Events in Ukraine and around the Crimea - “dust” from a long-running project to eliminate Russia as the only barrier on the way of the North Atlantic elites to world domination, says Andrei Fursov, director of the Center for Russian Studies at Moscow Humanitarian University, director of the Institute for System-Strategic Analysis, academician of the International Academy of Science (Innsbruck, Austria), editor-in-chief of the journal Oriental and African Studies, participant in the Izborsk Club, who answered questions from readers and editors of Znak.com.
“The maximum program is the same as in the creation of the German Nazi Reich”
- Andrei Ilyich, the main geopolitical issue today for Russian geopolitics is Ukraine. Let's start a conversation with the analysis of this situation. What happened there?
- I would put the situation in Ukraine on a par with the situation in Syria. And if there were disagreements on the Syrian issue in the world capitalist elite - there was an influential group that did not want to escalate the conflict in Syria and turn it into a regional war, then on the Ukrainian issue the West acted as one. At the same time, it is clear that, economically, the North Atlantic elites do not need Ukraine for a hundred years, they need to geopolitically tear Ukraine away from Russia, turning it into an anti-Russian bridgehead.
The policy of separating Ukraine from Russia is a long-standing geopolitical "project" of the West as a whole - the Germans, the British, the Americans. We often quote the words of Zbigniew Brzezinski that without the accession of Ukraine, Russia was not destined to regain the status of a great power. “Long Zbig” is mistaken: Russia and without Ukraine can return this status, only it will be more difficult and take more time. But the main thing is that Brzezinski is not original, he repeats the words of the German General Paul Rohrbach, who predicted at the beginning of the twentieth century: in order to eliminate the danger from Russia for Europe and, above all, for Germany, it is necessary to completely tear off Ukrainian Russia from Moscow Russia. Let us pay attention to the fact that for the German general both Ukraine and Muscovy are all Russia and he speaks of the need to cause an internal Russian split. In this regard, he develops the ideas of German politicians of the last third of the XIX century, in particular, Bismarck, who not only insisted on the need for such a split, but also offered concrete means to solve this problem.
In particular, they stressed the need to oppose Ukraine to Russia, to poison their peoples, for which it is necessary to raise people among the Russian Ukrainians themselves with a consciousness that has been altered to such an extent that they will hate everything Russian. Thus, it was about a psycho-historical special operation, information-psychological sabotage, the purpose of which is the creation of Slav-Russophobes as a psycho-cultural type and political force. Such orcs in the service of the Western Saruman. They had to tear Ukraine from Russia and oppose it as the last “anti-Russian Russia”, as a “free and democratic” alternative to the empire. All this was designed, in particular, by the Galician project, on which the intelligence services of Austria-Hungary and Kaiser Germany, then the Third Reich, in the second half of the twentieth century and up to now - the CIA and BND, were actively working.
After the Orange Revolution, it seemed to the West that the task would be solved - it did not work out. By the end of 2013, it also seemed that the task was about to be solved, that the EU clamp was already around Yanukovych’s and Ukraine’s neck. But the position played by the position of Russia (and possibly of China), and Yanukovych, having decided to play some of his own gesheft game, balked. At this point, the West wrote off, firstly, Yanukovich, secondly, the peaceful, “orange” way of separating Ukraine from Russia, making a bet on Bandera, on Ukrainian neo-Nazi russophobes, a product of the very psycho-historical operation that the Germans began to prepare for a century and a half back, then during the Second World War, the Nazis picked up the baton, creating the SS division "Galicia", and from 1990-s the heirs of the Third Reich to create a new world order (what a coincidence of terminology!) joined the work - the Americans.
In the current situation with Ukraine, the United States and the European Union vividly and without embarrassment demonstrated both hypocrisy, double standards, and Russophobia. Only this last one can be explained by their more than “tolerant” attitude towards the Ukrainian Nazis, marching through the streets of Kiev, towards SS men marching in the city. The logic is simple: if the Nazis in Ukraine (as in the Baltic States) against Russia, then let them. However, Americans are not used to it: in 1945 – 1946, with the active assistance of the Russophobic Vatican, they did everything to remove them from the blow of the Nazis (including obvious war criminals) to the United States or Latin America and actively use them against the USSR . Ukrainian events are a visual experience with whom we are dealing.
"To oppose Ukraine to Russia, to poison their peoples, for which reason to raise people who will hate everything Russian among Russian Ukrainians"
- And with whom, can be more precise?
- 19 – 21 February in Kiev, there was a neo-Nazi-Bandera coup inspired by the collective West, and above all the United States. It was the Americans who, using the dullness and greed of Yanukovych and his entourage, changed the situation, halting the anti-terrorist operation of the Ukrainian authorities. If it had begun, it would have been done with Maidan - he was already retreating. But it turned out the way it did. The long years of work of the US special services with the Ukrainian top, which keeps money in American banks, the SBU, the Bandera underground, which was activated, and largely recreated, have affected. It is indicative that during two decisive days, the US Ambassador, who was dictating the conditions to the top of the “Nezalezhnaya”, “worked” for the speaker, was delighted. Although what kind of "neutrality" can we talk about? The quasi-state of Ukraine, and so was largely under external control, but here it was demonstrated frankly, cynically and brazenly. Everyone was shown who is the boss, who rules the events - in the Rada and on the Maidan, whose evil will directs the neo-Nazi scumbags. The February American-Bandera coup could significantly change the geopolitical situation in Eastern Europe, Eurasia and the world.
“But isn't there a real protest in the Kiev protest against the Yanukovich regime?”
- The clan of Yanukovych, of course, mafia-oligarchic. But the West and the pro-Western forces in Ukraine only used for their own purposes the natural discontent of the people of Ukraine, above all Kiev.
- What are their goals?
- The minimum program - the creation by the West of the Slavic neo-Nazi-Bandera Reich - constant pressure on Russia, provoking it in various ways, including sabotage, and in the case of an adequate answer - replicating in the world media the image of a “free democratic Ukraine”, which the allegedly aspiring Empire regains Russia; in short, small Ukraine is a victim of big Russia, according to a scheme worked out in Yugoslavia: “poor Albanians are victims of evil Serbs”.
The maximum program is the same as in the 1930s during the creation of the German Nazi Reich: the creation of a force that, if necessary, for the West will take on the decisive part of the war with Russia and exhaust it to the maximum, while self-destructing. In other words, the final decision of the Slavic / Russian question by the forces of the Slavs / Russians themselves, followed by the division of Russia / Northern Eurasia and the appropriation of its resources and space. It should be remembered: the current separation of Ukraine from Russia is planned as a separation-opposition for pressure on Russia or a strike on it by the forces of the neo-Nazi-Bandera regime.
This, among other things (and the "other" it takes place: the struggle in the American elite, the situation of Obama after the 2013 year for him, the American-German problems, the Chinese games in Eastern Europe, etc.), the US response to the actions of Russia in 2013 year It looks like they, at least this administration and the clans behind it, which need to save face in front of their masters, are moving to action: after two years of elections, and the Democrats do not want to leave the White House, and Obama will have to work on a new one, now already white president. Who it will be - Madame Clinton, who back in December 2012, was mad at the Customs Union and, seeing in it the re-Sovietization of the post-Soviet space, stated that the United States would oppose this in every way, Biden or someone else - it does not matter. It is important that Russia should not expect anything good from this segment of the American top, but an attack is possible.
But, as the characters of the film “Chapaev” said about the attack of the enemy: “Mental? Well, to hell with her, let's psychic. It was smooth on paper. History - a treacherous lady, it is enough to remember how and what those who sought to finally solve the Russian question ended. This is not to mention the fact that there is an east and south-east of Ukraine.
“The party for Ukraine was stupidly lost. Our ambassadors turned their geshefts with the Ukrainian oligarchs, completely forgetting that there was a pro-Russian population”
- You do not exaggerate paint?
- I would really like to make a mistake so that it turns out - I’m exaggerating. However, I have been studying the world struggle for power, information and resources for a long time, analyzing the goal-setting and activities of the North Atlantic elites. I repeat that Russia, even in its present state, is still the only obstacle on their path to world domination. Therefore, one of the last chiefs of the Soviet intelligence, Leonid Shebarshin, remarked: the West needs one thing from Russia — not to have it. Strategically, geohistorically - was not. And for the organization of non-existence, a ram is needed - like Hitler used to be. Therefore, our armored train should always be on the siding: forewarned is forearmed. And it is better to thicken colors and make mistakes, than to allow the repetition of "22 June 1941 of the Year", especially since the North Atlantic elites are much more serious opponents than Hitler with his Third Reich, who happened to be almost alone with the whole world. Today, one-on-one with almost the whole world is we, especially since the Russian Federation is not the USSR either in terms of its economic potential or, most importantly, in the quality of human material.
- How do you see Ukraine after the fall of the regime of Yanukovich?
- Ruins. Nothing else can be. Partially destroyed, partially suppressed, partially expelled Russian population. Destroyed industry, bought up by the West and partly by the Chinese land. Although I admit that in the future theoretically possible outrage and overthrow of the Bandera regime. But it is difficult to overthrow the regime, behind which stands the West. This was possible when the USSR existed in the world — the second superpower that could support the weak of this world in their struggle against the strong, against the bourgeois iron heel. The other variant is more likely: the regime and the West will try to direct the social rage of the lower ranks to the eastern neighbor, identifying it as the source of all the evils, the causes of which are allegedly "oppression of the Russian empire", "Soviet totalitarianism", etc. Unfortunately, the game for Ukraine is stupidly lost. Our ambassadors worked with the Ukrainian oligarchs, turning their geshets, completely forgetting that there are people, people, including pro-Russian — the dollar was sickening with reason, while the West worked with the oligarchs, and with the most active anti-Russian forces, layers, in groups. These groups turned out to be the joker with which the West interrupted the supposedly pro-Russian oligarchs and their protege with a criminal background.
However, I repeat: the story of the lady is insidious and everything can go differently. The future is not predetermined, it becomes in the struggle, the collision of wills and forces, and therefore depends on us, on our actions. Losing the game is not losing the match, the match is not over. But in order to win it, or at least not to lose, it is necessary to do ruthless work on the mistakes and restore order at home. The loss of the “Ukrainian party” is the result of our internal problems, internal disruption.
"The era that started in 1991 year with the provocation of the August coup and the treacherous collusion of Bialowieza ends. Some other time begins"
- You say: the party for Ukraine is lost. But what about the Russian troops on the territory of the Crimea?
- The decision of the Russian authorities, and above all of Putin, completely breaks the scenario of the development of the neo-Nazi-Bandera coup / insurrection in Ukraine, inspired by the West, and above all the United States. In this regard, it can be said that the “face” of Sasha Bely is the flip face of President Obama and, in general, of all in the West, who were tempting neo-Nazis to seize power. Having seized power in Kiev, the extremists, who immediately banned the use of the Russian language, planned, gathering their strength and having the support of the West, to bring the Russian east and southeast to their knees. However, it turned out that these regions have support - and serious, this is Russia. It turned out that the country which had once defeated Nazism once stood in the way of the genocide of the Russian population by neo-Nazis.
The suppression of the east and southeast (it would follow the same pattern as the Serbs were crushed, only the “zapadents” who occupied the Albanians under the NATO shield would crush the place) is vital for the North Atlantic elite — it needs all of Ukraine, not just its western part. This part in itself is meaningless and is suitable only for the role of the second Kosovo. Therefore, the position of Russia so infuriated the Western elite, which, however, is unlikely to be able to do something really serious, except for winding nerves, provocations, podlyanok, etc. In what Obama and Co. say, there is impotent rage. They would like Russia to be indifferent to watching the Russians spread rot, how the neo-Nazi Slavic Reich will form on its western border. It is significant that the overwhelming mass of the Russian population actively supports the decision of the country's leadership. Overwhelming - except for a small but loud group, namely the “fifth column”, which immediately hissed.
In general, the current situation in Ukraine and around it reveals the “fifth column” especially well - both its meanness and its intellectual and professional misery. Here the expert from the Carnegie Foundation cut through and squealed that all this reminds him of the introduction of troops into Afghanistan. But what does Afghanistan have to do with it? What, in Afghanistan on the eve of the entry of the Soviet troops, did the Nazi-Bandera coup take place and the persecution of the Russians began? What, did the citizens of Russia live in Afghanistan (then the USSR)? Where is the logic? But, apparently, for an expert, the main thing is not logic, the main thing for the American owners to hear is to croak at the right time, “in all a crow's throat”. Although on the site of the owners I would have reduced my salary to such a servant - how can you defend the interests of those who hired you so stupidly? More elegant is necessary, carefully. This is generally the problem of "pyatokolonnik". You listen to their arguments and ask yourself: are they so unprofessional or are we dealing with elementary dementia? And another question: why are structures of the Carnegie Foundation type still being found in our country? Why does the agency of someone else's influence feel at ease with us? It is good that they mostly work rudely and counterproductively, but the matter is in principle. But back to the cut. Here is a singer released in circulation. He happily reports that in Ukraine our army is done like in Czechoslovakia. Ill, read books, if you have not forgotten how. The Soviet army established control over Czechoslovakia (the third most powerful army in Europe after the USSR and the GDR) in 36 hours, with minimal losses — of their own and the local population. This operation as a model was studied in the NATO headquarters. The current crisis situation powerfully demands cutting off the “fifth column” from the media; it is necessary to put a rigid political and legal barrier to its activities. And do not pay attention to the hypocritical moaning of those who poured blood on Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya, and many other countries and are ready to cover Ukraine with blood.
In general, the West the farther, the more concerned the situation in Russia in the post-Soviet space. Do they have few problems of their own? So maybe it is necessary that they appear? Why does the West work with impunity in our zone? Why don't we start doing what the Soviet Union did while actively working in foreign zones? Moreover, there are enough vulnerabilities. In any case, the Ukrainian crisis, provoked by the West against the background of popular discontent with the Yanukovich regime, is a milestone in the history of Europe, Eurasia and international relations. The era that started in 1991, with the provocation of the August coup and the treacherous Belovezhskaya conspiracy, is ending. Some other time begins. One cannot escape from time - and it is not necessary. Time must be met in the forehead. And even more so it is necessary to defend their own, to fight, as Alexander Nevsky would say, “for one’s friends”. In this case, it is not only “for friends”, but also for oneself — for the Russian state in history.
“Only a big war can solve the most serious problems of the supranational and American elite”
- What challenges do you see in Russia itself in the coming years?
- The main challenge for Russia is the systemic corruption of the state-oligarchic system. And it can be eliminated only by eliminating the oligarchic segment. Build this - a very unstable design, and it will either turn into an individual dictatorship based on the masses, or degenerate into a clique, the junta with the inevitable collapse of the country. It is the corruption-oligarchic (oligarchic-corruption) component that creates internal problems and weakens the state, making it vulnerable from the outside. Vulnerability from outside with us from all sides. In the west, this is NATO, whose owners — the North Atlantic elites — seem to be seeking to form a Bandera-neo-Nazi regime in Ukraine aimed against Russia. In the south (the Caucasus, Central Asia), these are Islamist radicals and, again, their Western masters are the supranational structures of world coordination and governance. These structures (the registration point at the moment - the United States) are the main opponent of Russia, which, with its nuclear weapons still represents the only obstacle in their path to full world domination. Perhaps they will try to finally solve the Russian question, provoking the internal Slavic, internal Russian war. This, I think, is one of the likely long-term goals of what is happening in Ukraine these days, which is being prepared for the role of an anti-Russian springboard.
"Exactly in 2017, by the centenary of October, the Soviet legacy will be devoured and the choice of means and the foundation for a breakthrough will come before the authorities"
- Is it possible to find parallels to the current period in Russian history?
- Conducting historical analogies is a risky thing, the story never repeats completely. As Hegel noted, the analogies are superficial and meaningful. The substantive analogies are such, which are based on theory - naturally, serious. Therefore, here I will confine myself to such analogies, which can be based on a solid theory. Of course, the theory itself, I will not expound here - it takes a lot of time and place. But briefly present my point of view.
In terms of the internal political policy of the Russian Federation, the reality of which is characterized by social polarization, corruption, screaming, brazenly-demonstrative wealth on the one hand, and poverty on the other, reminds Russia of 1915 – 16. This is the first.
Secondly, according to a number of parameters, the Russian Federation reminds the USSR at the time when it was approaching its final, when a certain part of the nomenklatura top and special services fought to change the order and thus hide the ends of their corruption and anti-state activities in 1970– 80-s.
Thirdly, the situation of the current central authority in the Russian Federation reminds me of the Moscow kingdom on the eve of the introduction of the oprichnina. The center is seriously threatened with complete oligarchization of power, the substitution of one chief superior by a “collective chief”, who will undoubtedly agree with the West to surrender the country to him on certain conditions (as it just happened in Ukraine, the political form is any; for example, the replacement of the presidential Republic parliamentary) with the surrender to the West of the personification of the center of the church and the people in addition. Ivan the Terrible stopped the tendency to oligarchy with the help of the oprichnina, which became the embryo of autocracy.
In another respect, the current situation is somewhat reminiscent of the 1564-65 years and at the same time 1929. The point is this. Russia has always created a relatively small total public product; a real substance, whether agricultural or industrial, has always been small. As a result, turning points in Russian history became such when the legacy of the previous era, the previous system was devoured, and the choice arose on the basis of which, based on which layers to make a breakthrough. Until the end of this decade, perhaps, exactly in 2017, by the centenary of October, the Soviet legacy will be devoured, and once again the choice of means and foundation for a breakthrough will be presented to the authorities. An anti-oligarchic, nationally-oriented choice was made in 1565 and 1929. How will now - we'll see. This is with regard to historical analogies in domestic and domestic affairs.
- What about foreign policy?
- With regard to foreign policy analogies, the current situation reminds me at the same time the years before the Crimean and World War II. In the latter case, it is the world crises with grave consequences, and the dire economic situation of the United States. At the end of the 1930-s, only the world war could save the American capitalist elite from the redistribution of property in favor of the middle and the bottom. By the end of 1930, the advertised “new course” of Franklin Roosevelt failed - a faithful servant of large American plutocrats, which some people still consider to be a fighter with them, and the United States moved to war; their goal in it was not so much the defeat of Germany (with it, with its potential, and so everything was clear) and Japan, as the undermining of the main rival - the British Empire. Today, many of the most serious problems of a very important segment of the supranational, and above all the American elite, can also be solved only by a big war.
Further. Since 1929, the British (in cooperation with part of the American elite) led Hitler to power the Nazis, created the German Third Reich, which was supposed to crush the USSR. Today, Americans (in cooperation with part of the British and Western European elite) are trying to create in Ukraine a Slavic neo-Nazi (Bandera) Reich, SS - “Galichina” the size of a whole country, a Slavic anti-Russian state, which can be thrown at the Russian Federation. Or - the minimum program - with which you can effectively put pressure on the Russian Federation, much more efficiently than with the help of the Islamists. Another thing is that these plans may fail, not be realized - and everything must be done for this, but I have no doubt that they are.
The analogy with the period preceding the Crimean War is as follows. Since 1830, the British have launched the informational-psychological project “Russophobia”. His goal was to set up Europe, European public opinion against Russia, presenting our country - the winner of Napoleon and the main opponent of Albion in Eurasia - in a totally negative light: Russia as the center of all bad and the source of all evils - from small to large. The campaign lasted almost a quarter of a century and brought success: at the beginning of the 1850-s, on the basis of this campaign, the UK created a pan-European anti-Russian coalition that defeated Russia in the Crimean War. A large-scale and systematic anti-Russian campaign in the European press was informational, a “cold” preparation for a hot war, and when all Europeans were convinced that Russia was a bad country that did not deserve peace and condescension, it remained a matter of technology to provoke Russia into war, which was done with using turkey.
If you look at what the US and Western European media are writing and showing about Russia in the last few years, then you can say with all obviousness: a large-scale systematic aggressive information war is being waged against Russia - in fact, many high-ranking US officials do not hide this or hostility to Russia. Informational blows are raining down on everything - from large and serious things to trifles, the significance of which is inflated to gigantic proportions - from the position of Russia on Syria to the possessed girls from Pussy Riot. And according to the Olympics, they even managed to cling to the gold medal of the figure skater Adeline Sotnikova. In other words, there is a total information bombardment, which should convince the western man in the street: Russia is a bad, worthless, undemocratic, intolerant country, representing (due to the presence of nuclear weapons) a threat to the “free western world”. And consequently…
What I know about the history of Russia, the West, international relations and information wars allows us to make an unequivocal conclusion: today, like on the eve of the Crimean War, there is such an information war against Russia, which, if necessary, will justify delivering a blow to Russia the invasion of Russia. Only as a provoking factor, in all likelihood, they are supposed to use not Turkey, but the Slavic state, having vented no longer Turks and Russians, not Germans and Russians, but Slavs with Slavs, Ukrainian Russians with Moscow Russians. So the analogies and parallels, alas, are disappointing.
"This is the answer of the West of Russia to its independent position in 2013 year. So to say," the empire strikes back "
“Then why did Putin behave so confidently last year?”
- On the whole, the international conjuncture of 2013 of the year favored the success of Vladimir Putin’s actions in Syrian affairs and the Snowden case, and in short terms partly along the Ukrainian line. But if you paid attention, I stressed: nothing ended in Syria or Ukraine. Assad will try to put a squeeze on one way or another - not in the forehead, so bypass. Well, in Ukraine - who is not blind, he sees what is happening. Although the West, and above all the United States, planned and prepared for two decades what happened there today, it is “today” - the answer of the West of Russia to its relatively successful actions, and most importantly, to its independent position in 2013, and especially for unwillingness to allow the West to tear Ukraine away from Russia. So to say, “Empire Strikes Back” - “The Empire Strikes Back.”
In general, assessing one or other short-term events as a success or failure is difficult. The French historian Fernand Braudel wrote: “Events are dust,” meaning that the meaning of an event can only be understood in the medium term (at least) time and, I will add, in a wider spatial perspective. And one of the greatest historians of the twentieth century, the British Erik Hobsbaum, generally believed that the fact is difficult to consider outside the context of the next two hundred years. This is probably a bust, but one thing is certain: an understanding of an event is possible only in a broader causal context. That is why it is so difficult to analyze the current reality - you need to simultaneously associate it with the trends of the past, doing historical combinatorics, and at the same time calculate future trends, tightening those and others in the instant of the present. The bottom line: what could be seen as a success in 2013 in the longer historical perspective may turn out to be a failure or a serious problem - “we cannot predict how our words will respond,” wrote Fyodor Tyutchev). And even later it can turn back success.
- What is the influence of the government in the political system of the Russian Federation? And how can one explain the contradiction between Putin’s policies with his appeal to statehood and patriotism, on the one hand, and with frank liberal economic policies, on the other?
- Indeed, the Russian government headed by Dmitry Medvedev is pursuing the same neo-liberal privatization course as before. Most of the cabinet are supporters of the liberal model of the economy, the one that destroys the economy of the Russian Federation, and the world economy has led to a dead end and a crisis. In the world, the era of the neoliberal counterrevolution (2007 – 2009) has ended with the crisis of 1980 – 2010 and the anti-liberal course is beginning to gain momentum, in contradiction with which the activity of Russian neoliberals continues to develop, their course.
The contradiction lies between the economic course and specialization in the international division of labor, on the one hand, and the foreign policy course, personified by Vladimir Putin, on the other. The course of the current government, contrary to its own statements, preserves the raw material specialization of the Russian Federation in the world system, and therefore - dependence on the owners of this system, which threatens the complete loss of sovereignty; Moreover, this course (the defeat of education and science under the guise of their reform) deprives Russia of competitiveness on the world stage in the future. The contradiction between the status of a great power or a powerful regional power and a commodity specialization cannot last forever, it must be resolved either in one direction (loss of sovereignty, and with it a significant part of sovereignty, or simply collapse with consolidation of dependent-commodity status), or to another (transition from commodity specialization, incapable of providing real and significant sovereign status, to advanced developed-industrial forms). This contradiction became acute in Russia at the beginning of the twentieth century and in the USSR at the turn of 1970 – 1980-s and destroyed both of these power structures of Russian history. The situation is the same today, and the threat of death / disintegration of the Russian Federation is not from the unreal region, especially since there are forces within the country and outside of it that are very interested in this. So we will be vigilant and ready to harshly stop any attempt to violate our state integrity.
Since in Russia power is always personalized, no matter what the government does, the main responsibility always rests with the First Person, whatever it is called, the king, the CPSU general secretary or the president; it is responsible for everything, and demand from it. Hence the discontent of a large part of the population who voted for Putin in 2012. The decline in the economic growth of the Russian Federation, which is acquiring a threatening character and — against the background of systemic corruption and the economic course of the government — is increasing social discontent with power, is working on it. The danger here is that the opponents of Russia (precisely historical Russia, whatever its name, and not just the Russian Federation) and their “fifth column” inside the country, under the guise of fighting corruption, oligarchy and a specific regime, will try to demolish Russian statehood as such to forever cut off Russia. It is necessary to remember well what slogans brought the USSR under: the struggle against the privileges of the nomenclature, for democracy, etc. What came after 1991 of the year has nothing to do with democracy, and the privileges and wealth of the post-Soviet elite who robbed the population of the country grew as much as the Soviet nomenclature never dreamed of, while the poverty, misery and insecurity of a large number of people reached , unrepresentable in the USSR.
Marx and Engels remarked on the European revolution 1848 of the year: we now know the role that stupidity plays in revolutions and how villains can use it. Moral: you need to remember 1991 for a year and not commit stupidity a second time, do not step on a rake, which are actively slipped by those who try to present themselves as true fighters against corruption, cutting-economy and oligarchs. But for some reason, oligarchs and those interested in preserving the oligarchic system in Russia, but in the form of a parliamentary type of a weak capitalist republic, rather than a strong state that restricts oligarchs (albeit with many patrimonial oligarchies), support these “fighters”.
"The contradiction lies between the economic course, specialization in the international division of labor - and Putin's foreign policy"
- So what should Putin do if he pays for all the mistakes of the government with his authority?
- The task of the central government in such a situation is to curtail the neoliberal policy and begin implementing anti-liberal measures in all spheres of society (with the mandatory political and legal suppression of the “fifth column” and cutting it off from the media). Otherwise, an explosion of social discontent to be used by external forces is highly likely. In this regard, the February coup of 2014 in Ukraine is “a good lesson for a lesson” and a warning, perhaps the last. Speaking on Maidan, Yulia Tymoshenko said that the events in Kiev are an example for the peoples of all post-Soviet states in their fight against dictators, and the son of war criminal Roman Shukhevych, Yuri Shukhevich, said bluntly: February Maidan is a continuation of the 1991 events of the year, the beginning of the second anti-Soviet revolution (the first - in 1991 – 1993), which should finally destroy the dream of restoring the Soviet Union. It is clear that the goals and objectives of such characters are formulated not in Ukraine, but abroad.
- In this case: do you think that any thoughts about decentralization and democostization are veiled propaganda of the collapse of Russia?
- I don’t know what demos is the acquisition of, but with decentralization everything is clear. It is not by chance that the enemies of Russia have sought and are striving to weaken the central power, to make it loose. Or - another option: they offer to turn Russia into a nation-state or several such nation-states. This is another way to destroy Russia, the old Anglo-Saxon-Vatican project “strike across Russia with Russian nationalism”. No wonder the so-called "Russian nationalists" like the liberals, who, as you know, do not like the Russian government.
Russia has never been (and will not be, if it is destined to be preserved) a national state in the bourgeois-western sense of the word - it is not its format, not its size, not its becoming and not its essence. Russia can only be an empire or (in the 21st century) an imperion-like formation (this form is described by me in the article “Cold East Wind” in the journal However, 2011, No. 1). Imperial (imperial) for Russia is not a form, as in the West, but a content.
Someone will say: the Russians carried the burden of the empire, but were winners who did not receive anything, and therefore the Russian empire was allegedly not needed or even allegedly harmful. This is a sly argument, because the Russians outside the empire are simply impossible, in which case they are easy prey for predators and aliens. But there is a certain ratio in this argument pushing for action: in the new imperial-like formation of historical Russia, the proportional number of ethnic groups must be strictly observed, the representation of members of these ethnic groups in various spheres, especially in government, the media, and science. It is necessary to correct the mistakes and errors of the past. There is a real problem: the formation of Russians as a nation is not completed, we lack national (self) consciousness — it must be actively developed. At the same time, we need an imperial-national (self) consciousness, not a national separatist one. And this consciousness, of course, must be defensive; of course, not in the sense of going into a dull defense (the best defense is an attack), but in the sense of a military one: since we live in a military era and at stake is the survival of Russians (and other indigenous peoples of Russia who will disappear without Russians), cultural-historical type (civilization) and power type (imperopodobnoe education).
In most cases, all schemes of decentralization of power in Russia are aimed at the dismemberment of the state into parts. The situation with the neoliberal talks about the maximum exit of the state from the economy is similar - they also work to weaken and disintegrate Russia.
"Another way to destroy Russia, the old Anglo-Saxon-Vatican project -“ strike across Russia with Russian nationalism ”
- What role do you assign to the Urals in future geopolitical processes?
- The Urals is the backbone of Northern Eurasia and at the same time the Russian state, one of its pillars. The Urals is the geostrategically most important zone of control of Russian land to the east and south and the Russian seas in the North, in the Arctic, which will be one of the main prizes of the 21st century in the world struggle for power and resources.
- What do you think, what bills should be adopted in the coming years?
- There are a lot of such laws. I will name those that should have been taken yesterday:
1. the law on the Russian people as state-forming (it must bring the law into conformity with reality: Russia is a multinational country, but a mono-national state);
2. the law on state ideology (without ideology there are no meanings, and without them a development strategy is impossible);
3. the law on the primacy of Russian law and Russian laws over international ones;
4. the law on the confiscation of property of corrupt officials (first of all, officials) and their family members;
5. the law on criminal liability for appeals to the violation of the state integrity of the Russian Federation, to separatism and for actions aimed at the realization of these goals.
"I am a Soviet officer, the son of a Soviet officer who signed for the Reichstag"
- Andrei Ilyich, you are a historian - how do you feel about the concept of a new history textbook?
- The concept of a new history textbook in the form in which we discussed it at the end of last year at a meeting of the Izborsk club (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ufz2bRaIYIs) does not hold water. In short, I’ll note that this concept is the fruit of mainly gray and dreary science bureaucrats who, by virtue of their small ability, tried to solve a difficult task: to fulfill the order of the chief and at the same time not to quarrel with the “liberal” (read: comprador) party during power and science. From here - an attempt to circumvent sharp corners, an attempt to dull and intellectually miserable. And, of course, there is a desire to remove the maximum of what is connected with socialism, even the October socialist revolution disappeared, its place was taken by the “great Russian revolution of the year 1917”. Is this the February palace coup, the work of the provisional government, the collapse of the country - the “great revolution”? Yes, people just sbrendili. In addition, it is unclear how capitalism is better than socialism — the evidence is on the table!
The authors of the concept proclaimed its social contract and principles of consistency and historicism as its methodological basis. This is called “an elder in the garden, and an uncle in Kiev.” The sick have not yet been informed that the social contract, in contrast to the principles of systemism and historicism, has nothing to do with the methodology of science, it is from a different plane.
And, finally, the whole concept is permeated by West-centrism, Euro-centrism; the idea is constantly being held that the history of Russia is an integral part of European history. But will not “European history” choke with such a piece as Russia, Northern Eurasia? First of all, this is European history, the history of the Western European Peninsula is part of Eurasian history. Secondly, Europeanism is not limited to the West. There is a Western, “Frankish” Europe, and there is a Northeastern, Russian Europe that has mastered Northern Eurasia. It is a completely independent stream interwoven with the Western, but by no means a part of it, a type of historical, civilizational development. It was clear to Arnold Toynbee, the British historian and intelligence officer, but not to the authors of the concept. Probably, Toynbee is not an authority for them (like Marx and many others), but an authority - disposable pacifiers, such as Alexander Yanov and other mediocrity.
It is necessary to explain the Russian historical type from him, and not to put a "trishkin caftan" of European schemes and concepts on him. You listen to other academicians - and the thought arises: or maybe it was necessary to disperse, if not the academy, then these would-be academicians, some of them do not even hesitate to throw mud at our past and argue that the territory east of the Urals should be given control "International community", read: the tops of the world capitalist class.
“Hess was one of the last witnesses to the crimes of the British. After stating that Gorbachev did not object to his release from the prison of Spandau, Hess called his son and said:“ Now the British will kill me. ”
- In the history of Russia, you assign a large role to Joseph Stalin. And where did he come from? Is it possible that he emerged from the structure of supranational coordination and management with the Russian foundation?
- Stalin emerged, firstly, from the complex “parallelogram of forces” of the international far left movement (Lenin’s group), the Russian left movement (Fioletov’s Baku group), desperate intelligence and counterintelligence actions of the General Staff of the Russian Empire, in 1917, saved Russia from establishing over it is Anglo-American control and ready to cooperate with the Russian ("imperial") oriented Bolsheviks, what was Stalin.
Secondly, the emergence of Stalin as a historical figure is determined by the logic of the development of the large “Russia” system and its denial of the “world revolution” scheme, into which the international socialists were about to throw Russia.
Stalin created a “red empire”, a state, and not a structure of supranational coordination with the Russian foundation, and in the struggle it created with the Western supranational structures of world coordination and management, using their contradictions. Such structures are characteristic of the West capitalist era, capitalism is not reproduced without such structures (I described this process in Capitalism as a conspiracy. Volume I. 1520 – 1870-s // De Conspiratione / On Conspiracy. M .: KMK, 2013) . We, Russians, have no tradition of creating supra-state structures, we are statesmen. Another thing is that we should create our statehood by embedding immunity in it against supra-state structures, their agents, and initially honing such a powerful drill with a win-win to the victorious fight against them.
- How do you suppose - what information did Rudolf Hess have that the British could not reveal it to everyone?
- I am convinced that Hess had explosive information on 1939 and 1941. I think in the 1939, the British gave him guarantees of actual non-intervention or fictitious intervention (as it happened) in the event of a Reich attack on Poland - just as in July 1914, they convinced Wilhelm that they would remain neutral in the event of war between Germany and Austria-Hungary with Russia and France and so provoked him.
In May – June 1941 of the year, judging by the totality of circumstantial evidence, the British convinced Hess (and through him Hitler) that, at a minimum, they would not conduct active hostilities against the Reich if Hitler attacked the USSR. Otherwise, Hitler would not dare to bare the western front and transfer troops to the Soviet border.
The terrible secret of the British 1939 – 1941's is the secret of the conspirators and arsonists of the war. Everything is logical: first Hitler was brought to power, and then they threw off the anti-Hitler plot of the German generals in September 1938 of the year and then gave him the Czechoslovak military-industrial complex. Hess was one of the last witnesses of these crimes. Therefore, it is not by chance that after the statement that Gorbachev did not object to the release of Hess from Spandau prison, he called his son and said: "Now the British will kill me." And soon he was found hanged - allegedly suicide. A man who could not even shave himself was killed (hanged himself). For more information about Hesse and his flight, see my video.
"Gorbachev’s most important mystery: the Anglo-Saxons long and firmly demanded that he not dare to unite the two Germany, and he went to meet the Germans"
- You claim that Mikhail Gorbachev ruined the USSR. What are the facts and your sources?
- I never said that Gorbachev alone ruined the USSR. Not even a large figure is capable of this, not to mention such a small figure as Gorbachev, an uneducated careerist who turned out to be at the top of the power pyramid of the USSR, on the one hand, according to the logic of its decomposition, on the other hand, by some coincidence external forces. The point is not Gorbachev, but in the social bloc of forces, whose facade was Gorbachev and his "brigade". The block of forces is part of the Soviet nomenclature and special services, which sought to become owners, on the one hand, part of supranational structures of world coordination and management, expressing the interests of big capital and operating through various structures (states of the USA, Great Britain, Germany, Israel and others; CIA special services , MI-6, Mossad; transnational corporations) - on the other.
The Gorbachev Brigade - and there is plenty of evidence (just look at the laws that were adopted on the economic and political reorganization of the USSR) - ruined the economy so that it would be easier to justify the inconsistency of socialism and the transition to a different form of ownership. From the Soviet side, the curators of the Gorbachev puppeteers wanted only this, but not the destruction of the USSR. But their Western accomplices used these actions precisely to defeat the USSR and, taking control of the destructive processes at the beginning of 1989, beat their Soviet “allies” and achieved their goals. The "allies" had to either change the plan on the move, or implement a minimum program, a kind of "picnic on the sidelines" of the road seized by the masters of the world game. In any case, they quickly understood the situation and began to rebuild their post-Soviet economic system through nominees. As if by magic, it is in 1989 that the “businesses” of future oligarchs-activists of the “seven bankers” - Berezovsky, Gusinsky, Smolensky, Khodorkovsky appear.
Someone will say: yes, Gorbachev is just a fool, he did not understand what he was doing. Yes, indeed, Gorbachev was narrow-minded, limited, vain, greedy (when he was the first secretary of the Stavropol Territory he had the nickname “Misha-envelope”), he really understood not all that he did - often he was played in the dark. But he did it all the same way. The fool makes mistakes, so to speak, in different directions. For Gorbachev, all the “mistakes” went in the same direction and worked to destroy the Soviet system and the CPSU, and ultimately the USSR.
The main mystery of Gorbachev lies, in my opinion, in the following. How could a man who looked into Thatcher’s mouth and Reagan, and then Bush Sr., who was trying to please them in everything, dared to disobey them on the German question? The Anglo-Saxons for quite a long time and firmly demanded that Gorbachev not dare to unite the two Germany, and he went to meet the Germans and the forces at the world level that supported them. What did the Germans have on Gorbachev that could outweigh his piety for the Anglo-Saxons and the fear of them? What cowardly jackal suddenly behaved like an independent tiger?
- Will there be continuation of stories about the royal family of Great Britain?
- The royal family of Great Britain, and other families from the first five hundred interest me not on their own, but as part of a whole, the Web, the Matrix. Therefore, I do not plan a special study on the Saxe-Coburg family, they are Windsors. I am interested in referring to the book by L. Picknett and his co-authors (Picnett L., Prince C., Prior S. with Brydom R. War of the Windsors: A century of Unconstitutional Monarchy. Edinburgh, 2003).
- Andrei Ilyich, you yourself would not like to participate in the "backstage of the world"? In opposition, it happens so often ...
- I did not understand the part of the question that is connected with the opposition. I not only have no relation to the opposition (firstly, because I am a socially very fastidious person; secondly, if our government most often fails most of what it undertakes, then the opposition fails everything — should we deal with professional losers?), but also to politics in general - I have another platform, other tasks in life, another “front line”. As for participation in the backstage, my answer is brief and, I hope, clear: I am a Soviet officer, the son of a Soviet officer who signs up for the Reichstag.