Military Review

Leonid Reshetnikov: "We must get on our own, the third path of Russia"

34
Leonid Reshetnikov: "We must get on our own, the third path of Russia"- Leonid Petrovich, many of the employees of the institution you head are the authors of the Century. These are Azhdar Kurtov, Vladimir Kozin, Eduard Popov, Nikita Bondarev ... Well-known experts, a number of them can be continued. Yes, you yourself have repeatedly appeared on the pages of our newspaper. Meanwhile, information in the media about the Russian Institute for Strategic Studies itself appears infrequently. What could you say to the readers of the Century, representing your institution?


- Recently, the CSTO conference was held in Yerevan, and two representatives of our institute participated in its work. CSTO General Secretary Nikolai Bordyuzha said in his speech: it turns out that there is an institute in Russia, where besides the director and his wife, there are still a large number of competent experts and employees. Albeit in a somewhat playful form, but this is how the work of the Russian Institute for Strategic Studies was assessed. Directly on the staff of RISI is 207 people, of whom 120 – 125 are engaged in analytical work, the rest are in the service departments - publishing, printing, etc.

According to the charter, the founder of the institute is the president of the Russian Federation. Our curator is Assistant to the President Yury Ushakov.

The task of the institute is to analyze open sources and prepare works primarily on foreign policy aspects and international policy processes, which takes up to 80% of our activity. Usually they are rapid analyzes, brief analytical notes on actual problems. We are preparing materials for the political-forming bodies of the Russian Federation, but the bulk of the documents, of course, are for the presidential administration. The amplitude of the themes is very wide: from the situation in NATO, EU policies to interethnic and interfaith relations ...

- But it seems the rod. This, apparently, is the problem of security, internal and external, of our country.

- First of all - external. Of course, we devote part of our work to internal issues, it is impossible to separate one from the other rigidly. Say, any domestic economic problems are otherwise related to global processes. Over the past year and a half or two, this has already become a trend: while dealing with external problems - this is how an institution is oriented - one cannot but deal with internal ones. In RISI are concentrated experts in the CIS countries, Europe, America, Asia.

- Leonid Petrovich, if I may, such a question - is your voice heard? Is the result visible?

- Analytical materials, of course, come to the presidential administration not only from RISI, but also from other departments, organizations, first of all, from special services, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, those small groups that we call institutions, etc. that is, the flow of information is large.

I will say this: each of our work is evaluated, there is a two-way communication, which is very important for the institute. As a rule, conclusions about our work come in writing, sometimes, of course, are limited to telephone conversations. Judging by the reviews, many of our materials are taken into account. Clearly, there are also critical assessments, but mostly positive.

I want to say that the institute as a whole and our experts occupy a state-wide position. Although we have specialists with different views, we constantly have disputes and discussions. We are in favor of Russia carrying its mission, its role of great power, which it was and remains. By the way, when we say “great, powerful Russia”, they often mean only military power, but this is a whole complex: from ideology to the life of the people, from the economy to defense policy - and so on.

Russia has its own interests, tasks, its own vision, its own mission in the world. I often quote Jacques Chirac, who in 2005, in an interview with one of our leaders, remarked: I read all the time that you have discussions about whether Russia should be with the West or with the East. What, Chirac said, you do not understand that you are a separate civilization? You have everything - natural resources, land, water, industrious, intelligent people, heroic история...

- You have been heading the institute for more than four years. Staff for this time has changed?

- When I got a lot of new employees, now there are about half of them.

- RISS began in these years and voluminous publishing program. Among them are the works of famous historians A. Bokhanov “The Russian Empire. Image and Meaning ”and P. Multatuli“ Foreign Policy of Emperor Nicholas II ”, two-volume book by P. Tsvetkov“ Islamism ”and others.

- Our book publishing program is known so far mainly through book series. Several of our employees, professional historians of high level, are working on them; you named some of them. But our institute is still political science, and we, first of all, have begun to produce relevant literature. And in paperback, and in hard.

We have our own, very interesting specialization: we publish reference books in all regions of the world, for example, in China, in Arab countries, etc. By the way, we have an extensive directory of non-profit organizations. Circulations are small, but we can always reprint. We have our own magazine, Vakovsky, it is published six times a year, now we will make it an electronic version. RISI website is updated daily. Since September, Internet television has begun work at the institute.

- There are institutions like RISI in different countries. In the US, a lot of them. Is your institute comparable to, say, the famous American strategic research center — the Rand Corporation?

- By character, by goals, “Rand Corporation” you pretty accurately called. We even studied how this center works. I can say that if we financed at least 1 / 5 from how financed by the Rand Corporation, this would greatly facilitate our work. But with such money, as they say, everyone can ...

Although we sin to complain. In the state budget we go as a separate line. I think the federal authorities pay for the work of our employees.

My last position before coming here was the Head of the Information and Analytical Department of the Foreign Intelligence Service. The work is hard. When I went to RISI, I thought: well, maybe I will rest ... Where there! Tension is felt here. When some specialists who are “on free bread” call for work (and the salary seems to be good), they often refuse for one reason - they have to work every day. The experts, however, have one library day a week, but they have to work from morning to evening, and even after the evening ...

Every day we have to work through and sign the 3-4 document, each about 40 pages. There are also regular notes with express analysis, these are 5-6 pages. According to the most relevant processes occurring in the world and in Russia. And all documents are issued with one signature - the director.

- For example, analyze the situation in Syria, see the trends?

- Yes, and our ability to influence the situation. This is a classic. Very hard work ... Otherwise, the price is nothing for us, if we only describe what has already happened.

- In RISI, several regional centers have been created - from Kaliningrad to Vladivostok.

- These centers in Russia - now there are seven of them, the eighth in the stage of formation - we have created in order to “draw” us the scientific potential of our regions. It is necessary to give scientists and analysts in the field the opportunity to express their thoughts and suggestions. Two or three people in these regional centers, four in Kaliningrad, they work, they write, but their most important task is to look for new authors. Because Moscow experts (no offense will be said) are spoiled, many already simply "work out" their name. And in the regions there are serious specialists for whom the matter is more important than their own image. And we, I believe, have such a group of authors already formed. We pay for their work, however, we have small grants - not to compare with Western ones. We, by the way, are sometimes late, because in some regions both the West and the East have already worked, they have allocated money. There are people who are “overseen” who both work for American and Japanese grants for both 10 and 15 for years ... They are trying to be objective, but all the same, a habit has already formed.

- In fact, they do not work for Russia.

- Exactly. Such a person knows the consumer of his product and works for him, the orientation to the sponsor, of course, interferes with the objective view. But there are, I repeat, many experts, scholars - of both the younger and older generations - whom we must “pull” on us. We are interested in their thoughts, ideas. This is a big potential. Of course, you noticed that our centers go along the southern border and the Volga region.

- Is it connected with the spread of Islamism in Russia?

- Of course. The Islamists know where to strike and aim at where they can achieve certain results aimed at splitting the country. We are sometimes misunderstood by local leaders: we are with you, we support you. But we are not trying to compromise them at all. We are trying to strengthen our federal core. With them.

- I would also like to hear your assessments of external threats.

- We must, first of all, keep in mind that we are in constant rivalry with the United States of America and its allies. There is an objective reality: America is not interested in what kind of a system we have — monarchical, communist, or capitalist — the main thing is that Russia should not be strong. This is not because they do not like Russians. Simply, in their opinion, the whole world is a business project. In this business there is an economy, there is an ideology, but a competitor is not needed. Weak Russia is good. A divided Russia is even better. Here we were “cut off” after the 1991 of the year — remarkably, but nevertheless, again, the Russians somehow behave not like that — they are trying to play the role of great power ...

If we do not take all this seriously, we may be divided several more times.

- Military threat, above all, is NATO?

- Of course. Remember how many conversations that NATO would be transformed into some kind of military-political organization would not expand to the east? But almost nothing has changed. And the pro-idea? This is the most real threat today.

“In the press, gloomy warnings of experts appear — the American missile defense system is turning from defensive to offensive, into an instrument of the first crushing blow. This is done secretly even from NATO allies. And the situation, according to some experts, is worse than in 1941 ...

- In any case, speaking in favor of a dialogue with the United States and its allies, we must always keep in mind: they are interested in Russia weakening. And if it also splits into several parts, for example, the republic of Siberia, the Volga region, etc., then this is generally beautiful. You will be fine, they say ...

- Leonid Petrovich, when the Warsaw Pact was, NATO would never attack. Do you agree with this?

- Yes.

- Now Russia in comparison with NATO is much weaker. What is holding back the alliance? Our nuclear shield?

- Of course. We have it, and in very good condition.

“But they stubbornly want to force us to reduce our nuclear forces.”

- And at the same time again they assure us that “it will be good”. Moreover, some Russian political scientists are telling tales about how we will "make peace" with the Americans and how it will be good for us. They do not want to understand or do not want to admit that, I repeat once again, we, as a great force, are in constant competition and rivalry with the United States. And at a certain point it can turn into an armed confrontation. Therefore, any attempt to reduce our nuclear power is very dangerous.

Now Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu is energetically restoring and enhancing the defense capability of the Armed Forces. Dmitry Rogozin also performs this task with all his might. And he and the other see the prospect.

- They say that Rogozin is still not an expert in the defense industry, he is a politician, diplomat, Ph.D.

- There are many specialists, the main thing is that the “motor” is. I myself am the director of the institute, but an expert in only two or three areas. Rogozin is such a “motor”. Huge sums are allocated for raising the military-industrial complex, they must be implemented.

- Do we have time?

- There is time. Nuclear forces allow us to carry out upgrades.

- What about China? Your foreign intelligence colleague, well-known expert Nikolai Sergeyevich Leonov believes that China has turned its back to us, and not its face. And he does not represent the threat that some liberal specialists, even the military, are trying to “draw”. Do you agree with this statement?

- Completely. The main interests of Beijing are still in the south and southeast. It is difficult to foresee how this great country will develop, but now, I say this with full responsibility, the Chinese are tolerant and ethical in all their actions that affect Russia. They are really our partners. We can do many things together: economic, military and military-political.

- Is BRICS a powerful enough, viable structure?

- Well, it is difficult to call it a structure. This is still a "union of interest." But a very promising, although the world crisis, of course, decently “knocked down” the members of the BRICS. Those who are our competitors also see the BRICS perspective - for themselves, of course, unprofitable - and work with individual countries, hinder some of our integration efforts. Now BRICS is at such a stage that it can turn from an “interest association” into an organization of interacting countries-subjects.

- Leonid Petrovich, there are all sorts of geopolitical theories, the meaning of which is in full planetary integration, in the transition from a plurality of states, peoples, nations and cultures to a uniform world (OneWorld). According to these theories, ultimately, and Russia, they say, should disappear. New nothing in this regard has not appeared, everything is as before?

- You correctly say - there are many theories, but the essence is old and the goal is the same: the weakening of Russia. What else is significant. I now join the Scientific Council under the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Scientific Council under the Security Council of the Russian Federation, the Public Council of the Ministry of Defense and, surprisingly, even here are colleagues who often say - I would like to emphasize this - that no one is with Russia Russia is no longer considered a great power, and not even a regional power. And they just want to accustom us to the idea that we are weak, none, beggars ... Recently, at a meeting of one of the councils, I could not stand it and said that, on the contrary, everyone wants to talk with Russia, everyone takes into account the factor of Russia, and this will continue. Moreover, there are forces in the world, even in Europe, who want to further strengthen Russia.

- The fifth economy in the world, besides.

- And take Syria. If Russia had not taken a principled position, then the Americans would now clean up Tehran. Russia said, “Stop, car!”, And for two years they can do nothing.

- But the Syrian question is not going anywhere ... The situation is complicated.

- This is the result of outside intervention. Especially American, and in the Middle East, and in the North of Africa. There is a crisis of Islamic civilization, secular forces have arisen, striving for the consumer society of the West (in the capitals, in any case), and at the same time Islam is going through hard times. And the Westerners climbed into these "wasp nests" with their fingers. They thought: weaken one country, the second. We will manage. And there, instead of the democratic opposition, there is only Al-Qaida. They only increase the chaos. They hoped to weaken Turkey. We also organize demonstrations there, and Erdogan was very busy. Turkey is an ally of the United States, but it began to behave too independently. And let's "squeeze her tail"! Demonstrations began in Istanbul, which united anarchists, communists and homosexuals. All rallied: let's overthrow the Islamic regime. I am not in defense of some regime, but speaking about how such geopolitics is being done.

The situation in the world is very complicated, and Russia now, as we see, plays a stabilizing role.

- Anyway, the Fukuyama's “end of history” is not working yet?

- Fukuyama himself, as is known, refused the “end” described by him. Why? And I saw that China rose, and Russia did not die. We do not think much about why Fukuyama wrote this way. He saw in Russia what we are talking about: Russian civilization is an alternative. There is no alternative - there is no history.

We, Russians, must finally understand: apart from the alternative, we have no other role.

- In addition to the above, what else do you see in the world influential centers?

- There are one or two backstage centers of some kind that are not very clearly visible, but they are present.

- "World government"?

- In a sense.

- Apparently, it is under the pressure of these backstage centers that the United States sometimes pursues a policy that is unprofitable for itself, as a state?

- Yes, and with the closest ally - the UK.

- That is, there is some kind of supranational world structure?

- It is, although I strongly disagree with the statement that it rules the world. But you are right - it works. She advises, in particular, who to elect the presidency of the United States ...

By the way, Germany has every chance of becoming a world center of influence if it overcomes its national breakdown.

- The third economy in the world, by the way.

- Economy - yes, but the breakdown remains - this is the result of defeat in the Second World War.

- Germany, as is well known, signed the “Chancelaract” with Washington back in 1949, and the Americans do not give a word to them. Under this secret agreement, each new German Chancellor, up to 2099, is obliged to sign a so-called censure contract with the US President, which stipulates the internal and foreign policy of Germany. Even control over the German media from the United States.

“If the Germans manage to overcome these and other consequences of a defeat in the past war, then they will be able with the help of Russia to become another powerful center.” It is profitable for us. It is difficult for us to compete alone with America, Great Britain and someone else secret, hidden ...

- And Latin America has, in your opinion, a chance to become a world center? Or is she doomed to be on the sidelines?

- In Soviet times, hoped that Latin America would rise, but it does not work. In world geopolitics, Latin American countries will play a prominent role, but to become a center is unlikely ... However, there were significantly fewer puppets there than in the recent past.

- Recent initiatives, speeches on Syria, our president again forced to talk about him, about an independent, alternative position of Russia.

- I want to say quite frankly: there are no politicians like Putin in the world at all. Chinese do not take - they are difficult to understand. There is no such political figure now in Europe or in America. Many modern "plastic" policies, sometimes like showmen, are ridiculous. And they are afraid of him. Afraid to talk to him. I can say: when I worked in the SVR, I had to see the activities of the president more closely. Such a person, who is so convincing, clearly and at the same time subtly defending the interests of his country — and I worked under Brezhnev, Andropov, and Chernenko — there is no such thing. The same Obama reminds me of some kind of "neo-Bolshevik", which broadcasts ideological clichés. "Democracy", "human rights" ... And nothing more. And in Europe, who is? The last valid leader of the nation was Jacques Chirac. Intellectual, knew languages, Pushkin read in the original.

- Probably, Putin is also strong because he has gone through an intelligence school - no one can fully understand him. Some are attributed to him, others to others, and he, as the philosophers say, remains a “thing in itself”.

- It is necessary to carefully read Putin. He makes sometimes strong statements that must be developed. Us. But we do not really develop them ...

It is necessary to understand that our society, unfortunately, has decayed greatly, and starting not from 1991, but much earlier. Putin received the heaviest legacy.

I do not want to say that our president is an ideal, but this is the strongest state politician at the moment in the modern world. This is my strong opinion. And then ... When a strong man cries - I believe such men. When in moments of strong emotional upsurge, a surge, associated with either mercy or patriotism, you see moist eyes, it means that his heart works. I am ready to give my head to the cutoff, that our president also has a heart, not just a head.

How to cope with this large object - Russia? The country has got into a very big mess since 1917 ...

- Leonid Petrovich, you set out your view on the history of our country, on its mission in the recently published book “Return to Russia. The third way, or dead ends of hopelessness. ” The titles of the three chapters of the book concisely tell about the content and essence of the book: “Holy Russia: our home we left”, “Breaking down the Russian national code in 1917 year” and “Dead ends of hopelessness: Stalinism, liberalism, nationalism”. You write that Russia fully fulfilled its mission until February 1917, before the collapse of the Orthodox empire ...

- Yes, we were an alternative civilization. Then there was a break. Both for internal and external reasons. The external factor also worked: it was necessary to eliminate our civilization - it is a competitor, it is not needed. West is already summer of 1918 of the year - and I am ready to prove it! - I decided to bet not on the whites, but on the red ones. Why? They knew that the Reds would conduct some kind of barbaric experiment, and Russia should disappear in this experiment. But they did not take into account one thing - they never take this into account - the people. In this experiment, the people built, created, in the end, created the Soviet state ...

We gradually created a new alternative, although I believe that it was a pseudo-civilizational alternative. I here especially appreciate the work of Valentin Grigorievich Rasputin, he strongly influenced me with his works. He very well said once that the Russian people had digested communism ... Communism, which Lenin, Trotsky, Sverdlov, Dzerzhinsky and others wanted, did not work out. We just got poisoned, and then, after the poisoning, we digested it all. Stalin said that Lenin was his teacher, but had to fold more than once on the path that our people subconsciously dragged on.

And now we face a strategic task - to return to the mission that the Russian people have. I, as a believer, will say that this is a divine mission, for this we received such a huge territory. We do not live in Africa, where its attitude to work. We do not live in Bulgaria with its mild climate. We do not live in the United States. We live in difficult conditions, in a five-month winter. In the face of constant hard hostile pressure from the outside. But it brought up our people. Very fond of some figures like Andron Konchalovsky to kick the Russian people. To say that he is so and so, underdeveloped. And he is just very powerful and strong. Yes, there are in some situations and bad features, like every nation. But we must return to what is given to us from above. 1000 years we have developed so, until we believed our western enemies, that you can change everything and it will be even better ...

- Well, in 1991, did we have, according to you, any other development options, such as Chinese, for example? Was there at least some creative moment? Without a fall and a crash, the second in the XX century?

- I had great teachers in intelligence - generals Nikolai Sergeevich Leonov, Leonid Vladimirovich Shebarshin. They and others, whose names I cannot yet disclose, as early as the beginning of 80, understood very well that the Union was over. Warned the leadership of a country that did not listen to them.

By the way, then Shebarshin sent me on a business trip abroad, already knowing that everything was going to such an end, and also knowing what positions I was taking.

- What were your positions then?

- The same as now: the system was non-reformable.

- And there was no way to save the country? No frames at the top, no ideas?

- The system was military-mobilization: it could function in conditions when the situation is critical. Or when such a situation is specifically created, and people mobilize to overcome problems.

“But Alexander Zinoviev, our famous philosopher, spoke already after the collapse of the USSR and his return to Russia: The Soviet Union experienced a crisis, but everybody experienced a crisis from time to time, it was possible to survive this crisis if it were not for the betrayal of the upper strata. And what do you think?

“But the crisis did not come in the 91 year.” Our system was in crisis all the time ... We somehow kept to the middle of 1970's. We not only economically lagged behind, we were ideologically disarmed. When I was asked by a foreign politician in 1982, how long the communist power in the USSR would last, I replied: for ten years ... What am I, one such? I saw that there were no communists. I worked at the embassy in Belgrade, I was elected a member of the party bureau, so you will not gather anyone, you will not organize ... But there are no Communists - there is no communist system either.

I always give this example. When autocratic Russia fell, Vasily Vasilyevich Rozanov wrote then: faded away in three days ... This is not true: an open civil war lasted until December 1922 of the year. Then lurking hidden, latent. And the rebellion yet. All dragged on for decades ...

And look: when the Soviet power fell in 1991, there was not even a single demonstration. Only members of the Writers' Union of Russia barricaded themselves and did not give up their building on Komsomolsky Prospect, which they were trying to take away. Nobody defended anything, does it mean something? Yes, that Russia, of course, decomposed too, but there were still living forces that resisted. Someone was against Nicholas II, but for the monarchy. Someone for the republic, someone for a constitutional monarchy. They were still in favor of Russia. Here is complete frustration.

So I already in the second half of 80-x had the same views that are outlined in the book. The head of our intelligence, Leonid Vladimirovich Shebarshin was my soul mate. He, by the way, was a reserved person, he tried not to speak out publicly. But he was a Russian patriot. I remember when, for the first time in 1990, in the magazine “Our Contemporary” were published under the title “The Spirit of the People”, the chapter of the book of Ivan Solonevich “The People’s Monarchy” - this was an event. I am the head of the department in management. Shebarshin himself calls me on operative communication: Leonid, did you read it? I say: yes. - That's what we need. Do you understand?

- So, there were no creative forces in the party leaders of the late USSR.

- Did not have.

- Yes, that system uprooted the roots. And in 1970, when, perhaps, Russia’s paths were once again defined, it was the “Russianists” who were the head of the KGB Andropov, who welcomed the liberals, in his secret memorandums for the Politburo almost the main threat to the Soviet state.

- It was at the insistence of Andropov in 1980 that almost all the events celebrating the 600 anniversary of the Kulikovo battle were annihilated. The authorities did not need a surge of Russian national identity.

The pro-Western dissidents, as we remember, were put on 3-4 of the year ... Or - on the plane and sent to the West. A Russian Ogurtsov, Borodin on - 15-17 years. Do you remember the work of Igor Shafarevich “Two roads - to one precipice”, 1989 year? Great job, reread. Only two are disastrous roads, and the third was not given.

Today they say a lot: Stalin, Stalin, Stalin ... Here, they say, the right way. I ask: men, you want to try again? And, okay, I have a negative attitude towards Stalin, but I can admit that then there were underground fighters, revolutionaries, fans of ideas, sacrificed their lives. They could build that system. And now you are shouting "Stalin" - who will do this? What are the underground workers? Where are the revolutionaries? Then there were frames - I am ideological opponent of them, but I understand that they were also ideological. They built what they wanted to build. Yes, then quarreled, fought, as it usually happens. And now what are you offering? Do you want Putin to become Stalin? And who will you rely on?

- Putin can not be Stalin a priori.

- Well, I say, you want Stalin, but he grew out of the appropriate environment. Lenin, too, how did he write about the Bolsheviks? Battle squad. And Stalin wrote: "Battle Order." And now what to talk about?

- You write: Nikolai II is the nerve of 17 disaster of the year. Perhaps we can say that Stalin is the nerve of the Soviet catastrophe. The writer Rasputin said that Russia digested communism, but to some extent, obviously, it “digested” Stalin. He became in many ways different, especially during the war. The Patriarch of the Georgian Orthodox Church Kallistrat recalled the meeting of Stalin with the clergy, which struck him, the leader seemed to him a man who was tormented by feelings of guilt ... Yes, and in the party all 70 years went a certain opposition of the national Bolsheviks with the fanatics of the world revolution.

In your book you placed his photo next to Trotsky and Radek - “They destroyed Russia”. Still, isn’t this a bust?

- No, not a bust - because they did one thing. All of them, and Lenin, and Trotsky, and Radek, and Dzerzhinsky, and Stalin destroyed historical Russia. I recently read a documentary book on collectivization prepared for publication, I was shocked, although I knew a lot. You read these letters, these resolutions of Stalin, and you think - we destroyed the Russian people, the whole way of their life! All 20s, 30s. Stalin expelled Trotsky from the country, but the Trotskyist economic program was implemented for a long time. As for the inner-party struggle, at the end of 40, after the Victory, as you know, the “Leningrad Affair” followed - this is the destruction of the Russians in the party elite. Now we are publishing a book about the “Leningrad case” - exclusively Russian, at least 30 000 repressed.

- Yes, it was not necessary to betray the Tsar from the very beginning, after which the destruction of decapitated Russia began. Is Stalin alone to blame? The future Marshal Zhukov, also in 1921, was chopping down Russian Antonov peasants, being a squadron commander. This is the logic of civil war. Then the sobering-up began, and for someone repentance ...

“Whatever you may say, but the end justifies the means — this is Stalin’s ideology until the last days.” In Nicholas II, the goal did not justify the means. What ideology should we take? The destruction of the people? For what? For the sake of the state, the Stalinists answer. Why then such a state? The people not only perish, but at the same time degrade.

I would not like to discuss now who of the Bolshevik leadership is to blame more, who less. Was Stalin so or so. I believe that such discussions bypass the essence of the problem. For me, the main thing is that the system that was forcibly shedding seas of blood, causing incredible suffering to millions of ordinary people, was imposed on the people, turned out to be unviable. She lasted the entire 73 year, that is, one human life. Moreover, to keep it afloat used the most severe means and methods. Stalin, as a person, is certainly uncommon, becoming at the end of 20's. the sole ruler of the USSR, every year he understood that the system was doomed and for the sake of its salvation, for the sake of extending the life of its artificially built empire, was ready to borrow some elements from the Russian empire, in the destruction of which he also took an active part. And what does neostalinism offer us today? Stalin can not be resurrected, it means to revive the system? With gulags, barracks, barbed wire, black funnels? Do we want this for ourselves and our children? Constant imposing on our society an endless discussion about the personality of Stalin, we take our people away from a true understanding of what happened to us and where we should go.

I write in my book that the danger of the mythologized Stalin, the “red king”, is that only his image can be used by the enemies of Russia with some hope of success in the struggle with the idea of ​​Holy Russia, the White Tsar. And we have to get on our own, the third path of Russia, on which we walked up to the 17 of the year. That was our way. Of course, he is not strewn with roses. It was not right everywhere, but it was our development path in the Russian direction.

- Leonid Petrovich, thanks for the interesting conversation. Although, of course, in one conversation it is impossible to grasp the immensity ... Tell me, do you sometimes even drop in our Century? Are you reading

- Of course. In your opinion, you have a very successful, in some ways even a unique newspaper. You managed to create a publication that addresses many of the most pressing problems. You do not limit yourself to the problematic and, although designed for a wide readership, at the same time keep the intellectual level. This is the best that is among such publications. Abroad know the "Centenary". In any case, where I often go, in Serbia, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic. About publications "Centuries" say.

- And yet, in the comments of our readers a lot of pessimism. Sometimes, looking at everything that happens in the country and in the world, an alarm is really overcome. In Russia, are we no longer seeing a decline than a revival?

- Here, listen. On Sunday I go to church. I see young girls with guys in the morning drinking beer, smoking, cursing. Well, I think everything - Russia died ... I come to a temple full of people. What a face! How many children, young people! .. Oh, no, no - everything is ahead. I leave, some homeless people are terrible looking, again black thoughts ... Therefore, sometimes it is very difficult to say which is more.

My spiritual mentor, Archbishop of Kostroma and Galichsky Alexy says: "Not the enemy is strong, but we are weak." Were weak in their unconsciousness, in their unwillingness to work spiritually, to set higher goals for themselves than “so that everything was enough”.

But still, I see - and according to our theoretical developments, research, and travel, live communication with people - Russia has a significant minority, the core of the people. Clean, uncomplicated, powerful. I think it is at least ten million people. This is a huge resource! And behind him and the rest will be pulled. No, Russia is still ahead.

The conversation was conducted by Valery Panov and Alexei Timofeev
Originator:
http://www.stoletie.ru/
34 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Ingvar 72
    Ingvar 72 27 September 2013 14: 52
    +8
    I agree with almost everything except the analysis of the Chinese threat, and the attitude towards Stalin. The author mentions the development paths of China to the south and southeast. But where to develop there? There are Pakistan and India with their nuclear weapons. And the population density is also not small. Vietnam? But this is too small a piece for China. Japan? Amerikosy just will not surrender it, and the Chinese with the states will not be cut, the main market is still. So their development path should go the other way, and talk about south and southeast to divert their eyes. The Germans and I were friends at 41, the Molotov Ribbentrop Pact was also there, and so what? And about Stalin, Stalin’s personality is not unique, and if not for him, then Leiba Trotsky’s dreams of Russia populated by white Negroes would come true. And alone to win the political struggle against professional revolutionaries and terrorists, this is worthy of respect. And he raised the country to the level of a superpower very quickly by historical standards. And unlike Germany, the West did not help him with money. And the victims, so they cut the forest, chips fly. Russia lost the most from 1917 to 1928. It was then that Trotsky, Tukhachevsky, etc., were at the helm. In 37, they destroyed mainly those who were engaged in repressions of the Russian people in the 20s.
    1. Cpa
      Cpa 27 September 2013 17: 35
      +1
      Quote: Ingvar 72
      There Pakistan and India

      This is to the other side of the world. smile
    2. azkolt
      azkolt 27 September 2013 17: 53
      +1
      Totally agree with you!! And he always said the same thing about Stalin.
    3. Watson J.
      Watson J. 30 September 2013 13: 21
      0
      You are right about China, and apparently, the leadership correctly understands the situation and is working in this direction. Until the vector of Chinese expansion has been determined, it is necessary to draw closer together, conduct joint exercises, and build various economic, political and military blocs. Against the background of a mass of joint projects, political, military, economic, it will be easier for China to choose later. Between a partner represented by Russia and India, for example. There are permanent graters and less nuclear weapons. Something like this. But in reality, the territory does not have to be captured by the army, it is enough to have guaranteed access to resources at a normal price. What the Chinese are doing is buying up raw material companies in raw material countries. So in this regard, the director of RISS, I think, is right when he writes about China. It's just that sometimes their face doesn't seem like a face to us, but this is already a problem of differences in mentality. From my own experience, I can say that in relations with other raw material countries, the Chinese policy is much more "Chinese". And it is quite natural that the Chinese need to prove from the official rostrum about our good intentions. What Reshetnikov does.
  2. Selendis
    Selendis 27 September 2013 17: 03
    +3
    Hmm, I put a plus on the article, Ingvar 72, we know very little, in principle, about recent events. Too many lies of politicians, too much is still classified, and one won’t be able to look into the past, any vision will be wrong and have their own point of view. After all, the beginning of the century, revolution, regicide, the split of the nation, constant uprising, famine and war again. And it also erased a lot of memory. But something in the genes says that the old empire was worthier than the Stalinist, it is felt at the level of intuition. One thing is certain for sure that if a split in the empire is erased by the sands of time, only Russia will not stand still for centuries, no matter how its people and other peoples call it.
    1. Ingvar 72
      Ingvar 72 27 September 2013 17: 40
      14
      Quote: Selendis
      Yes, only Russia will remain idle for centuries, no matter how its people and other peoples call it.

      As one of the ancients said, while the Russian language is alive, Russia will stand. But turning on the TV, I see a warrior against the Russian language. When the central television announcer says that the weather for the coming weekend will be good, it becomes sad. Castin, cleaning, shopping, think, why do we have to say all these words?
    2. varov14
      varov14 27 September 2013 20: 24
      +2
      “And we have to get out on our own, the third path of Russia, which we followed until 17. It was our path. Of course, it was not strewn with roses. It was not right everywhere, but it was our path of development in the Russian direction. "--- This is what the boyars and slaves - and would it not be tight?
      1. yur
        yur 27 September 2013 23: 36
        +2
        And now, is it not the boyars and slaves? Only those who were educated boyars and serfs believing in the Lord, and now semi-criminal oligarchs and serfs mired in stuffing their belly. So we need to change the system, moreover, cardinally. I think so.
  3. pahom54
    pahom54 27 September 2013 17: 31
    12
    Quote; ... "We are in constant rivalry with the United States of America and its allies. There is an objective reality: America is not interested in what kind of system we have - monarchical, communist or capitalist - the main thing is that Russia is not strong ..."
    From here both legs and arms grow. Not only the United States does not want Russia to be strong, but many others, and for some reason especially zealous opponents - from among the former 15 union republics and the Warsaw Pact countries. Take the whole history of Russia - Russia - all the time surrounded by "friends" who are burying themselves in our lands and our riches. There can be only one conclusion: although one cannot do without allies in this world, Russia can only trust and trust itself, and must develop in its own way, not listening to any advice or supposedly good wishes.
  4. Anatole Klim
    Anatole Klim 27 September 2013 17: 38
    +8
    It is written correctly about Putin’s foreign policy, but practically nothing about our internal affairs, the third way is not only foreign policy, but also economics, culture, spirituality.
    1. varov14
      varov14 27 September 2013 20: 38
      +4
      To the very point, a third way is needed, but not in the same century of the Romanovs. Already there is no man with a plow, are there any Chinese people to invite to this role? Wake up utopians. Take care of the real things: clean the media, teach the Russian language first of all, not the guest workers, at school learn to create, not to consume. By the way, in the tsarist they taught the same thing as in the Soviet, except for the law of God. You look and the third way will open.
    2. yurii p
      yurii p 27 September 2013 21: 20
      0
      this is precisely what our political power does not have, and therefore the future of Russia does not seem to be in a very bright future.
  5. Brave
    Brave 27 September 2013 17: 43
    +5
    The cleverest person, I envy those people who can personally communicate with him and his associates.
  6. the polar
    the polar 27 September 2013 18: 04
    -4
    After I read that "only the image of Stalin can the enemies of Russia, with some hope of success, use in the fight against the idea of ​​Holy Russia, the White Tsar." it became clear that this "great onoliteg" was from the category of Svanidze-brewers-posners "and the like.
    1. azkolt
      azkolt 27 September 2013 18: 19
      +1
      And where did you see the Svanidze-Brewers-Posners talking about the idea of ​​Holy Russia. Rather, these revolutionary descendants will say about St. Stalin
      1. varov14
        varov14 27 September 2013 20: 48
        0
        You can talk about Holy Russia, the main thing is what is meant by this. Judging by what is happening in the country - some nobles, other serfs, servants will be paid for treatment and study, and fight for the nobility for free, and a ride if something happens?
  7. azkolt
    azkolt 27 September 2013 18: 16
    0
    With regard to Andropov, Leonid Borodin, mentioned in the article, said the same thing. I read his memoirs in the 90s, either in "Our Contemporary", or in "Young Guard". The Russophobe was still the same. Here is an article on this topic
    http://forum-msk.org/material/kompromat/2029336.html
  8. saag
    saag 27 September 2013 18: 31
    0
    Quote: Ingvar 72
    And unlike Germany, the West did not help him with money.

    Comrade Rockefeller helped Stalin, they had a great depression there, there was overproduction and in the USSR there was industrialization, and interests coincided. His representative in the USSR was, if my memory serves me, Armand Hammer
  9. Unknown
    Unknown 27 September 2013 18: 31
    -2
    Wow, how did they manage to find a monarchist with a sober head in Russia ?? !!!!
    Handsome man !!!
  10. lexe
    lexe 27 September 2013 18: 42
    +2
    I read the article with interest. For me, the thought is that
    The country since 1917 fell into a very big mess ...

    no doubt.
    And most importantly, I heard these words from competent people who own a large amount of information.
    Definitely an article +
    But the Stalinist Communists jerking off unpleasant phrases is not worth it.
    It is better for them to remember those who, in the name of the survival of Russia (as they thought then)
    swore allegiance to the new Soviet power. You have to pay the same coin ...
    In addition, the sharpness of the left idea was clearly dulled in the mass consciousness of people.
  11. uwzek
    uwzek 27 September 2013 19: 19
    -2
    I sympathize with the president. And such creatures in our country are appointed directors of institutes for strategic research! A bunch of arguments (with constant jumps from the seventh to the thirteenth) and no suggestions (and this is what is required of an official who is fattening for public money). Put yourself in Putin's shoes. You use public money to organize an institute that should help you in making strategic decisions in politics (internal and external), and in response to you a daily flood of forty pages on the topic that everything is ok, whatever you do, everything is just awesome , because Russia is the third Rome. True, the previous rulers of this "Rome" did everything wrong (they probably chose their own advisors).
    I don’t even want to talk about the personal qualities of the intiurvent. The intelligence officer boasts that, ten years before the death of the power, to which he swore an oath, he knew about the danger, but did nothing (at the same time he tapped on a couple of generals, but did not surrender others).
    The only thing that delights in a person is a deeply religious person (and maybe he explains all the questions to him).
    1. alone
      alone 27 September 2013 22: 53
      0
      Quote: uwzek
      . And such creatures are appointed directors of strategic research institutes! A bunch of arguments (with constant jumping from the seventh to the thirteenth) and no suggestions (and this is what is required of the official who is eating for people's money).


      do you think those in power need those who would offer something sensible? those in power (everywhere) consider themselves the most intelligent and most knowledgeable, and the opinion of the rest
      they just don't give a damn.
  12. varov14
    varov14 27 September 2013 20: 57
    +2
    Regarding domestic political issues, both the leadership of the country misleads us. Slipping some utopia. The path is needed, the whole question is where? Well, not to the Romanovs, they had already decayed, and God hardly accepted them as saints.
  13. The comment was deleted.
  14. sashka
    sashka 27 September 2013 22: 29
    0
    In "tsarist" Russia, there was simply not a lot of things from those opportunities that are now. However, they provided for themselves and fed the geyrop. And the Fleet was built and Aviation. Poo even worse than Lenin .. Destroyed EVERYTHING, but to build the mind is not enough .. Although Maybe this was the goal. Just destroy. And there the grass does not grow. He is the "successor" ..
  15. repytw
    repytw 27 September 2013 22: 42
    0
    As far back as 1980, this analyst understood when working in the KGB intelligence that the Soviet Union and communism would not last 10 years, but did not quit executioners, did not go to dissidents, giving way to ideological communists, and boycotted the work of the special services with a quiet sack, rose to high ranks and when everything fell apart suddenly became a democrat and a believer - this is called betrayal and this is the director of a leading institute.
    1. alone
      alone 27 September 2013 22: 57
      0
      Quote: repytw
      suddenly became a democrat and a believer - this is called betrayal and this is the director of a leading institute.


      wassat usually such "democrats" with a GB-ized past and are directors of various institutions.
  16. dropout
    dropout 27 September 2013 22: 56
    +1
    I often go to the RCC website. A lot of sensible analytics. Interestingly, not everyone is dancing to the same tune.
  17. timer
    timer 27 September 2013 23: 36
    +3
    I read the article and I won’t put a plus. Why? The author talks about the utopian path, which should be similar as it was before the 17th year. I believe that Russia should ultimately become the heart of the world in a worldview, cultural, economic and political sense! This is its purpose, it seems to me. And the task is to form a national idea and ideology, build an economy based on our own strengths, recall our own national roots (after all, we have a thousand-year history behind us), stop Western idolatry, destroy the fifth column (liberals and shit-blowers.
  18. konvalval
    konvalval 27 September 2013 23: 40
    +2
    Double feeling. I agree with something, with something not. But we must understand that we do not have the information that is necessary for an objective understanding of what happened in the past. As for which way Russia should go, I think we need to choose a new path: not western, not eastern, not pre-revolutionary, but take everything positive that has been gained in this sinful world and embody it in Russia.
  19. zav
    zav 28 September 2013 06: 40
    -1
    “Why then such a state?”

    It is strange that a person who leads strategic research does not understand that without his state, the Russian people are like the persecuted and despised Judah tribe. And then the end of both the people and Russia.

    "All of them, and Lenin, and Trotsky, and Radek, and Dzerzhinsky, and Stalin destroyed historical Russia."

    Historical Russia began to collapse in 1861 after the Tsar-Liberator Alexander 2 granted the people freedom, giving the country to the wolves of wild capitalism. Of course, this is a forced action, to which he was forced by the partners who unleashed the Crimean War and defeated Russia at the expense of technical means, human resources and better knowledge of the craft of war.

    “... Russia has a significant minority, the core of the people. Clean, clear, powerful. I think this is at least ten million people. This is a tremendous resource! ”

    However, they survived. Ten million people, who tasted religious opium and did not crawl out of the churches, is our unclouded resource or all that remains of Russia.
    If our horse is fed with such strategic food ... I apologize.
  20. Yuri Y.
    Yuri Y. 28 September 2013 08: 42
    0
    I basically agree with the article, I also think that from 1917 the Russians suffered more losses. This distracted them from evolutionary development, not to mention the numerical losses (and, accordingly, the gene pool), territorial and mental losses.
    Quote: zav
    It is strange that a person who leads strategic research does not understand that without his state, the Russian people are like the persecuted and despised Judah tribe. And then the end of both the people and Russia.

    Out of context. It says
    Why then astate?

    Those. need something else.
    Quote: zav
    Historical Russia began to collapse in 1861

    Nonsense, serfdom was introduced (here's your grandmother and St. George's Day) and removed in connection with the need for its development.
    Quote: zav
    However, they survived. Ten million people, who tasted religious opium and did not crawl out of the churches, is our unclouded resource or all that remains of Russia.

    Maybe yes. Although I am not a believer, I suppose that true believers are brought up in certain moral principles (at least the same 10 commandments). As you know, a person is weak, but education still affects (as we all come from childhood). And the opium in our current life is more than enough, starting as such and ending with a zombie hunter (I miss all sorts of temptations).
    1. zav
      zav 28 September 2013 12: 36
      0
      Dear Yuri Y.! The captain of the Russian army in communication with junior rank should be more restrained. Otherwise, he undermines not only his own authority, but also the authority of the entire Russian officer corps. Calling my record of serfdom nonsense, could you justify this statement and tell in more detail about when and by whom cr. Was the law “introduced” when and by whom “was removed in connection with the need for its development”? Whose development let me know? Is that right? Don't you think that your proposal is a little wrong ... not agreed?
  21. RUSS
    RUSS 28 September 2013 12: 02
    0
    I hear about the third way from the 91st, that we slow down ....
  22. White Guard
    White Guard 30 September 2013 05: 33
    0
    Good article. Surprising and alarming reverence for Putin. If Putin is such a hero, the United States is not afraid, the whole is so independent, then why do we still have Chubais, Lebanese, Medvedev, Serdyukov at large, etc.? Such a cunning plan, huh? If not for the passages about Putin, I would have scattered the link on social networks.
    1. dmb
      dmb 30 September 2013 09: 56
      0
      And in my opinion they would have acted in vain. Let's leave aside Putin, although this gentleman could not write about him differently. They used to eat from one feeding trough, but now one feeds the other. The trouble is that he and his patron are actively using the image of an intelligence officer created in the Soviet years, for which gullible citizens are bought. At the same time, these citizens completely forget that both of them, as well as other analysts from among them, did not particularly risk anything, because they worked under legal cover in embassies and trade missions. This is not "bloody gebnya" for you, and not Abel and Kozlov. Incidentally, the largest number of people who "realized" how harmful socialism is and how good capitalism is. just one of these "heroes". Most importantly, these gentlemen, deftly adapting to new conditions and really skillfully engaged in personal enrichment, also imagined themselves to be philosophers, mumbling about some third way, and the prosperity of the people under the scepter of Tsar Mikolai or some other king. But they do not disclose the details of this third path. It seems to me that they do not disclose it for one simple reason, they do not know it, and they cannot even know, tk. it does not exist.
    2. zav
      zav 1 October 2013 01: 02
      0
      What Reshetnikov told is no longer a secret. Advanced authors write and speak about the goals and methods of the partners of the Russian state for the past 10-15 years, and now everyone is talking. You do not need to be a strategic researcher to see what is already visible to everyone and every naked eye.
      In order for us to embark on the path that will lead to the goal (let it be the third path, although the matter, of course, is not the name), the Russian authorities need to understand how and why Russia is in this - not comfortable and dangerous - point of its movement . That is, first understand the past path, and then create a new one. If Reshetnikov cannot clearly, logically and truthfully explain how we got to such a life, then the methods for solving problems proposed by his office will be, to put it mildly, inappropriate.
    3. zav
      zav 1 October 2013 01: 03
      0
      What Reshetnikov told is no longer a secret. Advanced authors write and speak about the goals and methods of the partners of the Russian state for the past 10-15 years, and now everyone is talking. You do not need to be a strategic researcher to see what is already visible to everyone and every naked eye.
      In order for us to embark on the path that will lead to the goal (let it be the third path, although the matter, of course, is not the name), the Russian authorities need to understand how and why Russia is in this - not comfortable and dangerous - point of its movement . That is, first understand the past path, and then create a new one. If Reshetnikov cannot clearly, logically and truthfully explain how we got to such a life, then the methods for solving problems proposed by his office will be, to put it mildly, inappropriate.
  23. Watson J.
    Watson J. 30 September 2013 14: 38
    0
    Quote: dmb
    It seems to me that they do not disclose it for one simple reason, they do not know it, and they cannot know, because it does not exist.
    They know much more than they say. And they do not speak, perhaps because of "too early". Do not forget about the presence of such a factor as internal beliefs. I hope you will agree with me that despite the “ears of Aman” generously given by liberalizers, those who retain their convictions have survived among the post-Soviet people. And the reason is not the “stupidity" of those, many prominent thinkers of mankind dreamed of a bright future, and this bright future in their dreams did not closely resemble the American-Zionist model. The reason (formulated for itself on the basis of life as a colonialist in Africa), or rather one of the reasons, is that the vast (maybe even 98-99 percent) people on earth so far are not able to not only accept, but even simply understand. To understand what is happening, to understand what kind of horseradish they generally do on earth, to understand how they are, by and large, different from primates. You must admit that all of this humanity spends mainly efforts to satisfy instincts (animals). Try, explain to the black ideology of communism. Reshetnikov correctly put it mildly about the peculiar attitude of black to work. Their work has not yet transformed, what are their high ideas? They still have hundreds or thousands of years of evolutionary path to go. And Orthodox ideology is closest in its features to the ideology of communism (in my opinion). Due to the fact that the only true way to “force” people to go in the right direction failed because of the impenetrable stupidity of the senators from the Politburo (I have my own experience in this regard, I will set it apart in the next comment), it’s too early to talk about returning to it . But Russia, no matter how strange it seems now, has no other third way. Russia will not be able to go either along the American path, either along the Chinese or the European path, if it does not want to remain in the category of African countries. The Orthodox idea in itself will not extend to an ideological concept for an empire; nationalistic monocultural ideologies will only ruin the colossus. In my opinion, a return to the ideas of communism as a dream of building a society of real social (similar to Christian) justice could become a very attractive ideological concept that unites forces and minds not only in Russia. I will try to prove it. Please recall how many victories were won thanks to the support of the communist ideology of the USSR. I mean those who helped Russia purely by virtue of the belief that communist ideas are the future of mankind. Who and on what basis will donate the secret of nuclear weapons of Russia today? Only for the big dibs. And that is not a fact. How many people in the world “sympathized with the USSR” precisely for ideological reasons. This is where to write off? To the "meager" people who think not only about how to cash in at the expense of their own kind? The idea itself is good. The performers were useless. But the carriers are alive, they will live, they will be born, that was the whole history of mankind. Need a basis. Both economic and in the form of an electorate advanced enough to understand. The basis has not yet been restored, so it’s too early to speak openly. But I want to believe that things are moving in this direction. And tactics are chosen on the basis of conditions, and the initial conditions are simply terrible.
    1. lexe
      lexe 1 October 2013 17: 43
      0
      Who and on what basis will donate the secret of nuclear weapons of Russia today?

      Who?
      And the one who agrees with the letter of the pastor to Putin is who.
      And the one who believes that people are tired of experiments.
      And also those who believe that the progress of mankind is more effective when peoples live on the verge of contact and not in the general ecstasy of a communal apartment.
      The laws of energy say that you need a distance .... also the different mentalities of people (united in different peoples) are better visible when they live separately.
      I will add that all the achievements of the communist idea in practice-this is the achievement of Christianity.
      So you are a crusader, only you still do not understand.
      The communist idea stole the essence of Christianity.
      But the development of Christianity was interrupted ...
      But with general atheism came again the hope of the newly converted Crusaders, and Russia showed an example to many European countries.
      Do not worry, not only will the secrets be passed on, but the new crusaders will change their power, wanting to breathe new life into the old idea.
      In addition, Christianity is not an obstacle to progress, but rather its beginning, father and mother.
  24. Watson J.
    Watson J. 30 September 2013 14: 42
    0
    The promised comment about their own experience. I was once shoved into special intelligence. The picture that opened made me seriously think about the same things that Reshetnikov writes about. Of course, the level cannot be compared, but with the chairman of the KGB of Latvia, Pugo Boris Karlovich, we managed to talk about this topic. With all due respect to Boris Karlovich, for his honesty, integrity and selfless work, I had to admit that neither he nor other comrades, who were higher, were simply unable to understand that the system was moving (with tremendous efforts from the outside) to self-destruction. The degree of lack of understanding was simply depressing, leading to hatred of the senile from the Politburo. Responding to a maxim about
    Quote: repytw
    As far back as 1980, this analyst understood when working in the KGB intelligence that the Soviet Union and communism would not last 10 years, but did not quit executioners, did not go to dissidents, giving way to ideological communists, and boycotted the work of the special services with a quiet sack, rose to high ranks and when everything fell apart suddenly became a democrat and a believer - this is called betrayal and this is the director of a leading institute.
    I’ll say from my bell tower: I did very right. On the one hand, it was absolutely impossible to change anything, people who tried to rebel with arms were shot (read about Sablin), agitators were recorded as dissidents. What can a pragmatic and smart person do in this situation? I've left na er for primates. Sometimes I am ashamed of myself, I console myself with thoughts about the “humanitarian nature of the mission” that I am helping the mass of blacks not to swell even with hunger. And more courageous people survived the counter-revolution, saved the vector, and are trying to revive from the ruins. Fortunately, the foam is all in full view, but this foam turned out to be too much. Maybe the same 98-99 percent. There is a long way to economic recovery and the struggle for the minds. And these minds still need to be raised somehow. Again, in the midst of a fierce confrontation between the British-Zionist media engaged in the cultivation of gray intellectual cattle. Naturally, this is vital for them, and we need to fight this. We need a man who thinks, not a parrot broadcasting liberalistic nonsense.