Russia is increasingly integrating into a rapidly globalizing world, whether we like it or not.
It is not clear how much we need it, however, it has long been a fact. That is why it is necessary to consider what is happening in Russia in conjunction with the processes that started at the behest of the United States in the spring of 2011 in the Middle East, since it is obvious that what is happening in this region is no longer over.
War "from the inside out"
Today, as many experts state, a network war is being waged against Russia. This technology is of military origin. In the American military strategy, such operations have their counterpart and are called network-centric wars. Why do we refer them to military strategies? Because the result is a real military victory, that is, the seizure of territories and the establishment of control over them. In this regard, the understanding of new realities requires a complete revision of approaches to the conduct of hostilities and the achievement of military results.
In the industrial era, fighting was conducted using concepts such as the front and the army. Actually a military, military clash took place in a frontal manner - the opponents collided directly, and the victory depended on who had more advanced weapons and equipment, who had a numerical superiority in manpower. The victory itself was measured by the number of losses from one side or another and the establishment of military control over the seized territory from the other. These are the categories of the modern era war.
With the advent of the information age, known paradigmically as the postmodern era, this approach has changed. For clarity, this can be represented schematically: the national state, which today lies at the heart of the world order, is considered by strategists of network wars in the form of concentric circles. In the center there is a national leader, as a rule, the head of state, around which political elites are located. The next circle is the expert community, which forms political meanings and interpretations, and the media space, which translates everything into the language of the masses.
The next layer is the masses themselves: society, the population of the country. And outside - the outer layer: the army is located, the armed forces as a means of protecting the entire concentric structure. This scheme was first proposed by the American strategist, one of the developers of the theory of network-centric wars, John Wardon, a colonel of the US armed forces. Subsequently, it was borrowed by technologists of humanitarian social transformations.
The basis of the strategy, which was called Effects-bases operations (operations based on effects or “effect-based” - RBE), is that aggression against such a model of the state is not carried out from the outside, that is, not against the armed forces, not directly, "Frontal way." The so-called concept of waging war from the inside to the outside becomes more effective.
The first blow is applied to the center of this system, that is, to the leader. But, naturally, since this structure has many protective layers, this strike may not always be direct, military, although such options are used periodically — the physical elimination of the leader, which is less effective. Here is the ideological, ideological impact on the first face of the state, and better - its complete replacement.
Sad история USSR - the success of OBE
In order to understand what exactly we are talking about, let's recall the processes that took place in Russia at the end of the 1980-x - the beginning of the 1990-s of the XX century. American politicians and elites worked directly with the leader of our state, at that moment - Mikhail Gorbachev, and actively processed it, which eventually led to the collapse of the USSR.
Actually, as it turns out now, it was not without American participation that Mikhail Sergeyevich came to power. The conservative entourage of Gorbachev tried to languidly resist de-sovereignty and collapse (Emergency Committee), but lost the historic battle. As a result, Boris Yeltsin, an even more Atlantic-oriented leader, came to the first position. In this and in another case, the main direction of impact was in the direction “from the inside to the outside”. Yeltsin, taking into account Gorbachev’s mistakes, relied on the more ideologically corresponding elites.
Following the leader of the state, based on his ideas and will, as well as under the influence of new, already “reflashed” elites, the media and expert communities located in the next layer were actively processed and reformatted. Predominantly liberal at that time elites formed, to match themselves, an expert and journalistic community. All advisers, the main actors of internal political processes, had a strictly pro-American, Atlantic orientation. The media community is fully consistent with the liberal Westernistic views of the expert community.
The next step is the population, which is the product of the impact of the media space.
Under the pressure of the massive media processing, it reluctantly, suffering, but still accepted the views and views, oriented accordingly. In other words, according to the will of the leader, his elites, experts and the media at hand, the population was reprogrammed in a strictly pro-American, pro-Western vein.
The idea was instilled that Russia should submit to the general logic of the development of global world processes; that we must give up our sovereignty; that we must act in sync with our Western partners, the countries of the Western world.
And the fact that our army - the last, outer circle - decomposes, disintegrates, was basically normal, because it fit into a paradigm, according to which we must be weak in order for the Western world to be comfortable with us, to include us in global processes . Accordingly, the army as a social class, stemming directly from society, also decomposed under the influence of this whole structure, the transformation of which just happened “from the inside - outside”.
Putin and sovereignty: in the ring of elites
With the advent of Vladimir Putin, the leader was changed - the very center of the structure, which resulted in a sharp change of course, at least in relation to such a concept as sovereignty.
Putin’s main merit was that he made Russia's sovereignty worth and insisted that we restore and defend it. In the most pointed way, he demonstrated this during the second Chechen campaign, and openly stated this in the well-known “Munich speech”. That is, the center of the whole structure was a person who partially changed the sign of development to the opposite with respect to the leader who was in front of him, at least in matters of foreign policy.
Gradually, step by step carrying out the revolution from above, Putin began to restore the patriotic balance within the country, asserting the values of sovereignty as basic. Of course, in many respects he was and still is under the influence of the liberal environment, but, nevertheless, the process went in the opposite direction.
And it was precisely at this moment that a sharp aggravation of relations with the West began, which presents itself with a completely different picture and future development of the situation.
Gradually, Putin moved to a galaxy of leaders of states that, according to American ideas, in the "axis of evil." The accents and attitudes of the West towards Russia have changed. But American goals have not changed. They were adjusted, the implementation of the American project with respect to Russia was postponed, the disintegration and de-sovereignty of Russia were stopped, frozen. But this does not mean that the Americans abandoned these plans. This means that they have moved to another level of implementation of this strategy - into a more protracted phase.
According to the “Great Middle East” plan, before our eyes, starting from 2004, the Middle East is being reformatted to American standards. What is the point of this plan? The meaning is that the Arab world, the countries of the Maghreb, North Africa are still still largely represent the traditional systems of social organization. There clan society dominates, tradition rises above all other social regulators. Reformatting consists in mixing the traditional social order.
The task is to mix in order to implant Western, liberal values, which are based on the individual, that is, an atomized personality. In order to get such a person at the exit, it is necessary to destroy the collective subjectivity, which lies at the basis of the social structure of still traditional states and peoples.
To do this, mixing processes are included in accordance with the theory of controlled chaos - one of the theorists of this concept is an American strategist, scientist Stephen Mann. Outwardly, events develop as if by themselves and are chaotic, but all the same, ultimately, heterogeneous, turbulent processes come to a final, predetermined point, to a predetermined final, despite the completely chaotic course of these processes.
Thus, the introduced chaos from the outside leads to a given result. The Middle East has joined the process of mixing up social space to establish American democracy there. This space should be fragmented and atomized. Only in this case can it become susceptible to American liberal values. In a form in which the Libyan Jamahiriya existed under Gadhafi, she could not accept the values of American democracy.
This also applies to Syria, which implements the repetition of the Libyan scenario, and other countries of the Middle East. But Iran’s main objective in the Middle East remains its de-sovereignty and regime change. Even if the intermediate regime turns out to be not strictly pro-American, but, let's say, Islamist, this is not critical, because in this case chaotic processes are still launched, destabilization of the society occurs, which begins to boil, and then it will in principle not come to static, stable state. A little earlier, the Egyptian opposition easily coped with its leader.
Hosni Mubarak is gone, and spontaneous, chaotic processes, internal turbulence still occur. Regularly in Egypt, hundreds of people are killed in clashes. What to say about Iraq or Afghanistan.
The intermediate result may not be strictly defined, but at the next stage and at even more the next one the situation will be getting closer and closer to the one set by the American strategists initially. After the de-sovereignty of Iran, the last window will shut, and Russia will be surrounded by it.
The processes taking place in the countries of the Middle East and the Maghreb - a signal personally to Vladimir Putin that if he continues the political line on the sovereignization of Russia, on the return of Russia to the world stage as a major player, he can repeat the fate of all these leaders. Either he will be overthrown by his own population, or he will be biased by direct NATO strikes on the territory of Russia — such are the Western scenarios for Putin.
Another advantage of using the concept of network-centric and network wars that directly work with the population is that, at the time of implementing these strategies, the side against which they are implemented has no reason, no reason and no reason to use nuclear weapons.
If social unrest begins in Russia, those who disagree go out into the square and hold mass actions, then where is the opportunity for the use of nuclear weapons? Even if a force has been found that gave start to these processes, even if there is confidence that all this is not by chance, if it is reliably established that unrest and resignation requirements are of artificial origin and their center of initiation is either in the USA or in Europe.
Even if you have found a source of financing and a customer, you still will not have a reason to use nuclear weapons, which is absolutely incommensurable. That is, in your country of unrest, the people demand your resignation, and you use nuclear weapons against the United States? This is clearly an inadequate answer. Therefore, there is no possibility to use it, and this is the only thing that Americans really fear.
Hard Scenario Network War
The fact that Russia is a nuclear power still does not guarantee Russia that the current regime will not be overthrown using network technologies and network processes, that it will not be replaced by external control. This is the advantage of network strategies - efficiency and relative cheapness compared to conventional weapons.
Thus, Putin faces a choice: either continue to insist on the sovereignty of Russia, or go on about the US, in order to maintain stability. And they can offer him this option: if you want to maintain stability in Russia, you want to avoid processes similar to what is happening in Egypt, in Libya, in Syria, give up power. At one time, Muammar Gaddafi, killed by the West, initially stood on tough anti-American positions. But then he went on about the West, repented of his previous bad behavior, promised that he would no longer be the “bad guy” - and was accepted by the Western political community. To be killed.
The same is being prepared for Russia: Putin, in fact, has been led by the West, making his successor a more liberal, softer, pro-Western politician. And how did it end for Putin? Mass demonstrations at Bolotnaya and Sakharov, clashes with riot police 6 May 2012. There are a lot of analogies with the processes that are taking place in the Middle East.
At the time of the end of Dmitry Medvedev's presidential term, the Americans put the question before Putin: either you get social unrest, destabilization and the implementation of scenarios similar to those in the Middle East, or Putin refuses power and leaves a successor for another term.
And this would mean the subsequent very rapid disintegration of Russia according to a scenario that was frozen at the moment Putin came to power. But then the question arises: why was it conceived all this epic with sovereignty, if in any case, everything will be implemented according to the American plan? Here you either have to stand on your own and be prepared for a tough scenario, or everything formerly did not make sense. This is a serious, historic choice. The future of Russia depends on this choice literally. Therefore, we consider this problem in conjunction with the processes occurring in the Arab world.
A network war is being waged against Russia. What is happening with the leaders of the Arab states is a direct signal against Putin. Is he ready to defend his position for the sake of Russia's sovereignty in the face of a historical challenge, historical threats? Then the hard scenario is almost a matter. This will happen in any case, because the Americans are finishing what they have begun. Network technologies will be used in such a way that we will not have the opportunity to respond with the help of nuclear deterrence forces, which were such only during the modern era, conventional wars, conventional weapons.
Now we are faced with completely new technologies. There are no centers in Russia yet that are ready to respond to these technologies and challenges, and Putin personally faced a historical challenge. The network coup scenario was planned for 2008, but because of the concession that Putin made in favor of the West, appointing Medvedev as the successor, this scenario was postponed, but not canceled. The next attempt - mass performances in December 2011 - the beginning of 2012 - also did not give the desired result for the West.
And this means nothing more than a tightening of the script in the near future - the North Caucasus is not calming down, riots in Biryulyovo, the explosion of a bus in Volgograd, Russian discontent - what’s next?