The balance of power in the world geopolitical game is such that Russia has a historic chance
To understand the essence of the processes taking place in the world, it makes sense to look at the balance of forces on the world chessboard. And most importantly, assess the role and capabilities of Russia in this game. Despite the fact that many have already written off us for a long time, have been deleted from the historical process, recorded in the category of third world countries, Russia still remains a key geopolitical player. But…“Clever head, let the fool go,” they say. Russia is now more like not a grandmaster, but a psychologically broken poker player who, after a long period of bad luck, suddenly got good cards. He had a chance to start raising the stakes slowly or use bluff tactics. But Russia, remaining after perestroika with a broken backbone, is not even capable of articulating its strategic interests in any way. Not to mention to defend them.
Among those who are trying to somehow change the situation and chart a path that will allow the country to regain a healthy mind and body, it is impossible not to note the efforts of the writer Nikolai Starikov:
“The world is changing rapidly. Events go one by one, faster and denser. Even those who have not thought about the current the news, begin to feel that something unusual is happening. For an ordinary person, world politics is happening in complete darkness. And the media grab, as if with a flashlight, only fragments of the overall picture. They do not give a holistic look - they do not include “full light”. As a result, what seems in the dark to be the ears of a harmless rodent is in reality the fangs of a fierce predator. It's time to turn on the light and look at the whole picture.
The current geopolitical situation is characterized by the interaction and collisions of interests of the four world centers of power. It:
1. Relatively speaking, the United States, i.e. The Anglo-Saxon World (USA and UK).
2. Europe.
3. China.
4. Russia.
What characterizes the players? What are their strengths and weaknesses? What are their desires and goals?
1. The United States (plus the United Kingdom) today has the most powerful economy, the latest technologies, the most important reserve currency, the most powerful army. They dominate the planet. And they really like this situation.
The United States today wants to leave everything as it is. Preserve “today” and transfer it to “tomorrow”.
The weakness of the United States is the presence of enormous problems for the dollar. Embedding in the dollar system can no longer guarantee welfare and preserve existing well-being. And this directly affects the degree of loyalty to them and the desire to follow in the wake of their policies.
Therefore, the United States, today the only defender in the geopolitical world games. And it fundamentally distinguishes the United States from all other players.
2. In today's geopolitical scenario, the Western world is no longer a single monolith. Under the talk of human rights, tolerance and pluralism, the old woman Europe is already playing its own game, which is different from Washington and London. On the European side, there is a strong economy, developed industry, advanced technologies and a currency that is growing in value - the euro.
The goal of European politics is to further strengthen its influence throughout the world, by strengthening the role of its currency. Paris, Berlin, Rome and Madrid want to become equal partners of Washington and London. This means conducting the policy strictly in their own interests.
The drawbacks of Europe are the “parochialism” of the euro and its dependence on the dollar, the absence of an army subordinating to Brussels and capable of solving the problem anywhere in the world.
3. China today is also thinking of increasing its influence and weight. On the side of Beijing - a booming industry, gradually moving here from all over the world. Hard power, a huge population and the ability of this population to work a lot and there is little. Beijing’s desire is to become the “bank” of the world, just as it has already become its “factory”. Yuan in a row of dollar and euro.
The status of one of the recognized centers of power in the world is what China wants to achieve. At the same time, the presence of this “bank” of its own factory will still give it an advantage over the future over other players. You just need to be patient and wait for China to become not “one of”, but the main center of power. And the Chinese are able to wait.
China's weaknesses are highly dependent on the United States, i.e. from your main opponent. This is a dependence on sales of their products to the States and sensitivity on energy supplies, which are now largely guaranteed by Beijing to the US 6 fleet.
4. Russia today is objectively the weakest of the players. This is the result of “reforms”, under which in modern Russian political science is called the conscious actions of a handful of renegades to dismantle and weaken the Russian state.
To understand what our country has experienced, this metaphor is best suited. The man was dragged to the gallows and a minute before the execution of the terrible sentence, the jailers got distracted or fell asleep. Sentenced to the gallows escaped execution and gave a tear.
What does Russia need today? And what does a man who has left the gallows need? Most of all he needs to have the jailers again not drag him to the scaffold. So Russia needs a guarantee that we will be given to develop on the basis of its own interests.
Russia today is weak militarily, lags behind in technology, has problems with demography. But we have some very serious advantages:
- A huge amount of minerals;
- a huge market, in the event that Moscow’s influence of the entire post-Soviet space and other adjacent countries is included in the orbit;
- the resurgent will to uphold all of the above, supported by a nuclear umbrella.
- an urgent need for us for all global players.
China, Europe and Russia want to pinch off the big world cake, which today is in the hands of the Anglo-Saxons. Three world forces want change, one wants to maintain the status quo.
The result of this scenario is a unique situation where none of the opposing sides can achieve their goals without the help of Russia.
Europe needs a strong euro, Europe starts talking about its separate European army. But most of all, Europe needs natural resources. Russia can give them.
China needs a strong army to guard its “bank” in accordance with the American example. China needs the yuan as a world currency, supported by factories and factories in the Middle Kingdom. All this requires natural resources. Russia can give them to China.
The US needs to prevent the strengthening of Europe and China. Not to give them the resources, to undermine their financial systems, to hinder the development of the Celestial Empire in every possible way and to try again to bend the Europeans under themselves, knocking the "independent" crap out of their heads.
In this scenario, when three differently sized forces are fighting for control of the planet, the Golden Share is in the hands of Russia. We are the weakest, but each side needs us to win. Because only blocking from the Russian Federation significantly increases the chances of any party to its geopolitical victory.
Such a look at unfolding events immediately gives an understanding of everything that is happening.
The essence of the policy of the Russian leadership is the unwillingness to block from any of these parties. Save yourself the freedom of action and remain an independent value, "under the guise of" strengthen and cease to be the weakest center of world power.
Each of the players vying with one another is trying to win over Russia to its side, simultaneously putting steps to the other. Trying to make us monopoly necessary.
Europe needs our “Golden Share” - and now European leaders, in spite of the liberal “common sense”, are building relations with Russia, giving Moscow military technology, helping to create Skolkovo. Transfer part of their production to us. They hand over Ukrainian Russophobes and forget about the Khodorkovsky case.
China needs our “Golden Share” and he actively supports Russia on the world stage, gives Lukashenko loans at our request and is ready to share his technologies, which are not the most advanced.
The US needs our Golden Share the most. And they are trying harder than anyone to get the Russian leadership to give it to them. By supporting the separatists and the Fifth Column, the bombings in Moscow and the terrorist attacks in the Caucasus, the company to discredit Putin and accuse him of all conceivable and inconceivable sins. The psychological pressure on President Medvedev is also increasing.
The goal of all these actions, from the explosion in Domodedovo, to the marches of the "dissenters", one - to pick up the "Golden share". If Putin does not want to give it, let him go, and a new “director” will take his place, who will give the Golden Share to Washington. As it was in the nineties.
How can you divert all players from cutting the Anglo-Saxon pie? Having created such problems for them, in which everyone will have no time for sharing the zone of US influence.
We tried to start a war. Neither around Iran, nor India-Pakistan, nor Korea against Korea, nothing happened.
It remains to use the second favorite method of the Anglo-Saxons - the revolution.
What problem can immediately become a headache for China, Europe and Russia? Revolutionary radicalization of a whole belt of Muslim countries.
Muslims (Uygur district) live inside China, large Muslim states (Pakistan, etc.) are on its borders. In Russia, entire regions and republics are mostly Muslim. A huge number of Muslims live in European countries. But on the borders of the United States there are no Islamic states and the percentage of Muslims among the population of the States is not a critical value.
And now a whole series of revolutions breaks out in Islamic countries, with the active participation of the organization “Brothers-Muslims” and others, whose leaders and headquarters are in London. They occur in “dictatorial” and “unstable” countries that were not unstable just yesterday, and their leaders enjoyed the respect of the United States and Europe, and no one called them dictators.
The best defense is, as you know, an attack. The task of the Americans is to create such difficulties for those who want a “big redistribution” of the world spheres of influence, so that they will have no time for that.
A great way would be to start a large-scale war, wherever possible: Pakistan-India, North and South Korea, Iran-Israel. In an unstable and dangerous world, everyone needs a reliable patron: the US Army and the British Navy.
The problem is that it is impossible to unleash a war in any direction. No one wants to fight. There are no fools.
What remains? Act differently. Since it is not possible to make porridge, which all opponents of Washington will have to clear up at the same time, they have to act pointwise. Therefore, you need to decide on the sequence of blows. And then with the attack method, i.e. impact.
Who to beat first? Europe? China? Russia?
Of all three opposing Anglo-Saxon centers of power, China is the most powerful. Hard power, growing economy, five minutes to the world reserve currency, the yuan.
Therefore, the fight with the strongest rival of the United States was postponed until later. We tried to agree - they offered to “rule” together, to create “G 2”. China refused.
Inside China, a social explosion of a proper scale is not yet working. Only local actions “for the Olympic Games” in Tibet (which once after its termination subside), small unrest in the Uygur autonomous region, as well as the creation of a chain of instability around China itself are successful.
The best way to fight the Chinese is to “put in place” other centers of power. If you lead to the obedience of Europe and Russia, then it will be easier to talk with Beijing. Left alone with the Anglo-Saxons, seeing how the "father" deals with the recalcitrant, in Beijing they will honor it for the good of tempering their appetites.
Which of the remaining two centers of power is more vulnerable? Russia or Europe?
Despite the fact that Russia is objectively today the weakest of the centers of power, the most vulnerable is not it, but Europe. Berlin, Paris, Rome and Brussels only began to fight for their own independent policies. They have taken very few steps in this direction, they are not ready to bear serious losses and sacrifices, mentally and civilizationally very close to the Anglo-Saxons. Europeans just need to “bring back,” to once again create the united and monolithic West, with which it opposed the rest of the world some other 10 years ago.
How to do it? To use the contradictions and problems that really exist in Europe, bringing them to the maximum intensity.
The main weapons impact on Europe by Washington and London, is the destabilization of Muslim countries and the radicalization of Islam in them.
It is necessary to understand that the Anglo-Saxons are not doing this at all from a good life. A long and difficult path, instead of a simple war. But they have no choice. If you do nothing, you can quickly lose control of the situation.
How can a revolution in Egypt, Tunisia and other countries, hit Europe?
Gas to Europe goes through Tunisia. Mined in Algeria. Here you have the next goal "oranzhizma." So the main thing is to interrupt the supply of resources to Europe? Not. In the unfolding events - oil and gas, oddly enough, are secondary.
Look at the map. Mediterranean Sea. On the one hand, its coast is, conditionally speaking, “revolutionary Africa”, and on the other, calm Europe.
The main thing is the destabilization of the entire region. Chaos and unrest across regions. The radicalization of Islamic circles.
Which inevitably spill over to where? Purely geographically?
The destabilization of the Arab world is tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of refugees. Where will they go? To Europe. In the US, they do not run.
And if they will be MILLION? And this is just the beginning.
Which two countries are two pillars, two locomotives of the European Union? France and Germany.
And in which country in Europe do people from Algeria live? In France. Where will the refugees run when the “bloody and corrupt regime” is also overthrown in this country?
To France. Here you have determined the goal for the Orange Revolution.
Refugees are an automatic increase in tension between Europeans and Arabs, which is easily heated from the outside. Machines set on fire by Arab adolescents in French cities were burning recently. The mass of illegal refugees, whom the French authorities will send home by force, “having trained” in the summer on the Gypsies. Here is the ground for unrest and ready. It remains only to allocate money and send the organizers of the "popular indignation."
The more countries you destabilize, the more opportunities there are for pressure on Europe. Remember Scarlett's wonderful expression from Gone With the Wind: "I will think about it tomorrow."
So the Anglo-Saxons need to blow up the country one by one. To think how to use it in the fight against Europe will be possible later. Therefore, unrest begins in quiet Bahrain, and Syria, and in Libya. It turns out - well, it will not work - God be with him. There are several countries that need to destabilize necessarily, and the rest are not so important.
And when chaos engulfs the whole region, then you can turn the situation around, somehow.
The destabilization of the Arab Muslim world is a blow of terrible power precisely throughout Europe.
As we can see, the plan to “besiege” Europe, to bring it to submission, is actively implemented by the Anglo-Saxons. It is multifaceted - here there are color revolutions and preparation for a new war in the Balkans.
What is being prepared for Russia?
Our "golden share" is needed by all. And everyone who was needed by everyone ends very badly. Kamenev and Zinoviev, who had the “golden share” in the struggle of Trotsky and Stalin. Swan, who had a "golden share" during the election period 1996 year.
Possession of a "golden share" is historical chance of Russia. This gives us some time. But this time is limited, it is not infinite. After some period of time, global players will either learn how to do without us, or they will tear the share out of our hands. The Golden Share is a chance, not a panacea.
To survive, we must turn into a fourth world force. Which the current “arc of Islamic instability” will not be dangerous with, and the future challenges that will replace it.
For this we need our own project again. Our own way.
What is the essence of the possible project of our survival?
It must meet three criteria:
1. Social expectations of the people.
2. Mentality of the people
3. The interests of the state.
1. What is the social expectations of the people? In fact, it can be said in one word - justice. We must become an equal opportunity society that operates on the principles of justice. To reduce the difference between the poor and the rich, to really restore the feeling that we all had before Perestroika. We are one people. It was possible to envy, but there was confidence that if you make an effort, if you try, you will make a career and take your height.
Need deoligarchization of the economy. Need social elevators.
2. The mentality of our people, (by the way, regardless of religion) has a deeply ingrained team spirit. He did not invent the Bolsheviks. He was always inherent in both the Russian peasant and the inhabitant of the Caucasus and a member of the Russian Jewish community. You need to follow your roots and your genetic code. Our people do not like the slogan "profit at all costs." Those who follow him are not respected and valued. So, it is necessary to give it up, within the framework of the whole country. We do not need profit at all costs, we need a prosperous Russia. And the fact that this is not the same, each of us sees in his own example.
3. We need a strong, nationally and socially oriented state. And in order to achieve a prosperous Russia, it is possible and should abandon any dogma, retaining only common sense, as a way, and the well-being of the country, as a goal.
How can such results be achieved? The combination of economics and ideology.
Ideology
This ideology, if it is formulated, is simple enough: social justice, a new collectivism, the responsibility of those who are ahead, to those who are behind. If you want - even the philosophy of the Russian "mutual responsibility". When we together achieve jointly recognized results. Each in its place. We can oppose our Russian mutual responsibility, which, in essence, is part of our mental code of mutual support and mutual support, to the mutual responsibility of corrupt officials and the media living in the world invented by them.
Economy
20 years of following the liberal course in economics, give reason to conclude: the liberal experiment in Russia failed. As well as in the whole world. We started to participate in it later than others, and, I hope, we will start to leave it before others.
Globalization and liberalism in the economy must be countered with “enlightened protectionism”. This is not the Iron Curtain, which, by the way, lowered the West in 1946, not the USSR, but the rejection of blind following in the wake of the global economy, which today is close to bankruptcy.
What steps are necessary to implement the principle of “enlightened protectionism”?
1. The nationalization of the ruble. That is, the uncoupling of the domestic ruble mass money from the volume of gold and foreign exchange reserves. With the simultaneous transfer of all Russian exports to sale ONLY FOR RUBLES. Exit from the IMF and other global financial structures.
Russian exports only for the Russian ruble.
2. Monopoly of state trade in Russian strategic energy products on the world market.
3. Nationalization of mineral resources. Oil and gas produced on the surface of the earth should remain the property of the state. Oil and gas companies are turning into contractors to whom the customer-state pays for their work: for the extraction and exploration of hydrocarbons. But the country itself sells oil.
As a result, it is not the country that lives on taxes (that is, part of the whole) from the production and sale of oil, but companies live on their work payments (that is, parts of the whole). But the "whole" remains to all the people.
We do not need to be afraid of the steps that are obviously necessary for our survival. Our current everyday life will change little when pursuing a policy of “enlightened protectionism.” We will also be able to travel abroad. Those who want to buy the currency will be able to buy it. We will also get a haircut in private hairdressing salons, buy groceries in private shops, fly on private airlines airplanes. But society will operate in the mode of economic and political recovery.
Golden Share is a perishable thing. It is impossible to give it, it is also impossible to sit on it. Beneficial to give it to anyone will not work. It turns out the option - "pomatros - threw." With further loss of interest in us from the global players. To achieve the desired, promises are always fulfilled, not by duty, but by free will.
So inaction is inflation for a gold share. There is only one way - to use it for development, to create a project. There are only two options for such a project:
- embedding in the liberal-global system of the world distribution of labor;
- organization of your own project.
Embedding in a liberal project means nothing more than the death of our statehood. The current global economic system is built on financial success and is controlled by financial institutions. And we will not be allowed to operate them for any action. This is the first reason why we can not connect to someone else's project. And the second reason is even more serious.
Today's global economy rests on the principle of profitability. From this flows, beautiful in appearance, the idea of the world distribution of labor. When wine is grown in France, television sets are collected in China, and gas is produced in Russia. Where it is profitable. Here they do one thing, here they do another. Who from countries lives tourism, who - fishing. Seems reasonable?
This is a very dangerous illusion. The very idea of a world division of labor is killing the idea of total state sovereignty. And for all subjects of world law, except one, a maximum of two. Remember the USSR: one republic raised cotton, the other tangerines, and the third produced refrigerators and tractors. The division of labor existed in the Union to the full extent. With one important condition - there was a unified leadership and unified management. Only under unified leadership was such a division of labor possible.
So on a global scale, the idea of the division of labor inevitably implies a single management. After all, someone must lead and manage a single global economy, where each part produces something of its own and does not produce a lot of other things necessary for it. Without this control, chaos is inevitable. Someone should take care that the TV maker does not remain without bread, and the bread maker does not remain without TV.
The scheme is as follows: an assessment of the economy only through money (profitability) - the world division of labor - the management of economic processes on a global scale from a single center.
And for managing the global economy from a single center, regulation of political processes on a global scale inevitably begins. It is very important. So much so that I am ready to repeat. The emergence of a single control center for economic processes on the entire planet inevitably leads to the emergence in the same place of a single control center for political processes.
Leading the economy on a global scale inevitably leads to the management of world politics. We see it today. The next step is the creation of a world government.
In the framework of the theory of financial profitability of everything and everything, you will laugh, but it will be absolutely logical step. This is the "Trojan horse" of liberalism and globalism. Embedding in the world division of labor is the first step towards a world government. But you will not talk about it. You will be told about profitability, unprofitability, efficiency, capital intensity. But we need to understand what is really being discussed, even if half the apologists of liberalism and globalism do not understand this.
Are you ready to give the reins of government to the world government? If you are ready, then yes, you can be integrated into the global global project. But we must remember that the fate of your children, their standard of living and prospects of the country will then be decided by some uncles far from our territory. No related to you. Absolutely with you without consulting and without coordinating your steps.
The option of "putting the country in control" of the world government is one of two possible options for development. So it should be considered. Just let those who advocate such a path speak the truth and do not hide behind beautiful words about the market, effective managers and the rationality of the global distribution of labor. Let's talk without a blink in our eyes, with a clear understanding of future prospects.
Forget about "market and financial performance." The question must be put like this: are we in the future for a world government or for a national government?
I am a principled opponent of the creation of a world government and a single control center. I am sure that the majority of my compatriots are also opposed to the erasure of national characteristics and the loss of cultural identity, the loss of diversity of ideas, languages and origins.
I propose to make an informed choice in favor of the national government.
We need a conscious choice and the benefit of the national government. In favor of the idea of complete state sovereignty, the preservation of peoples within their cultural field. Actually, this is the concentrated expression of Russian politics, which for hundreds of years has absorbed dozens of peoples, and created a unique and inimitable experience of symbiosis, and not the mechanistic coexistence of cultures and languages.
At the beginning of a big way you need to understand what we have in the asset and what we have in a liability.
Passive We are divided. From monarchists to communists, from pagans to Orthodox, we want one thing - a big and strong Russia, but we don’t have either ideology or practice for our unification. Ideology could be replaced by a leader who united everyone with the power of his authority. But we do not have a leader recognized by all.
We could buy the best minds, weapons that will protect us, technologies that will ensure the development of a great country. But we have no money. It is the lack of money that does not allow us to play the “game of political parties” and win in the liberal political field that we have. With the help of a financial stranglehold, with the help of rules written not by us, this field is controlled even better than by machine guns. And it's not about personalities, but about rules. A system in which a political party cannot realize its political potential without having financial support from the side is inherently flawed.
In fact, we do not have: a universally recognized ideology, a universally recognized leader, our own financial resources, our own, and not other people's rules of the game.
I can hear how those who object to me say: there is an ideology, there are leaders and there is a methodology. In response, I will say only one word: generally recognized! There are leaders, there are ideas - there is not all of this on a generally accepted scale. That is our passive.
Assets. We have a desire to have all of the above. And that's all. Possessing such an asset-liability ratio, it would be the height of levity to rush into the turbulent abyss of struggle. But the next Russian miracle can take place in this, that this is exactly what those who are against us think. ”
Information