First of all, it is necessary to recall the enormous role that Greece played in the formation of Russian identity. We owe almost everything to Greece - faith, the alphabet created for us by the Greek saints Cyril and Methodius, culture, vision of the world, concept of the Orthodox Empire, which was Byzantium, social ideal (community, κοινωωωα), philosophy, right ... about all Europeans, but our connection is deeper, more organic, more direct. We Russians are indebted to the Greeks.
However, in the history of the Greeks and Russians there were many dramatic turns. Sometimes we find ourselves together, sometimes - apart, while always remaining brothers in the faith. The interview format does not allow for a detailed review of each of these episodes, so it’s better to concentrate on the most important ...
The world around us is changing, and we are changing with it, but some things remain unchanged - these are bottom, deep-seated identities. In the Greek concept of space, special importance is attached to the concept of essence (ουσία), the inner side of things. Following this principle, it is necessary to single out in Russian-Greek relations those points that are related to deep-seated identities and relying on which one could begin a new era of bilateral relations. In other words, we must rediscover what Greece is and what Russia is. In the true sense. Only this will help create a solid foundation for the renewal of true friendship between our peoples. I think now is the time to think and act in the indicated direction.
Critical intellectuals and politicians in Greece are convinced that through “debt weapons”And imposed agreements with the“ troika ”of international creditors represented by the EU, the ECB and the IMF, our country was turned into a special kind of debt colony of financial capital. The Greek state and its citizens largely lost their sovereignty and independence that they had before 2010. If tomorrow the Greek people and / or government decide to reset this colonial regime and denounce the underlying agreements, what assistance can they expect from Russia ?
In order to predict the likely Russian reaction to such a scenario (which I think is quite realistic), it is necessary to understand the attitude of Russia to contemporary postmodern financially oriented world order. It is important to consider several factors:
1. Putin himself is opposed to a unipolar globalization controlled by the highest strata of the cosmopolitan financial elite. He seeks to resist any attempts to undermine national sovereignty, especially when it comes to friendly countries. However, Putin’s opportunities are limited, and, being a realist, he never insists on his in deliberately losing cases.
2. Russia's wealthy class is partially integrated into the world order and continues to carry out the instructions of Western centers of power, despite the president's fight against the oligarchs and his efforts to stop encroachments on sovereignty. This elite will put pressure on Putin, urging him to stay away from what is happening in Greece, and not to interfere.
3. Russian people as a whole is experiencing a growing aversion to the West, with its cosmopolitan and liberal values. If Greece will rise up against the global order and its financial architects, he would prefer to Putin stood up for the Greeks.
4. In the end, much will depend on when exactly the alleged “Greek revolution” happens, as well as on the balance of power in nearby countries and regions - Turkey, Syria, Southern and Eastern Europe, and the Middle East.
How do you assess the current crisis in the EU? How do you see the future of the European Union? What are the possible geopolitical consequences of the crisis, especially in the Eastern Mediterranean?
There are many aspects here. First of all, neither the US nor the global financial oligarchy is interested in the existence of a stable, prosperous and independent continental Europe embodied in the alliance of French Gaullism and German industrialism. Hence it is obvious that they are using the tools at their disposal to destroy Europe, to shake its unity and to harm its economy. Southern European countries, and especially Greece, are convenient facilities for such a game. A complex, intricate situation in the Greek economy is ideal for their purposes. The crisis that began in Greece can easily spread to Italy, Spain and Portugal, which are in a similar position. The withdrawal of Greece from the EU is capable of provoking a chain reaction and causing a fatal blow to the entire European Union.
From a geopolitical point of view, this will mean the defeat of the land forces (since France and Germany are the European “Heartland”) and the victory of the atlantist pole in the person of the United States, Great Britain and the global oligarchy.
This is the basic geopolitical model, but the reality is much more diverse. There is a difference in the position of the United States as a state and global financial circles, personified by figures like George Soros or the Rothschilds. On the other hand, Europe is not fully aware of its geopolitical identity, underestimates the geopolitical value and value of the European Union, considering it exclusively in economic and liberal public categories. Germany itself at times acts as a European power, protecting Europe and the euro, and sometimes acts solely in its national "selfish" interests. Yet Berlin remains the main continental player in this drama.
If Russia wants to play a more active role in these processes, it must unite with Germany and France in an attempt to save European unity as one of the necessary axes of a multipolar world, balancing the power of the United States and violating globalistic designs or, if you like, "conspiracies" ...
What, in your opinion, the deep strategy of financial capital and the United States against Europe?
I do not know the details. I believe that no one knows them, except for a small group of "initiates." At the geopolitical level, I have already answered this question. Greece as such does not matter much for the US or the global financial oligarchy. Nevertheless, Greece is the "solar plexus", "fragmentation belt" (if you use the terminology of the American geopolitics of Colin Gray). Therefore, even a small Greek problem can provoke serious geopolitical consequences on a global scale.
It remains to be seen whether the current state of affairs is truly dangerous for the world elite - so much so that it is ready to take extreme measures, such as probable dismemberment of the European Union or provoking serious regional conflicts in the Mediterranean. Or are these positional battles leading to an increase in tension, but not implying a final collapse ... It all depends on many factors ... Some of which are deeply hidden from us ...
How do you assess the situation around Cyprus? There is a point of view according to which the Cyprus crisis has a hidden geopolitical background: “lock up” Cyprus in the sphere of influence of Israel and push Russia out of the Mediterranean (Note: the interview was recorded before a recent surge of tension around the financial problems of Cyprus).
Such assumptions are not without reason. The US (and the atlantists in general) view Russia as an adversary in all “sensitive” regions. Russia is too big, too powerful, too independent (especially now under Putin), so that it can be controlled from Washington or from Wall Street. It is logical that the forces of the Sea seek to squeeze Russia out of all strategically important areas. Cyprus is an example of such a confrontation.
Some analysts believe that the episode with the attack on the Turkish ship the Israelites, led to the death of several people, was aimed at the convergence of Greece and Cyprus with Israel on the basis of anti-Turkish, reformatting the balance of power in the Mediterranean and the reduction of Russian influence. If we look at the specific effects of this incident, this version seems quite plausible.
In recent years, between Ankara and Tel Aviv was a lot of conflict. How deep their contradictions? What are the prospects of Turkish-Israeli relations?
Both Israel and Turkey are geopolitically important sub-hegemon. They serve US strategic interests in the same way as, for example, Saudi Arabia or Qatar. A real “cooling” in Turkish-Israeli relations, in my opinion, is possible only if Ankara makes a Eurasian (that is, anti-Atlantic) reversal. A few years ago, this was quite realistic, but after the “Ergenekon case” and the repression of Tayyip Erdogan against Eurasian and nationalist-oriented representatives of the Turkish military leadership, the issue was removed from the agenda. The current confrontation between Turkey and Israel cannot be taken seriously - after all, they serve the same gentleman. The prospects for their relationship are completely predetermined by their position in relation to the third force - the United States. They are simply not sovereign enough to act on their own. That's all.
The interaction of the United States and Russia in the Middle East is ambiguous: on the one hand, there are signs of a new “cold war”, and on the other, there is another rapprochement that some analysts even dubbed “new Yalta”. Yes, there are serious disagreements over Syria and Iran, and at the same time Gazprom obtains contracts from Israel and Iraqi Kurdistan. How would you characterize the relationship between Russia and the United States, as well as between Russia and Israel?
The geopolitical strategy of modern Russia is extremely contradictory. On the one hand, Putin is interested in creating a multipolar world order. This explains the Russian position on the Syrian issue and our other actions directed against American hegemony. On the other hand, as I have already said, the global elite exerts constant pressure on the Russian economy, which is in the hands of liberals and Westerners. Moreover, one can not exclude the presence of purely opportunistic motives. Therefore, Russia's relations with the US and Israel (as well as any other bilateral and multilateral relations) can not be understood linearly. All these factors act simultaneously, creating something like a multi-level game with constantly moving situational goals.
What is the probability of a war with Iran? What shape can purchase this conflict?
There is a lot of talk about a possible war with Iran, and such a scenario seems quite likely. Inflating tensions is important in itself, since constant pressure contributes to the destabilization of the political and economic situation in Iran. The internal opposition uses the threat of war with the West (US and Israel) to attack the conservative Iranian circles in the person of President Ahmadinejad and to confirm the correctness of their demands for political reform. And yet I am not sure that those who predict a war with Iran really consider it possible. The influence of Tehran extends far beyond national borders - this is the core of the Shiite world. If Iran is attacked, the consequences of this attack will be felt in Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, Afghanistan, Bahrain, as well as in Saudi Arabia. This will consolidate Iranian society and encourage Russia and China to side with the victims of the invasion. In other words, Iran will prove to be a much more difficult “enterprise” than the second Iraqi campaign.
War happens or not depends on the depth of the current crisis, the true extent of which is held in deep secrecy. The outbreak of war will mean the collapse of the existing world order and its imminent disappearance.
It is risky to get involved in such an adventure, as long as the possibilities remain for maintaining the “status quo” by less expensive means.
We live in the era of the American Empire or financial empire?
This is an interesting question ... They overlap. On the one hand, there is American unipolar hegemony (in terms of the school of realism in international relations), on the other - the global domination of the cosmopolitan financial elite, which is also “hegemony” (this time in the sense that it was understood by Antonio Gramsci). where they act in complete agreement with each other. What is good for the United States, good for financial hegemony. This is not always the case, but I would not exaggerate the contradictions between them. This is akin to conspiracy theories in its worst form. In fact, in the USA there is a group of decision-makers who are primarily guided by the national interests of their country - in the understanding of the classical realistic or neorealist school, it does not matter. There are also liberals and neoliberals (transnationalists / globalists) promoting the idea of creating a world government. In addition, there are a large number of mixed or hybrid options. Nevertheless, they all express their views quite openly, and their controversy is the content of the academic discipline called “International Relations”. Lovers of conspiracy theories operate with caricature interpretations of this discipline.
With this in mind, we could reformulate your question as follows: how is the internal dispute between realists and liberals developing? The altercation continues, which does not negate the existence of a certain fundamental consensus: heated discussions about methods should not hide the unity of goals and values. These values are Westernist, liberal, capitalist and, in a broad sense, racist (as English expert in international relations brilliantly demonstrated in international relations, John Hobson, in the recently published book “Eurocentrist Model of World Politics”).
How do you see the future of Latin America after Chavez?
Hugo Chavez has been a kind of symbol. He accomplished his mission and did it well. I think that the policy of strengthening the independence of the United States will continue in other Latin American leaders. The uniqueness of Chavez that he expressed the highest level of thought and aspirations of the overwhelming majority of ordinary Latin Americans. This is a great politician who survive his death. I'm sure.
How do you see Russia in 21-century?
Russia is transformed into the Eurasian Union - a large space that unites the vast territories of the post-Soviet republics around the Russian nucleus and acts as an influential and independent pole of a multipolar world. The Eurasian Union will become an important center of attraction for various European and Asian countries. I hope that Orthodox Greece, as well as some other Eastern European societies, will one day join the zone of common Eurasian prosperity.
Relations with Europe will depend on the path it has chosen: with continental (and therefore European) Europe, they will be closer and more friendly, with Atlantic Europe, following the US wake, rather cool. It cannot be excluded that the European Union will collapse and some of its components will be included in the sphere of Eurasian influence. In the South, one of our closest allies will be Iran, as well as India. China is an independent power center. It can become a completely reliable partner of Russia in a multipolar world if it directs its demographic energy in a southerly direction and does not threaten our vulnerable positions in Siberia.
The Islamic world is likely to break up on the Saudi-Wahhabi pro-American part of a hostile Russia, and our friendly traditional Muslim society. The main opponent of Eurasia, under the laws of geopolitics, will continue to be North America, while the southern part of the American continent, showing the desire for a multipolar, with a high probability come over to our side.
The future is the Eurasian and multipolar. In the Greek Orthodox brothers have a good chance to participate in it.
You are known for being skeptical about the idea of Progress. Can any other ideology or faith save humanity?
Progress is a false idea. It is based on the premise that Genesis depends on Time. This is unprovable and is a kind of irrational myth. The notion that the future is better than the past is immoral. It humiliates the past, not to mention that the concept of Progress, being Western and European in origin, was used and continues to be used to assert the superiority of Modernity over the Premodern, the "developed" West over the "underdeveloped" East, that is, the rest of the world. This is a racist attitude. In my opinion, it is the modernist Eurocentric universalism that is the root of all evil. In the value dimension, it manifests itself today in the ideology of human rights, liberalism, individualism, capitalism, etc. At the geopolitical level, it is embodied in the financial oligarchy and the American unipolar imperial hegemony, which self-proclaimed themselves to be the “essence of Progress”. For me, this is the bottom of the abyss.
My ideology is the Fourth Political Theory, overcoming the framework of the classical ideologies of the modern era - liberalism, communism and nationalism. My faith is faith in Christ and Eternity, His Coming, suffering, and Resurrection.
I believe in the significance of the Holy Empire and the symphony of the authorities - the Church and the State.
I believe in man, his freedom and the ability to go to the end in the struggle with the world of Antichrist - the world in which we now live.
And I can admit that this belief was derived from the Greeks, from the great teachers, and a thousand years ago, brought my people to the Light of Truth. And I'm very grateful for that.
All honest people on earth are Greeks. And if Jesus Christ saved the human race, then Plato taught him to think.
Interviewed by Dimitris Konstandopoulos.