and transformed it into a developed country by Middle Eastern and Central Asian standards – from the point of view of political geography, it belongs to both regions, given its involvement in the confrontation with Pakistan and its presence in the sphere of geopolitical interests of Iran, as well as given the attention of Daoud and his predecessor, the reformer Amanullah Khan, to the successful experience of modernizing Turkey.



Immersion in the material prompted me to turn to reflections on the origins of Trump’s foreign policy strategy, the essence of which is to set Russia against China and draw it into the camp of his allies.

What is the connection with Afghanistan in the Daoud era? In the 1970s, he was an important factor in the transformation of the British-Russian into the Soviet-American Great Game, some of whose participants have crossed the century mark in this century, taking with them invaluable diplomatic experience.

Trump has a difficult political legacy and difficult, almost impossible, tasks on the international stage.

We are talking about the deceased mastodons of American geopolitics: D. Kennan, G. Kissinger, D. Carter, D. Shultz. And Z. Brzezinski and R. McNamara have moved to another world both at a respectable age and in the current century. D. Matlock and W. Perry are approaching their centenary.

Yes, Carter was not a mastodon, but after all, his rule coincided with epochal events. The peak of Kennan's diplomatic career fell on the 1940s, but his ideas, reflected in the famous "Long Telegram", formed the basis of the "Truman Doctrine", which, albeit in an adjusted form, lasted until the end of the Soviet-American phase of the Cold War.

A Voice Crying in the Wilderness or NATO as a Threat to the USA


Let's start with Kennan. And not because he was the architect of the Cold War concept, but because he became, perhaps, the main critic of B. Clinton after its end, for his decision to expand NATO to the East. The short-sighted president, with the collapse of the USSR and the Warsaw Pact, saw an opportunity to dance with impunity on the bones of the collapsed bipolar world.


Clinton's Unheard Prophet George Kennan - Architect of the Cold War, Opponent of NATO Expansion to the East

The latter almost shocked Kennan, who wrote in 1997:

And perhaps it is not too late to advance a view that I am sure is held not only by me but by many others with extensive and in many ways quite recent experience of dealing with Russia: the idea that, to put it bluntly, NATO expansion would be the most fatal mistake of American policy since the Cold War.

Such a decision could fuel nationalist, anti-Western and militaristic sentiments in Russian public opinion and lead its foreign policy in a direction that is decidedly unfavorable to us. Last but not least, it would make it much more difficult, if not impossible, for the State Duma to ratify the START II treaty and take further steps to reduce nuclear weapons.

Didn't he prophesy? But who and when listened to prophets? Clinton didn't listen. In vain. Ten years before V.V. Putin's Munich speech, Kennan warned:

The Russians are very unimpressed by the alliance's assurances of no hostile intent. They see it as a threat to their prestige (which is a matter of paramount importance to them) and to their security interests. They will, of course, have no choice but to regard enlargement as a military fait accompli. But they will continue to regard it as an act of gross disregard on the part of the West, and will most likely look elsewhere for guarantees for their secure and safe future.

Another former ambassador to our country, Matlock, also expressed skepticism about the expansion of the alliance, as he wrote to S. Talbott, the deputy secretary of state who held the opposite point of view:

NATO expansion actually undermines our ability to defend ourselves against the most obvious threat to our citizens and our territory.

In a speech to Congress, Matlock once made an original comparison of the concept of NATO expansion with the attempt of pre-war France:

Avoid World War II by creating the Maginot Line.

The White House did not listen, although both Kennan and Matlock, like no one else, were familiar with the mood of the Russian elite and society.

Warning from a repentant hawk


McNamara, a hawk in the 1960s, also opposed NATO expansion, which he wrote to Clinton in 1997. In fact, in the last quarter of the last century, McNamara revised his views, as evidenced by the expressive title of his book: “Through Mistakes and Catastrophes.”


McNamara's Epiphany

This is largely why the former minister had previously spoken out against SDI and unsuccessfully tried to persuade George W. Bush not to withdraw from the ABM Treaty, because he did not want his compatriots to experience what he had experienced on the shaky threshold of World War III, during the Cuban Missile Crisis:

It was a stunningly beautiful night (probably October 27-28, 1962 - I.Kh.), like autumn nights in Washington. I walked out of the presidential Oval Office and, as I walked out, I thought that I would never live to see the next Saturday night.

And so, at the end of the 20th century, old McNamara sees how another president is once again beginning to bring the nuclear apocalypse closer, and warns him, as does another former defense minister, Perry. But Yeltsin's "friend Bill" was not interested in veterans.

Underestimating China


The position of Kissinger and Brzezinski was more complex. In 1994, the former spoke in favor of admitting the Visegrad Four countries – Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, and Hungary – into the alliance; but he expressed concerns about the revival of what he called Russian expansionism.

In other words: what Kennan warned about directly, Kissinger spoke in a convoluted manner, perhaps experiencing vague concerns about the revival in the Russian political establishment of the imperial idea, now formulated in the concept of the “Russian World”.

At the same time, already in this century, the former Secretary of State considered it important to involve China in resolving the conflict in Ukraine – a direct consequence of NATO expansion.

In its modern form, it is the merit of Kissinger, who secretly visited Beijing in 1971 and organized the meeting between Mao Zedong and R. Nixon that took place the following year, opening the red gates of the Celestial Empire to American investments, without which Deng Xiaoping’s reforms and the current appearance of the country would have been unthinkable.


Kissinger, in a conversation with Mao, lays the foundation for China's future power, which Trump, half a century later, will try to destroy

And now comes the key. Let me quote Matlock again, returning to his thoughts on the Third Republic on the eve of World War II:

By focusing on the threats of the past, France has failed to grasp the threats of the future.

The threat to the geopolitical interests of the United States was expressed in the rapprochement between Russia and China, caused, among other things, by NATO’s deafness and its unwillingness to hear the rumble of the growing tectonic processes in post-Soviet society, which Kennan and Matlock warned about.

Washington received alarming signals already at the end of the last century.

The first was the idea voiced in Delhi by the then head of government E.M. Primakov about the creation of a strategic triangle "Russia-India-China". Of course, at that time the concept was unrealizable due to the significant contradictions between India and China, but it, like the departure from Kozyrevshchina, became a response to the trampling of Russia's interests through NATO expansion and evidence of changes in the Kremlin's political establishment.

Yes, Brzezinski – I didn’t mention his attitude to NATO expansion. He approved. But, like Kissinger, he considered it necessary to turn Russia into a harmless and loyal partner. A pragmatist, but he didn’t calculate, unlike Kennan and Matlock with Perry, the reaction of the Russian elite to the expansion of the alliance and the severity of its response.

Regarding Russia and China: Brzezinski considered their rapprochement unlikely, being more concerned about the possible prospects of a Russian-Indian alliance, which could lead to a weakening of the US strategic position in Central Asia.

The second signal was Yeltsin’s famous statement at the Beijing meeting with the Chairman of the People’s Republic of China Jiang Zemin in December 1999:

Let Clinton not be forgotten... We will dictate to the world, and not he alone.


In 1999, in China, Yeltsin may have seen the contours of a new geopolitical reality

Apparently, Yeltsin had already decided to resign and therefore could have opposed the US. And perhaps it was then, in Beijing, that the foundations of a strategy were laid aimed at both bringing the two countries closer together and containing the US, which by that time had trampled the norms of international law with its aggression against Yugoslavia.

Russia was changing, although the neoliberals' positions in both government and the media were still strong. Yeltsin's Beijing speech and Primakov's U-turn over the Atlantic were seen by the US as nothing more than a revolt. And a rapprochement between Russia and China, specifically on anti-American grounds, was not considered likely.

A partial justification for the blunder by overseas analysts can be called the fact that the rapprochement between the two countries, which directly affects the geopolitical interests of the United States, began after Xi Jinping came to power in China in 2013.

The main thing for our topic is that the Americans themselves indirectly laid the foundation for rapprochement in the mid-1990s, ignoring Moscow’s interests and underestimating the positions of the statists in the Kremlin political establishment, which they thought was tamed, and the oligarchy they had fed.

And if we reason from the standpoint of cynicism inherent in politics, then the White House in the 1990s had every chance to grow an elite loyal to itself – a new generation with the mentality of E. Gaidar, B. Nemtsov, I. Khakamada and even A. Kozyrev and M. Kasyanov, to develop in post-Soviet society the cult of consumption born back in the 1970s-1980s – remember the black marketeer wonderfully played by Igor Yasulovich from “The Most Charming and Attractive”? – maintaining the welfare of society at a relatively high level, but conducting from overseas a government dependent on various kinds of handouts.

This would provide American corporations with access to the post-Soviet market – let us recall Boeing, which almost destroyed the Russian aviation industry – and overall control over the economy, including the military-industrial complex, and consequently, over the Armed Forces. The Russia-NATO “partnership” program adopted in 1995, the subordination of our contingent to the latter’s command in Bosnia, aren’t these steps in this direction?

Almost becoming the "Sick Man of Europe"


In short, in the mid-1990s, the White House could have launched the process of turning Russia into an analogue of the Ottoman Empire of the last quarter of the XNUMXth century, whose ruling class was dependent on Great Britain, which consistently advocated for preserving the integrity of the “sick man of Europe.”


It's no longer a secret what was behind the handshake

And in this context, if we think in terms of the logic of American strategic interests, NATO’s expansion to the east turned out to be unnecessary.

Fortunately for us, the American establishment of the 1990s did not have its own W. Gladstone and B. Disraeli, capable of calculating the consequences of steps in the international arena.

And Kissinger also believed that Russia-USA-China relations would be built within the framework of the triangle concept he had once formulated:

Washington must make every effort to ensure that its relations with Moscow and Beijing are closer than the relations between Moscow and Beijing.

In the Kremlin, in his opinion, "cannot afford to fall out with the West to the point of surrendering to China's mercy".

Interestingly, Brzezinski said essentially the same thing:

I can't imagine Russia becoming a junior partner of China.

The triangle concept formulated by Kissinger, if you look at it through the eyes of Washington, is certainly correct, but in the 21st century it has failed.

Why We Overslept or The Illusion of the End of History


Why did no one from the current entourage of Yeltsin’s “friend Bill” warn about the strategic danger, the essence of which is the rapprochement between Russia, China and Iran, as a response to NATO’s expansion to the East?

In my opinion, there are three reasons.

First: the fading of interest in Sovietology by the American establishment and, as a consequence, a reduction in funding for relevant research, although, I believe, analytical work on the processes taking place within the Russian elite could have adjusted the White House’s foreign policy course, forcing it to abandon NATO expansion, but realizing its interests through agreements directly with the countries of Eastern Europe.

The second reason follows directly from the first: the conviction of some intellectuals at the end stories and the triumph of the neoliberal idea, which was reflected in the much-discussed work of F. Fukuyama.

In this kind of situation, the formation of a unipolar world under the auspices of the United States seemed like a fait accompli.


Fukuyama was too hasty in ending the story

The third reason is anthropological in nature and concerns the crisis of the elites as a whole – American, Russian, European. Psychologists rather than historians should talk about the reasons. But, looking at B. Johnson, L. Truss, O. Scholz, D. Bush Jr., B. Obama, the already mentioned Russian neoliberals and comparing them with the Cold War politicians – M. Thatcher, C. de Gaulle, J. d'Estaing, G. Schmidt – it is impossible to deny the crisis.

And as a summary: unnoticed in the euphoria of the momentary victory in the Cold War, the threat to the overseas establishment was growing in the East in the form of China, with whose cheap goods the Americans flooded the market, burying their own industrial power.

In this situation, Trump, who has taken a course towards reindustrialization, is trying to turn history back, correcting Clinton’s strategic mistake, and at the same time the half-century-old mistake of Kissinger and Nixon, and return Russia to the camp of his allies, and China to the ranks of secondary powers.

How? It is clear that the US will not leave Eastern Europe, but Trump has already expressed his intention to transform relations with Brussels, demanding that the Euro-satellites increase their defense spending, naming a figure that is too high for them and focusing on the East.

Back to political realism


Trump is not original, since the US adopted a strategy of transferring its geopolitical efforts to the Asia-Pacific region back in the Obama administration, in 2011. However, subsequent events in Europe have adjusted the White House's foreign policy course.

And now, more than a decade later, its current owner does not hide his desire to put a bridle on China and return the US to its former industrial greatness. This cannot be done, firstly, without ending the conflict in Ukraine, and on terms favorable to Moscow, and secondly, without establishing relations with it in defiance of the Russian-Chinese dialogue.

We see how, thirty years later, Trump is trying to correct Clinton's mistake. Yes, NATO in Eastern Europe is a fait accompli, but it is possible to neutralize its threat to Russia's security by demilitarizing Ukraine, as well as to leave Europe to the Europeans and, if we think in Trump's logic, to deal with China.

But it is unlikely that this will work. Yes, Trump's strategy resembles the Kissinger triangle, but it is being implemented in some primitive form. What can Trump offer us: formal denazification of Ukraine with the replacement of an awl with soap - Zelensky with another creature of the USA? And for this we break off relations with China, refusing to defend strategic interests in Ukraine? Ridiculous.


Although indirect, it is also a consequence of Clinton’s decision in 1994

Trump is late. Clinton, who ignored Kennon in 1994, unknowingly launched a process that became irreversible in 2025, heralding a change in world leadership and the possible decline of US power. What will be Russia's place in the new world? Time will tell.
56 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +14
    28 January 2025 04: 02
    Let's remember Boeing, which almost destroyed the Russian aviation industry.

    It's strange - it always seemed to me that it was destroyed on the direct orders of very specific characters from our own upper crust, no? what And nowadays they are still quite prosperous... sad
    1. The comment was deleted.
      1. The comment was deleted.
        1. +4
          28 January 2025 11: 13
          The first stage of the Russian aviation industry was in the 90s. In 1992, the Ministry of Aviation Industry (MAP) of the USSR was disbanded. All real management of the industry on the part of the state was transferred to the aviation department of the Ministry of Industry of Russia. All the other seven branches of the military-industrial complex were gathered together in this ministry, while the number of employees, in accordance with the spirit of the times, was greatly reduced - to 600 people. For comparison, in 1990, MAP of the USSR alone employed more than 1000 people.

          Having existed for a little less than a year, the newly-minted monster died, and the aviation industry "went from hand to hand" of successive defense industries, Roskomoronprom, Goskomoronprom and simply Ministries of Industry, "settling" in the end in the non-governmental Rosaviakosmos, an organization with one state function of regulating the aviation industry - the formation and control of the program for the development of civil aviation technology.

          There is no specific performer...Well, what happens next is clear.
          1. 0
            28 January 2025 13: 07
            Quote from Uncle Lee
            There is no specific performer...Well, what happens next is clear.

            Well, at least they agreed that they started to destroy the aviation industry right from 1992, and not 20 years later...
            1. +1
              28 January 2025 13: 30
              Quote: your1970
              They started to destroy the aviation industry right from 1992

              You can't argue with facts...
    2. 0
      28 January 2025 07: 35
      Quote: paul3390
      Let's remember Boeing, which almost destroyed the Russian aviation industry.

      It's strange - it always seemed to me that it was destroyed on the direct orders of very specific characters from our own upper crust, no? what And nowadays they are still quite prosperous... sad


      These are the performers on the ground. They were led from overseas.
    3. +2
      28 January 2025 10: 00
      Well, it's like when the Kremlin tries to tell us that the current problem of migrants in Russia is a secret plot by MI5, the CIA and Mossad with the goal of, well, etc. Yeah, I'm sitting here thinking: it was probably Mossad that cancelled the visa regime and restrictions with Tojikistan and other villages, it was the CIA-United Russia parliamentary majority in the Duma that has been pushing laws against migrants for years and handing out citizenship and benefits to inkwells for money, it was probably MI5 that was doing everything it could to help diasporas replace government bodies. Well, well. What kind of nonsense is this? Russians are doing all this with their own hands. There's no point in blaming the mirror.
      1. +1
        28 January 2025 13: 43
        Quote from: FoBoss_VM
        Mossad probably cancelled visa regime and restrictions with Tojikiston and other villagers
        - Why are you doing this?
        There was never any visa regime or restrictions with them - CIS.
        Duties were charged on goods but not paid, ST-1 certificates were used for customs clearance
        CIS citizens moved around using their internal passports in any direction.
        It is obvious to everyone that China and the US are pushing into Central Asia. If we push them away, we will get American military bases in Uralsk, there are already laboratories there.
        It is a reality - to make Ukraine out of Tajikistan or Kazakhstan is a matter of 1 year. While they are balancing (there is more money coming from here than there), if we push them away - they will fall into the arms of the USA or China.
        And we will develop the longest land border in the world - 6 km.
        Our life is boring...
    4. +3
      28 January 2025 10: 03
      Quote: paul3390
      It's strange - it always seemed to me that it was destroyed on the direct orders of very specific characters from our own upper crust, no?


      Not without this, I read somewhere that Boeing management either bragged or haggled, saying that in the 90s they spent more than a billion dollars on the destruction of our aviation industry.
    5. 0
      2 February 2025 11: 32
      The Saratov aircraft factory alone, with its vertical takeoff and landing Yak aircraft and medium-range airliners plus "EKIP flying saucers", is worth a lot. Of course, there are no culprits that there is a shopping center there instead of an aircraft factory.
  2. -1
    28 January 2025 04: 51
    Trump is late. Clinton, who ignored Kennon in 1994, unknowingly launched a process that became irreversible in 2025, heralding a change in world leadership and the possible decline of US power.


    It seems that the US is preparing Europe for a major war, while they themselves are washing their hands of the matter, planning to withdraw their troops. Otherwise, why would Trump put forward an impossible demand to increase military spending to 5% of GDP? Most likely, this will cause a riot in Europe and the Americans will withdraw their troops, leaving the Europeans to deal with the consequences of the Ukrainian crisis themselves.
    Trump also understands that the US resource base will not be enough to provide the EU with hydrocarbons for a long time and demanded Greenland. The Europeans are saving Greenland for a rainy day and Trump's statement shocked them. Denmark is already sending troops to Greenland and the EU is considering this issue. Most likely, the EU may decide to create its own army and abolish NATO. Then, 2 - 2.5% of GDP will be enough for their defense, on their own resource base and relying on the EU industry.
    Trump's statement may well provoke the EU to make a decision on developing hydrocarbon production in Greenland on its own and building a Greenland-EU gas pipeline. In this case, England will have to decide whose side they are on, otherwise they will be left behind in history forever. The EU's acquisition of hydrocarbon independence will forever deprive the US of its dominance in the world and will allow it to control world prices for hydrocarbons.
    It is unlikely that the United States is capable of counteracting this scenario today, even in alliance with England.
  3. +9
    28 January 2025 04: 55
    What will be Russia's place in the new world? Time will tell.
    Well, there is no need to wait for anything. Russia will repeat the fate of Pakistan, which changed its vector from the USA to China. China has no friends, only satraps, while the Chinese themselves treat their satraps as second-class citizens, and this will happen with the Russian Federation as well. Unfortunately, Russia has found itself between two fires and has no independent choice, because since 1991, Yeltsin and Putin have done everything to become dependent.
    1. +3
      28 January 2025 05: 18
      In the modern world, it is impossible to survive alone. Therefore, coalitions are inevitable. But they also change over time, when countries' priorities change.
      Quote: Puncher
      The PRC has no friends, only satraps, while the Chinese themselves treat their satraps as second-class citizens, and this will be the case with the Russian Federation as well.

      And which of the modern countries have friends? The USA? Great Britain? Europe? There are fellow travelers with temporary coincidence of interests or there are countries that have laid down their sovereignty at the feet of a stronger one. The main thing is not to lower ourselves to the second category, and in the first life is difficult, but no one promised Russia an easy one.
      1. +3
        28 January 2025 05: 51
        Quote: Cube123
        There are countries that have laid down their sovereignty at the feet of a stronger one

        There is, the Pakistan I mentioned, or Tajikistan for example. Do you really think that relations between China and Russia will be the same as, for example, between Uruguay and Argentina or between the US and the World Bank?
  4. +4
    28 January 2025 04: 58
    What will be Russia's place in the new world? Time will tell.
    But we live like in a fairy tale, the further we go, the scarier it gets, and here we wouldn’t want it to happen that as a result of yet another multi-move or “victory” we end up in the same place, like in one Soviet film: Don’t you think that your place is near... (c) Gentlemen of Fortune
  5. +6
    28 January 2025 05: 01
    Personally, I do not see the necessary rapprochement between Moscow and Beijing. I see distance. The Kremlin did not accept the concept of relations "One Belt - One Road" proposed by China and preferred to follow its concept of multipolarity. China, in turn, is in no hurry to invest in Russia and is balancing, supporting (submitting to) secondary US sanctions against Russia.

    What is in the future. Russia with China or Russia with Europe? The choice: Russia with the US is not considered, because it is unrealistic. In my opinion, when everything settles down with Ukraine and the old, boring European elite is replaced, mutual movements towards each other are possible. We, Russians, are Europeans mentally and culturally since the time of Peter, when he cut a window to Europe. And if a new, more adequate elite comes to power in Europe (such as Orban, Fico...) and if Europe breaks away from the US, then a rapprochement between Russia and Europe will definitely happen. Especially since Europe is currently in crisis and serious tectonic changes are brewing there.
    1. 0
      28 January 2025 06: 25
      Quote: Stas157
      If Europe breaks away from the US, then the rapprochement between Russia and Europe will definitely happen
      After anti-Russian statements and arms deliveries to Ukraine, such a rapprochement is hardly possible. Except for the arrival in the Kremlin of a new Drunkard with a liberal agenda.
      1. +7
        28 January 2025 06: 39
        Quote: Dutchman Michel
        After anti-Russian statements and the supply of weapons to Ukraine, such a rapprochement is unlikely.

        History has forgotten even worse things. The Japanese don't remember that their American friends dropped two nuclear bombs on them!
        A new generation (20-25 years old) comes and everything is like a clean slate.

        You write about arms supplies to Ukraine, but we still trade with Europe. And they pump gas there. And capital exports go there too! How is that possible? How can this happen during a war? Please answer.
        1. 0
          28 January 2025 06: 46
          Quote: Stas157
          The Japanese don’t remember that their American friends dropped two nuclear bombs on them!
          They should try to remember this when Japanese territory has been turned into an unsinkable US aircraft carrier, and American troops are stationed on its territory. They should try to remember when the US is the main market for Japanese manufacturers. If this market is closed, the Japanese economy will be in shambles. They will certainly remember this, but only when America starts having serious problems.
          Quote: Stas157
          How can this happen during a war? Please answer.
          I answer. I don't understand this.
          1. +2
            28 January 2025 10: 33
            I answer. I don't understand this.



            Because you view international relations through the prism of “everyday relations in a communal apartment,” in which someone wipes their feet on someone else, and that is where your misunderstanding comes from.
            There is no place for "snot and emotions" in politics, there are only interests, when the Great Patriotic War began, Stalin did not take the position that it is bad to build alliances with capitalists and that we will fight ourselves, but wrote various letters with warm words to Roosevelt, how many different posters there were during the Great Patriotic War about friendship between the USA, England and the USSR, the war ended, interests changed, all friendship ended. And the Americans, in turn, did not say that Stalin deceived us, cheated us, no, their interests also changed and relations with the USSR became different.
            1. -2
              28 January 2025 10: 38
              Quote: Oldrover
              you view international relations through the prism of “everyday relations in a communal apartment”
              International relations are the same as communal apartments, only the residents wear well-ironed white shirts, smile and speak English. wink
    2. -2
      28 January 2025 08: 10
      I agree that Russia is a European country... but here's the thing: in France, the president has been in power since 2017, the head of government since 2024, in Germany - 2017 and 2021 respectively, in Austria also 2017 and 2021, in Italy - 2015 and 2024, in Great Britain, the king has ruled since 2022, the prime minister has been in power since 2024... we have PVV as president since 2012 (or since 1999 if you skip the "shift change" and count from the acting one), the prime minister since 2020... so I have a question - who in Europe has the "old, boring" elite, you say?)
      1. +2
        28 January 2025 08: 19
        Quote: parma
        I have a question - who in Europe has the "old, boring" elite, you say?)

        Okay, well. Not everyone. But many.
        For example:

        . In 2024, German economist Eike Hamer said that EU residents are irritated by the behavior of European elites who constantly support Ukraine. According to him, people understand that the allocated 50 billion euros will be wasted. 1

        Also in 2022, former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger said that European elites were deteriorating, they had neither guidelines nor an understanding of the tasks facing them. He criticized, in particular, French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Olaf Scholz
        1. 0
          28 January 2025 08: 52
          You misunderstood me - of all the European (if we consider Russia a European country), our leadership has been in its positions the longest (I am omitting Belarus) and, accordingly, it fits the definition of “old” the best.
          P.S.: the "expert" you mentioned only appeared in domestic media, I personally couldn't find any of his "major works" in the West, which casts doubt on his "expertise". Kissinger is a retired politician from the Cold War era, so his words are imbued with thoughts in the spirit of "the water used to be wetter, the sun warmer and the grass greener"... "big political sharks" generally didn't fit in well in the post-Cold War world... in general, your selection is so-so, it's just convenient for our media and our perception, but its objectivity suffers.
          1. +2
            28 January 2025 08: 59
            Quote: parma
            and accordingly it fits the concept of “old” the most

            I agree. Our president is not eternal. And with his departure, everything will change even more. In our country, the role of the individual in forming policy is much higher than in the West.
      2. 0
        28 January 2025 09: 10
        Quote: parma
        in the UK king has been ruling since 2022,

        Quote: parma
        Who in Europe is the "old, boring" elite you are talking about?)

        How long did Lizka rule there - the one who ruled Hitler? belay belay did you see it live????
    3. 0
      28 January 2025 08: 54
      Good-neighborly and friendly relations between the EU and the Russian Federation are the American establishment's worst nightmare. Worse than China and the Russian Federation or the EU. There were leaders who tried to be friends. Berlusconi, Schroeder, Chirac. All of that has sunk in, and the new US elite has been brought up as they need.
  6. +1
    28 January 2025 05: 52
    Yeltsin saw the contours of a new geopolitical reality

    Yes, yes... in a bottle of vodka... as he drank a glass of fiery water, he drew the outlines of his policy in googling... Clinton laughed behind his back, looking at this alcoholic... it's disgusting to even remember.
    Today, NATO is at our gates threatening us with war... in the Baltics, war is knocking on our door in plain text... these are the facts.
  7. +3
    28 January 2025 06: 07
    Clinton, who ignored Kennon in 1994, unknowingly launched a process
    As in the Russian fairy tale: "Brother Ivanushka did not listen to his sister Alyonushka, he drank from the goat's hoof" (c)
  8. 0
    28 January 2025 06: 17
    If you see your opponent's actions as your own, you will definitely lose. Special moves are needed here. Perhaps ones that the world has never seen before. And analytical centers exist to help. Repeating your opponent's moves means losing everything.
  9. +2
    28 January 2025 06: 21
    Quote: Igor Khodakov
    Let's remember Boeing, which almost destroyed the Russian aviation industry
    Our aviation industry was destroyed not by Boeing, but by the thoughtless and treacherous policies of various kinds of scum, like the drunkard Yeltsin, Gaidar and other Nemtsov-Chubais scum. And why shouldn't NATO expand if the Drunkard himself publicly declared: God bless America! To hell with him!
    1. +2
      28 January 2025 09: 06
      It was not Boeing that destroyed our aviation industry, but the thoughtless and treacherous policies of various kinds of scum,

      I don't remember what year, I watched Putin's meeting with representatives of our airlines. At this meeting, they collectively asked to reduce duties for the purchase of new airliners abroad. Putin refused them, citing the fact that if we cancel them, the entire aircraft manufacturing industry will immediately stop, because it will be cheaper to buy than to build ourselves. I am not whitewashing anyone, it is just a fact.
    2. 0
      28 January 2025 10: 36
      like the alcoholic Yeltsin, Gaidar and other Nemtsov-Chubais scumbags


      How long were Gaidar, Nemtsov and even Chubais in power? Putin became acting president in 1999, neither Gaidar, nor Nemtsov, nor even Chubais determined the country's policies by then.
      1. +1
        28 January 2025 10: 40
        Quote: Oldrover
        How long were Gaidar, Nemtsov and even Chubais in power?
        It was they who laid the foundation for the impoverishment of the population and the transformation of the country into a third world country. It does not take much time to do this
        1. -1
          28 January 2025 10: 45
          Well, really, what kind of childish thoughts are these? China has become the first/second economy in the world in 20 years, despite the fact that Mao made a mess of things there with his cultural revolution that no Chubais could have dreamed of, and Gaidar and Nemtsov have cast some kind of spell on us. I repeat, Putin came to power essentially in 1999, from that year until 2008 there was a huge increase in the price of energy resources, oil from a conditional 10-15 dollars in 1999 grew to 91-114 dollars by 2008, but of course Gaidar and Chubais are to blame for everything. This is really a fairy tale about the “Naked Emperor” in reality.
          1. +1
            28 January 2025 10: 50
            Quote: Oldrover
            China has become the world's first/second largest economy in 20 years
            No need to distort the facts. Deng Xiaoping began his reforms in 1978, and before that China was already a nuclear power, which speaks to the state of science and technology. Subtract the start of reforms from 2025 and you get the time when China became an equal player in the global economy.
            1. -1
              28 January 2025 10: 57
              Moreover, before this, China was already a nuclear power, which speaks about the state of science and technology.


              Putin inherited Russia in 1999 with even better starting conditions, and then the price of oil skyrocketed.

              Subtract the start of reforms from 2025 and you get the time when China became an equal player in the global economy.


              why not 2030, China was already an equal player in the 2000s, but the way you ignore the fact that since 1999 we have had a completely different government and different people is very telling.
    3. -1
      28 January 2025 13: 14
      Our aviation industry has destroyed itself. In market conditions, Soviet civil aircraft would never have been able to compete with Western ones. I am not even mentioning that it is possible to create such an international certification procedure so that only Boeing and Airbus aircraft would undergo it. In general, in a world of victorious globalization, we really would not need our own civil aircraft. But fighters, let me remind you, have quite successfully mastered foreign markets.
      And tanks too. And infantry fighting vehicles. And armored personnel carriers. And anti-aircraft missile systems. We could conquer the world with our military products. Quite a good industry for specialization. Our military products are historically intended for a more mass consumer than those of the USA and Europe. But we did not find good traders and managers in power to organize sales. We did not find negotiators to agree on the transition from the Western military industry to ours.
  10. +2
    28 January 2025 08: 36
    Why Trump was late
    According to the author, the last train has run away from Trump and he is on the sleepers, out of habit smile
    1. +1
      28 January 2025 09: 15
      Quote: kor1vet1974
      Why Trump was late
      According to the author, the last train has run away from Trump and he is on the sleepers, out of habit smile

      He was really late - if they hadn't dragged Ukraine/Finns-Prialtva into NATO, they could have had a loyal elite here like in the 1990s. Having a belt of neutrals, Russia wouldn't be scary for them.
      1. +1
        28 January 2025 09: 39
        He was really late
        These are his problems...Tell him, Trump.
        1. 0
          28 January 2025 09: 52
          Quote: kor1vet1974
          He was really late
          These are his problems...Tell him, Trump.

          It is rather our problems - than his. America "in the house" lol ...
          Poland and the Liminality are near our borders and not near America
          1. -2
            28 January 2025 10: 19
            Did you want to talk to me specifically? There about Poland, the border states, about the elite loyal to them... About kings and cabbage... About America in the house... laughing To someone else..
            1. +2
              28 January 2025 10: 32
              Quote: kor1vet1974
              Did you want to talk to me specifically? There about Poland, the border states, about the elite loyal to them... About kings and cabbage... About America in the house... laughing To someone else..

              And you don't come here to communicate? To strictly express your opinion and that's it?
              Sorry for trying to talk to you...
              1. -2
                28 January 2025 11: 04
                Stop flooding, I beg you. All the best..
                1. 0
                  28 January 2025 13: 03
                  Quote: kor1vet1974
                  Stop flooding, I beg you. All the best..

                  But they did add a "minus" - they couldn't resist...
                  1. 0
                    28 January 2025 13: 04
                    It's not mine, but you couldn't hold on to yours? It's like you're trying to harass me.
                    1. +2
                      28 January 2025 13: 28
                      Quote: kor1vet1974
                      It's not mine, but you couldn't hold on to yours? It's like you're trying to harass me.

                      I don't downvote in principle - you can agree or disagree, you can swear or be hostile, but dropping a minus out of personal hostility, regardless of the content of the post, is not my thing.
                      If you haven't noticed, I just expressed my opinion; which apparently greatly offended and hurt you...
                      To crawl to the rank of major general in 12 years when Mikhan took off with his uryaurya in a day is an indicator of his opinion, albeit unpopular
                      1. 0
                        28 January 2025 14: 36
                        Why are you confessing to me? I'm not a priest, excuse me. Go to someone else. For some reason you chose me as the object of your comments, find another object. Don't you understand this time too? And we're talking about simple things. If we're talking about complex things, you'll start loading me up, I don't need it, I'm not a dry cargo ship, for your thoughts.
                      2. -1
                        28 January 2025 19: 21
                        Quote: kor1vet1974
                        We are talking about simple things. If about complex things, you will load, I don’t need it, I’m not a dry cargo ship, for your thoughts.

                        However, you try to burden others with your complex thoughts - leaving this right exclusively to yourself.
                        hi
  11. 0
    28 January 2025 09: 50
    Anglo-Saxon diplomacy does not tolerate allies. Neither the US nor England had any. Only coalitions against someone. Therefore, they are not capable of reaching an agreement on equal terms. The phrases "England above all" and "God bless America" ​​come to mind. Chinese diplomacy is also not distinguished by its ability to form long-term alliances. Russia does not need to look for friends there, we have our own path, our society is different. I would like to see energy directed towards development within our country, because there are many problems. Standard of living, consolidation of society, aging population, etc. And not towards reactions to external irritants. With the proper level of determination and development of the Strategic Missile Forces with the Aerospace Forces, we can forget about them.
    1. 0
      28 January 2025 15: 07
      Quote: a.shlidt
      And not in response to external stimuli.

      But these external irritants will not go away on their own.
  12. +1
    28 January 2025 12: 56
    Yesterday's kick to Nvidia and others shows that the States have no time at all.
    Trump is in a hurry, but he is late everywhere, and he did not realize how late. He wanted to praise Russia from above "for helping the US in World War II", but in his ignorance he only insulted.
    The internal problems in the States are such that the Soviet Union of 89 is simply a calm haven.
  13. +1
    28 January 2025 13: 58
    Igor, good afternoon. You, analyzing American politics and "pushing off" from it, wrote about, as you personally understand it, the structure of the walls and roof of the "house" of modern Russian politics, but you did not write anything about its foundation. That is, on what grounds it was created and what fundamental technology was laid during its "construction" in the 90s. And this was the "technology" of privatization and corporatization of former Soviet "nationalized" property, and the integration of Russia into the existing global system of Western economics and finance. And, in my opinion, it is impossible to write about the consequences - without naming the real reason for such "construction". And this reason is the desire of the "Soviet" nomenklatura to retain the existing power, property, assets and capital of a huge country, which, de jure, did not belong to them, AS THEIR PRIVATE PROPERTY, and to pass all this on, by inheritance, to their children and grandchildren. But, this is an agreement with the same private property West, sometimes as equal partners, on a "share" with it, but, most often, as unequal satellites, which the subjects of this same West simply put "before the fact". And the Russian "elite" caved in, since THEIR power, THEIR private property, THEIR assets and THEIR capital, demanded it... Since their "integration" into the system of this global economy, went through a cruel and cynical "initiation" - through robbery, and the robbing of THEIR OWN POPULATION by them, and their Western "partners" in the 90s and 2000s. As they say: "- By their deeds - you will know them." And what did the ordinary, simple Russian population get after this robbery? A hole from a donut! Old wallpaper, a rusty "car" and a house in the village. That is, property that is a source of expenses, not income. And what did the Russian "elite" create as a result of "liberal" reforms? A "peripheral" financial and commercial oligarchy. Since, when integrating into the global system CREATED BY OTHERS, nothing else was in store for it! In my opinion, this is the foundation, walls, and roof of modern Russian politics. Prospects? The current regime of private property domination in Russia has only one prospect: the formation of a "peripheral" oligarchy - a "regional" oligarchy, with the construction of its own colonial or semi-colonial Oikumene, on the terms of preserving its domination, its power, and its property. And this is a war, a war for decades, in all directions, with the "old" predators who created the current system of global economy. But for us, the Russian population, who have only a "doughnut hole" as market-valuable property, why do we need all of "THIS"? To fight, to kill others, the same "poor" and to die ourselves, for something that, a priori, will not belong to us?
  14. 0
    28 January 2025 15: 05
    I can't imagine Russia becoming a junior partner of China.

    But in the West they didn’t want to see Russia even as a junior or any other kind of partner.
  15. 0
    29 January 2025 01: 37
    Thanks to the author. Good article. Some dots were put where there were blank spots before.
  16. +1
    31 January 2025 17: 18
    I would add to the author's correct assessment of the degradation of Western elites that they have made a ton of mistakes in the post-Soviet space, simply pursuing the goal of loudly and juicily screwing with Russia. And what happened? First they brought in Saakashvili, he attacked Russia in a fit of rage and instantly lost 20% of his country's territory and cut off the strong ties between the two countries. Then they sent a French granny, but the Georgians already understood that the West doesn't give a damn about them, they are needed simply as cartridges for a rifle.
    Then Maidan, and Ukraine instantly loses Crimea, part of Donbass, and now more! Minus half a million men, 7 million refugees, minus the economy, etc. - the country is already on the verge of collapse. Who brought it here? Now it's the Armenians' turn. But this is not because life is good, because around it are the strongest powers of Russia, Turkey and Azerbaijan. But now they can lose the corridor. One attack against and they will lose. Crudely and to no avail. The Georgians understood everything. It is probably too late for Ukraine to understand anything. The Armenians must have time to stop. But it is obvious to everyone that listening to the West is more expensive for themselves.