And here are a few episodes of this multi-year media campaign:
- pursued by the authorities Berezovsky;
The killing of Politkovskaya by “KGB thugs”;
- Khodorkovsky's imprisonment due to his “love of freedom”;
The “genocide” of the Chechen people built by the authorities;
- Magnitsky case and later adopted Magnitsky law;
Litvinenko’s murder “by order of Putin”;
-Aleksey Navalny as the new “Sakharov”;
-shumikha around Russian support for Assad;
-shumikha around election fraud for the presidency and the Duma;
- “harassment” and discrimination of persons of non-traditional sexual orientation;
- "Belolentochny" rally on Bolotnaya Square;
the defamation of the “traitor to the homeland” of Snowden;
-constant "interference" of Russia in Ukrainian politics.
The list goes on and on, but to confirm the above, this is quite enough.
In many ways, this is reminiscent of the Cold War, when with the help of propaganda the West tried to demonize the Soviet Union in the face of other countries and supported anti-Soviet forces throughout the world and in the USSR itself. And these efforts were largely justified: by the beginning of the 90s of the last century, most of the inhabitants of the Soviet Union were very dissatisfied with their leaders. So what is the current situation different from the one that took place twenty years ago?
Why did the Soviet Union really disappear?
The official date of the cessation of the existence of the Soviet Union 26 is December 1991 of the year - the day the Supreme Council adopted the declaration number 142-H, which confirmed the breakup of the USSR as a state and a subject of international law. But this is only the tip of the iceberg, so to speak a superficial view of things. And although the Soviet Union was reduced to the size of the Russian Federation, it continued to exist within it: the laws remained the same as most of the bureaucracy. Despite the fact that after the August 1991 coup, the Communist Party was banned, the rest of the state apparatus continued to function.
For Yeltsin and his minions, this situation has become very difficult. Having dismissed the KGB and the CPSU, the liberals faced several other “problems”, namely: the Supreme Council of the Russian Federation, as well as the parliament of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic, which was elected at the congress of people's deputies of the Russian Federation. In short, the Supreme Council positioned itself as a “Russian parliament” (which is not quite right), and its task list was to prevent Yeltsin from carrying out his reforms (that is, to prevent the new president from completely destroying the country). It can be said that the “new” Russia and the “old” Union fought for the future of the state. As expected, the Supreme Soviet wanted parliamentary democracy, while Yeltsin and his liberal henchmen wanted presidential democracy. The two sides suggested that before most Russians could not imagine:
-As a president, Yeltsin represented Russia in the international arena. He positioned himself as a democrat and anti-communist (although he had previously been a high-ranking member of the CPSU and a member of the Politburo). Yeltsin was also a favorite of the West and promised to integrate Russia into the Western world.
- The Supreme Council, headed by Ruslan Khasbulatov with the support of the Vice-President of Russia Alexander Rutsky, became a stronghold for those who believed that the collapse of the USSR was a crime against the people. The main part of the Supreme Council consisted mainly of communists and socialists, as well as those who were opposed to the capitalist system. The Supreme Council also supported most nationalist movements.
We all know what happened next: Yeltsin literally drowned the opposition in the “bloodbath”, and in reality things were much worse than it was shown in the Western and Russian media. One colonel from the Vympel detachment said that according to KGB estimates, the number of those killed within the Moscow Region reached three thousand. According to one of the eyewitnesses, a long automatic gunfight ensued right under his windows - and this is five days after the dissolution of the Supreme Soviet. When the authorities ordered the colonel from Vympel to prepare for the storming of the White House, he refused. So many did: as in 1991, both the paratroopers and special forces refused to shoot at their own people. While the "democratic" forces did not show such sympathy.
By 1993, the overwhelming majority of Russians (including expelled immigrants) were already fed up with what was happening in the country. All were waiting for another one to emerge - the third force in the political arena of the state.
Democratic nightmare (1993-1999)
After the defeat of the opposition by Yeltsin’s gangsters, a quiet horror ensued in Russia: the mafia came to power, and the natural resources were plundered by oligarchs (mostly of Jewish origin). Privatization has created a new class of multimillionaires, and tens of millions of people could barely make ends meet. A wave of crime swept over almost every city, the state’s infrastructure collapsed, and many regions began to actively plan their separation from the Russian Federation. Chechnya was allowed to leave Russia after a bloody war. During these truly hellish years, the Western elites gave full support to Yeltsin and his oligarchs. The only exception was the sponsorship of Chechen militants. In the end, what happened should have happened: in 1998, the country defaulted. Without a doubt, in 1999, Russia was only a stone’s throw away from complete collapse.
What the liberals left behind
By destroying the opposition in 1993, the liberals gained absolute freedom of action. They had the opportunity to create a new constitution that would perfectly fit their goals. Most of the authority has now passed to the president. Moreover, the post of vice-president was abolished, because the liberals did not want anyone like Rutskoi again to interfere with their plans.
Nevertheless, in the year 1996 they managed to almost lose the election for president. Communist candidate Gennady Zyuganov received the majority of votes already in the first round, so the liberals had to do two things: to falsify the results and make an alliance with General Alexander Lebed. After such "maneuvers" they declared victory in the second round. And again the West supported Yeltsin. Why not? Why not support him again after the massacre of the opposition?
Yeltsin, on the other hand, spent most of his time as president in a wild binge and soon realized that he would not be able to stretch that long. The liberal camp panicked, as a result, having made a huge mistake, allowing the little-known and inconspicuous policy from St. Petersburg, who in their opinion did not have strong qualities, take the place of Yeltsin. This man was Vladimir Putin.
But assuming the presidency, he began to act with lightning speed. Personally taking part in the events of the second Chechen war, Putin immediately surprised everyone. Unlike his predecessor, the new president gave cartel blanche to his warlords. Putin surprised everyone again when he truly concluded historical agreement with Akhmad-haji Kadyrov (although he was one of the leaders of the militants), thus bringing peace to the Chechen region.
Putin was rapidly gaining popularity, which definitely played into his hands.
Taking advantage of the weak points in the liberal-written constitution, he adopted a number of very important reforms and thus stripped the authorities of the biggest oligarchs (Berezovsky, Khodorkovsky, Fridman, Gusinsky, etc.). Putin also adopted many laws that were aimed at strengthening the vertical of power (the Federal Center gained direct control over local governments). As a result, most of the local mafias were liquidated, and various separatist movements were immediately stopped. Finally, Putin used an administrative resource to create the United Russia party and secure state support for it. The irony is that Putin would never have been able to realize his plans if it were not for the very constitution according to which the president was vested with enormous powers. Liberals sold him a rope, on which Putin hung them.
The West, of course, realized everything that was happening, but it was too late.
Who really put Putin to power?
This is a million question, if not more! Purely formally, the answer is simple: Yeltsin. And yet, someone from the outside managed to brilliantly beat the liberals.
If the pro-Soviet forces were destroyed in 1993, who could have done it?
Union of two forces:
-the first was the PGU of the KGB of the USSR (a structural unit of foreign intelligence of the KGB). Without a doubt, it was the most elite, as well as the most autonomous unit of the State Security Committee. He even had his own headquarters in the south of Moscow. Among other things, the activity of the Perm State University was very closely connected with financial activity both in the USSR and abroad.
The second force was formed by a young generation of politicians from key ministries of the former Soviet Union who were involved in financial and industrial matters, and hated the Yeltsin oligarchs. Unlike their liberal "colleagues", they did not want to simply plunder all the resources of the Russian Federation, and then retire to the United States or Israel. They set a goal to create a powerful market economy that would be integrated into the international financial system.
The first group will be referred to as “supporters of Eurasian sovereignty”, and the second - “Atlantic integrationists”. Or “Putin’s people” and “Medvedev’s people”.
Of course, the third force, which provided the greatest support to the Putin-Medvedev tandem, the Russian people deserves special attention.
The creation of the aforementioned tandem was a truly brilliant plan: the Putin program was created in such a way as to attract the attention of the nationally-oriented part of the population, and Medvedev - the liberal one. Putin would receive support from the security forces (defense, national security, intelligence), while Medvedev would receive support from the business community. Putin would clean up the local self-government bodies, while Medvedev would do everything to solve financial issues with the EU and the US as smoothly as possible.
But what about the opposition today? The Communist Party is trying to please those who are nostalgic for the Soviet Union, the liberal-democratic camp is the nationally-oriented part of the population, and Fair Russia simply selects the votes of the first two. In other words, Putin and Medvedev have eliminated all sorts of serious opposition.
What is happening in the US in the meantime?
Unlike the one that disappeared from the map of the Soviet Union, America won the Cold War (although this is actually not quite right) and, becoming an unconditional superpower, almost immediately launched a series of wars to finally assert its superiority over the rest of the countries. The events of September 11, which profoundly changed the character of American society, gave even greater impetus to external aggression.
During Reagan’s rule, one political force, whose members would later be known as “neoconservatives,” decided to gain control of the Republican party, including its organizations, as well as think tanks. Although former Trotskyists were inclined to support a center-left democratic party in the past, the new Republicans under the aegis of Reagan made some very attractive proposals to the neo-cons:
-Money. Reagan was an absolute supporter of big business and the corporate world. His idea of “government is a problem” fit perfectly into the historically established close relationship between neoconservatives and the mafia, as well as major bankers. For them, deregulation meant freedom of action, something that would make them overly rich.
-Violence. Among other things, with the post of President Reagan gained control of the American military-industrial complex, which gave the right to invade any other country. This kind of “passion” ideally corresponded to the ideology of the neo-cons.
- Illegality. Reagan didn’t care what law to break - international or state. Of course, as long as it was beneficial to the United States or the Republicans, they continued to monitor its observance.
-Arrogance. Under Reagan, patriotism as well as imperial arrogance reached new heights. America considered itself not only the “leader of the free world”, which had become a defense against the “evil empire,” but also a unique country with superiority over all of humanity, a country (just like in the 1980 Ford advertisement: “We are number one!”).
- Systematic deception. During Reagan’s rule, the lie turned from an infrequently used political device into a key form of communication with the people: the government could make some statement and literally in a minute to refute it. Reagan could make promises that he was unable to fulfill; solemnly to assure of something, and then break the oath (Irangate scandal). And if someone presented evidence, all that Reagan needed to do was to say: “Um, well, I don’t remember that.”
-Messianism. Not only did the President receive enormous support from various US religious denominations that were insane in their ideology (including the Biblical Belt), he also contributed to the development of strange messianic movements dominated by xenophobia, bordering racism and the narcissistic hobby than something patriotic, no matter how stupid it is.
Money + violence + illegality + ignorance + deceit + messianism eventually give what? Is this too ideal a formula for describing Zionism and the politics of Israel?
The Reagan government was a kind of ideal Petri dish, where the Zionist bacterium could grow as it pleased.
The United States went through a twenty-year “zionization” process, the peak of which fell on 11 September 2001, when supporters of the New American Century project used their access to power centers in the United States, Israel and Saudi Arabia to create a new imaginary enemy - Islamic fascism. The purpose of this was to justify the international war against "terrorism" and the unreserved support of Israel.
After such a development, there were also losers - the so-called “camp of the Anglo-American forces”, which practically lost control over most of its internal political sphere of activity and full control over the external one. For the first time, a new course in foreign policy began to take shape under the leadership of people who followed the ideology of "Israel in the first place." For some time, the Anglo-American forces managed to seize the initiative after the election of George Bush Sr. to the presidency, but with the coming to power of Bill Clinton, everything returned to its former places. The climax of the power of the “sioconservators” fell on the presidency of George W. Bush, who began mass cleansing of key posts in the government (especially in the Pentagon and the CIA) from the Anglo-American forces. As one would expect, people whom Bush’s elder called “psychos in the basement” relatively quickly turned the country upside down: a clear international sympathy after 11 September turned into a wave of reproaches and hatred, while America itself, meanwhile, faced a banking crisis a system of such magnitude that was two steps from the introduction of martial law.
Barack Obama - “Hope You Can Believe In”
The election of Barack Obama as president of the United States was a truly important historical event. And not only because the majority of the white population voted for the black man as the head of state (this was an extreme manifestation of despair and faith in change), but also because after one of the most ambitious PR companies, most Americans really believed that the new president would become the beginning of some significant changes. The disappointment was as great as the number of people who voted for Obama. History will remember him not only as the worst president in history, but also as the last chance to reform the system.
However, there are “achievements” that Obama can boast of: during his reign, most neo-conservatives were removed from key positions, and the course of foreign policy has changed significantly. Undoubtedly, neocons still firmly hold their positions in Congress and the American media, but the executive branch, at least at present, is under the control of the Anglo-oriented forces (it should be understood that in this case everything is relative: Dick Cheney was not a Jew, and not a Zionist, exactly how Henry Kissinger could be hardly attributed to the “English camp”). Despite the fact that Benjamin Netanyahu received support more than any other US president, an air strike on Iran, which he wanted to inflict, did not take place anyway. On top of that, Hagel and Kerry were appointed to the place of Hillary and Petraeus. This is hardly the embodiment of those “hopes in which we can believe,” but at least this proves that the Zionists no longer control the White House.
The current alignment of forces in the US and Russia
We already know that in Russia there are two opposing sides: “supporters of Eurasian sovereignty”, who so far have prevailed over “Atlantic integrationists”. In America, things are similar, with the only difference being that there is victory in the hands of neoconservatives. There are two compelling reasons why we can assume that the position of the "Eurasians" is much more advantageous than the neo-cons:
-Russia has already gone through an economic collapse;
-Most Russians support Putin.
At the same time, the United States is on the verge of economic collapse, and most Americans simply hate their government.
Being disappointed in Obama, more and more Americans are convinced that changing the puppet will not solve the pressing problems and the United States really needs a change of regime.
Back to the Future?
An interesting fact is that the United States under Obama became very similar to the USSR since the time of Brezhnev, when people experienced hostility and alienation to each other, caused by the stagnation of the rotten system to the very foundation. On the streets of the city, the fat military and police are very often, while the number of beggars is steadily increasing. Public propaganda (like the one that Orwell described in 1984) is replete with statements of world success, but everyone knows that this is a blatant lie. The United States is heavily overwhelmed by foreign activity, where they are, moreover, hated. As in Soviet times, Washington is afraid of its own people, so it builds around itself a defense of spies and propagandists who dislike dissent and consider them enemies of their fellow citizens.
Add to this a political system that does not even think about building relationships with the best representatives of civil society, but it promotes the most immoral and corrupt. The growth of the construction of prison and military-industrial complexes, the elementary content of which is simply not enough money. A collapsing public infrastructure and an absolutely non-functioning health care system (only rich people with connections can get good treatment). And in addition to all of the above, a schizoid, sclerotic, far from reality discourse, full of ideological clichés.
At the UN Conference on Disarmament, held in Geneva in 1992, the Ambassador of Pakistan addressed the smug Western diplomats with the following words: “You think you won the Cold War, but have you ever thought about what really happened? What did the internal contradictions of communism destroy communism before the internal contradictions of capitalism manage to destroy capitalism itself? ” As you yourself understood, the reaction to his already prophetic words was silence and numbness. And the ambassador was right: today, the West, as never before, is deeply immersed in a crisis, and the possibility of changing something seems highly unlikely. The only solution is to change the mode.
The historical roots of Russophobia among the American elites
Against the background of the above, it becomes clear why the Western plutocracy is experiencing such a deep hatred of Putin and Russia. Convincing itself of victory in the Cold War, the West had to face a double disappointment (the rapid recovery of Russia, as well as the approaching end of the political and economic systems of the West).
Absorbed by anger and hatred, Western leaders do not pay attention to the fact that Russia is not involved in the appearance of their problems. The collapse of the Soviet Union was supposed to prolong the existence of the international economic system by creating a new demand for US dollars in Eastern Europe and Russia. Some economists, such as, for example, Nikolai Starikov, believe that the collapse of the USSR made it possible for the American dollar to exist for 10 years longer.
Throughout history, Russia has been a sworn enemy of the British Empire. The Jews during the times of Tsarist Russia managed to harbor a considerable amount of resentment. The 1917 revolution of the year brought great promise to many Eastern European Jews, but only until Stalin defeated Trotsky and cleared the Communist Party from many of its members of Jewish origin. Again and again, Russia played a tragic role in the history of Ashkenazi Jews, which profoundly influenced the worldview of the neoconservatives, who are still ardent Russophobes. Someone may object, arguing that many Jews are grateful to the Soviet army for liberating the concentration camps and for the fact that the USSR was the first country to recognize Israel. But in both cases, the country which, according to non-conservatives, is credited with these achievements is the Soviet Union, and not Russia, which most Ashkenazi Jews associate with anti-Jewish policies.
Anti-American mood in Russia
Since the collapse of the USSR, feelings towards the United States have changed a lot. In 1980, America was more popular than ever: Russian youth created rock bands (many of which gained wide acceptance over time, such as DDT from St. Petersburg), American fashion and fast food were every teen's dream, while the most "intellectual-advanced" members of society saw the United States as the "leader of the free world." Of course, internal propaganda tried to present America as an aggressive imperialist country, but in the end this “campaign” was not successful: most people loved the United States very much. The text of the song “Good-bye, America” by one of the most popular 90-rock groups of the last century “Nautilus Pompilius” has the following lines:
"Good-bue America, oh,
Where I have never been.
Do not see you again.
Take the banjo
Play me goodbye.
La la la
La la la
I became too small
Your grated jeans.
We've been taught
Love your forbidden fruit. ”
Although this was a kind of exception to the rule, by the beginning of 90's, the majority of the Russian population, especially the young, were hooked on American propaganda. The ideology of Russia has become pro-American.
But the collapse of the USSR, as well as the loyalty and support of Yeltsin’s west, changed everything. The USA used every opportunity to weaken Russia (for example, by admitting all Eastern European countries to NATO, although Washington promised never to do so). The West supported the Jewish oligarchs, who in every possible way drained resources from Russia, at the same time helping any separatist movement. By the end of 90's, the words "liberal" and "democrat" became insulting. The anecdote, which became very popular in those times, describes the current situation well.
A new teacher comes to class:
- My name is Abraham Davidovich, I am a liberal. Children, take turns introducing yourself just like me ...
- My name is Masha, I am a liberal ...
- My name is Stepa, I am a liberal ...
- My name is Little Johnny, I am Stalinist.
- Little Johnny, why are you a Stalinist? !!
- My mother is Stalinist, my father is Stalinist, my friends are Stalinists, and I, too, are Stalinist.
- Little Johnny, and if your mom was a prostitute, your dad was a drug addict, your sister was a whore, and your friends were gay, who would you be then ?!
- Then I would be a liberal.
Pay attention to the association of Jews with liberals and the mention of homosexuality in the context of drug addicts and prostitutes.
Anti-Russian sentiment in the United States
Given the endless barrage of anti-Russian propaganda in the Western media, one wonders how things really are. Americans have always been opposed to communism, but somehow most of them understand the difference between political ideology (which, by the way, they don’t really perceive and, nevertheless, do not like) and people who in the past have associated with it.
US politicians, of course, for the most part hate Russia, which is not the case for ordinary Americans. The explanation for this separation lies in two factors.
Firstly, since more and more people in the West understand that there is no democracy in their society, they treat state propaganda with categorical distrust (the same thing happened in the USSR in 80-ies). In addition, the number of those who oppose the imperial plutocratic order is growing, and with it the sympathy for Russia and Putin for his "opposition to the villains from the White House." But even more significant is the fact that Russia, by an ironic coincidence, today stands for the “yesterday's” values of the West: international law, pluralism, social rights, freedom of speech, anti-imperialism, a ban on violation of the sovereignty of states, the rejection of war, as a means of resolving disputes.
In the event of a conflict in Syria, the decisive position of Russia in the protection of international law certainly impressed many Americans and Europeans. More and more, one can hear commendable words addressed to Putin from those who have recently doubted him.
Of course, Russia can hardly be called a utopian country, and yet it did not follow the path of the “evil empire”. But any other normal state will defend the same principles as Russia. For her, this is not just a naive idealism, but a clearly built goal. Western propaganda insists that Putin is a merciless dictator representing the danger of the United States, but as soon as people begin to listen to him, they agree with his words.
Western elites still stuck in the Cold War
And if over the past twenty years the alignment of forces in the world has changed dramatically, the ideology of the Western elites has not. Faced with a very sad reality, they are desperately trying to re-launch the Cold War, hoping to win. All this endless mass media propaganda (oppression of minorities, murder or imprisonment of dissidents, lack of freedom of speech, totalitarianism) is aimed at rebranding Russia to the new Soviet Union. The problem is that they are twenty years late and charges of this kind are at odds with public opinion in the west, not to mention Russia itself. Any attempt to interfere in the internal political processes of Russia was so inept and inept that it almost immediately failed. Starting from the absolutely vain attempts to organize a color revolution and ending with whipping up the situation around the sex rights of minorities - all this only strengthened the position of Vladimir Putin.
Recently, one quite interesting event took place. Due to the current situation around the US budget, Obama could not come to the APEC summit. Nevertheless, the meeting was remembered by a real surprise, which was quite unexpected: the leaders of the countries of the Pacific region choir congratulated Vladimir Putin on his birthday. One can only imagine how much Washington was angry with such a “number”.
It would be naive to believe that the process of de-imperialization in the United States will take place without violence. The French and British empires collapsed in World War II, and the Japanese Empire was destroyed by bombing. In Russia itself, the “civil war” of 1993 of the year took thousands, but not millions of lives. And by the grace of God, everything went without the use of nuclear weapons.
So what happens when the bubble of a US empire explodes? It’s impossible to say for sure, but one can hope that no one will come to their aid, as was the case with Russia in 1991.
Over the past twenty years, the political course of America and Russia has changed dramatically, as well as their role in the international arena. By objective circumstances, these countries have become warring parties. “I am not against America — she is against me,” the words from the song of the famous rapper Lowkey.
At the same time, the wave of anti-Russian propaganda will continue, for in this way the panicked Western plutocracy is trying to “calm the nerves”.