Obviously, this is about resolving the issue of a change of power in Russia. And further advises not to “waste time trying to negotiate. The West should focus on developing and promoting the post-Putin agenda. ” And the most interesting thing is that the article in which it is proposed to solve the issue of power in Russia with the help of foreign intervention was written by a representative of the state’s most accustomed educational institution, to whom those same “archaic rulers” provided gigantic allocations, donated a lot of premises and pay thousands of students annually. Apparently, for learning their Euromaidan technique.
To help our readers understand, the editors of News Front asked for comment on the most competent economist in modern Russia, who has extensive experience in political activity and public administration — Academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences S.Yu. Glazyev.
News Front: Dear Sergey Yurievich, you probably know Vladislav Inozemtsev. Where does such a non-appeal tone and claims of ultimate truth come from? Does he consider himself the smartest?
S.Glaziev: Yes, I know, and even read his books. Many of them are very interesting. But in this case, a colleague acts not as a scientist, but as a prophet. This is a common feature of market fundamentalists, who for some reason are convinced of having some kind of “secret knowledge”. The latter, however, is known even to students of elementary courses at economic universities. This "secret knowledge" is based on primitive models of market equilibrium, which serve as the "scientific rationale" for the ideology of market fundamentalism. Although this justification is completely divorced from reality and represents a jumble of scholastic reasoning, this ideology is very influential, as it expresses the interests of big business, denying government regulation and striving for monopoly power. After the collapse of the USSR, this aspiration became global, which was reflected in numerous publications by American propagandists about the end storiesthe third wave, the transition to a post-industrial society, representing different interpretations of Pax Americana - a new historical era of a unipolar world with a center in the United States. Inozemtsev was engaged in the translation of these books into Russian and their popularization. Apparently, he was so imbued with them that he lost the sense of reality. Like many Russian “liberals”, he simply believed in the doctrine of liberal globalization with its center in the United States, which they sincerely consider to be the “promised land”. Russian liberal reformers believed in market fundamentalism during the collapse of the Soviet Union. Before that, many of them were communists and believed in the tenets of Marxist political economy. Without bothering with scientific analysis, they, under the influence of the political conjuncture, simply replaced one creed with another. Following Fukuyama, they believed in the “end of history” and hurried to swear allegiance to the new religion. Although in essence this religion is nothing more than a modern version of the old faith in the golden calf, its new adherents brought from Marxism a desire for a scientific specimen concluded in the mathematical forms of illusory processes.
News Front: You said liberals in quotes. You do not think Inozemtsev and other intellectuals of the "fifth column" liberals?
S.Glaziev: Liberal, in Russian means free. It is difficult to consider free people calling for external intervention. Foreigners justify the use of sanctions against Russia. In this, he resembles the Bolsheviks, who wanted to defeat Russia in a world war, calling for "turning the imperialist war into a civil war" and turning the bayonets against their own state. Sanctions are in principle incompatible with liberal ideology. As well as with forceful coercion of Ukraine to European integration. Judging by the article, in the Ukrainian catastrophe he is on the side of the Nazis, who seized power by a violent anti-constitutional coup. I think he is familiar with the ideology of these people who openly glorify Hitler's accomplices, who committed the massacres of Ukrainian citizens and ethnic cleansing. Just recently, one of the Fuhrer of Ukrainian Nazism, who usurped the post of prime minister, accused the USSR of attacking Ukraine and Germany. Thus, he officially confirmed the continuity of his regime with the fascist occupation regime of 1941-1944, from which the Soviet Army itself liberated both Ukraine and then Germany. Apparently, he sees himself as the modern incarnation of Gauleiter Koch, and the key places in his government are occupied by foreign appointees of the Reich, whose regional administration in Ukraine is located at the US Embassy. Foreigners essentially solidarize with neo-fascists, which, incidentally, often happens to "liberals." In political science, there is even the concept of “liberal fascism,” a typical manifestation of which, before the Nazi coup in Ukraine, was Pinochet's regime in Chile. As you probably know, he was also brought to power by the American special services, repressing tens of thousands of dissenters. To assert its hegemony, the West resorts to direct violence, regardless of human sacrifices. Remember Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya. It is strange that Inozemtsev does not know that it is the US special services that are in charge of the punitive operation against the residents of Donbass, pushing the Ukrainian military to mass crimes and the genocide of the Russian population. At the same time, they consciously evoke the most base and archaic forms of human behavior, stimulating the Ukrainian Nazis to display violence and sadism.
News Front: Are you talking about the maxim of Inozemtsev that "The goal of Western sanctions should be to separate the archaic rulers of Russia from its modern population"?
S.Glaziev: Yes, this is perhaps the most courageous statement of the author, whose pathos and absurdity deserves a special analysis. We begin his analysis with the definition of "archaic." I would venture to suggest that Inozemtsev has in mind his colleagues in the Higher School of Economics. Many of them part-time work in the government in high positions, distracting for some time from the management of departments in the "HSE". The institution itself, as you correctly noted, is generously funded by the government and, according to its orders, conducts many developments in all areas of work of the executive branch. These developments then form the basis of government policy, and their authors are awarded state awards. The government and the Central Bank, which govern the Russian economy and finances, are so closely intertwined with the “HSE” that they are even one entity in some people. Therefore, if in some way their policy is archaic, then it is rather a complaint to Inozemtsev and his colleagues, who are greatly lost in questions of the modern theory of managing economic development. Unfortunately, they so believed in the primitive doctrine of market fundamentalism and tied their fate to the execution of the Washington Consensus doctrine that they did not notice how a new paradigm was formed in modern economics that studies the processes of economic development in all their complexity, non-equilibrium, non-linearity and uncertainty. I do not have the opportunity to state her position in this interview. But I can confirm that the economic policy pursued by Inozemtsev’s colleagues is indeed archaic. It is precisely because of its inadequacy to the tasks of economic development, which President Putin has set quite modernly, and not because of sanction bites, as Inozemtsev believes, the economy plunges into recession. Colleagues Inozemtsev in the Central Bank worked exactly as the Americans expected - they supported the attack against the ruble organized by them with unlimited credit, which allowed speculators to derail the ruble, and then heightened the interest rate, which caused a sharp drop in business activity, decline in production and investment. But it was possible to do differently: introduce currency regulation and control, direct and indirect methods of reducing capital flight, provide long-term and cheap loans to manufacturing enterprises, obliging banks to control their targeted use. But this would require abandoning the archaic dogmatism of market fundamentalism and the transition to a pragmatic policy of economic development based on the revitalization of the existing scientific and production potential.
News Front: Why do you call market dogma archaic? After all, it is based on the whole ideology of globalization, the policy of international financial organizations, and the mainstream economic theory?
S.Glaziev: Because it is inadequate to modern scientific ideas about the processes of economic development. The underlying paradigm of market equilibrium cannot explain either the phenomenon of NTP, which has become the main factor of economic growth, nor the diversity of economic practices, many of which clearly do not fit into the ideas of market fundamentalists. Based on market equilibrium models, the mainstream of economic theory tries to ignore either one or the other. But thus it becomes archaic - a theory that is unable to explain the most significant manifestations of the subject of research can no longer be considered scientific.
News Front: Is there a modern economic theory?
S.Glaziev: There is. It develops within the framework of the evolutionary economics paradigm, which studies the real processes of reproduction and economic development. It was within its framework that the global financial crisis was predicted, the current structural crisis of the world economy was explained, and the movement of its development center to Asia was shown. Phenomena such as the rise and fall of oil prices, the swelling of financial bubbles, the decline in production in major sectors of the economy, which led to the depression in advanced countries, along with the rapid spread of new technologies and the rise of catch-up countries were predicted in advance by the theory of long waves. On this basis, recommendations were developed in the field of economic policy, an advanced development strategy was formulated, which envisaged the creation of conditions for the growth of a new technological order. Before our eyes, a new, more efficient compared to the previous, socio-economic system is being formed, the center of world development is moving to Southeast Asia, which allows some researchers to speak about the beginning of a new - Asian - century cycle of capital accumulation. Following the Genoa-Spanish, Dutch, English and American centuries-old capital accumulation cycles that have been successively changing each other during the half-thousand-year history of capitalism, the emerging Asian cycle creates its own system of institutions that keep the old material and technical achievements and create new opportunities for the development of the productive forces of society.
News Front: So you do not consider Inozemtsev’s call for the modern Russian people to proceed to the European family as progressive?
S.Glaziev: Only if you consider as a family progressive same-sex marriages that have become a symbol of the European choice. If we talk about the economy, the EU and the United States hopelessly lose in the global competition with China, India, Japan and other countries in the core of the Asian cycle. Only the blinded by the belief in the infallibility of the Washington Consensus, modern adherents of the old religion of the golden calf do not see the obvious. China has already become the largest economy in the world and continues to grow rapidly amid the depressive state of the American and European economies, burdened with an avalanche-like growing hopeless debts. And this, as you understand, is not due to backwardness. On the contrary, Asian countries are taking the lead due to the obvious advantages of their system of managing the development of the economy, which corresponds to the peculiarities of the new technological order. Regardless of the dominant form of ownership - state, as in China or in Vietnam, or private, as in Japan or Korea, the Asian cycle is characterized by a combination of institutions of state planning and market self-organization, state control over the basic parameters of economic reproduction and free enterprise, the general ideology good and private initiative. At the same time, the forms of political structure may differ fundamentally - from the largest Indian democracy in the world to the largest Chinese Communist Party in the world. The priority of public interests over private interests remains unchanged, which is expressed in rigid mechanisms of personal responsibility of citizens for conscientious behavior, accurate fulfillment of their duties, observance of laws, and serving national goals. Moreover, forms of public control may also be fundamentally different - from the hara-kiri of the leaders of bankrupt banks in Japan to the exceptional measure of punishment of embezzled officials in China. The essence of public relations is reduced to personal responsibility for improving the welfare of society. And, as can be seen from the results, this system is more effective than the American-European one, in which the financial oligarchy dominates and all the vices characteristic of a decaying society flourish. It is not by chance that they compare themselves with the Ancient Rome, which lost competition with Byzantium not because of its perfection.
News Front: So you think the modern Chinese system of economic regulation is more progressive than the American one?
S.Glaziev: Not only Chinese, we are talking about all the countries of the Asian economic miracle, who rejected the Washington consensus imposed on them and embarked on the path of independent development, guided by historical experience, scientific approach and common sense. The results speak for themselves. In terms of its economic potential, China has already risen to the level of the leading countries of the world. And in terms of the structure of production relations, China is becoming a model for many developing countries seeking to replicate the Chinese economic miracle and approaching the core of the Asian accumulation cycle. China forms the basis of this new center of world economy. We in Russia and other states of the EAEU must proceed from these realities. To view the industrial and socio-political relations established in China not as transitional, but as characteristic of the most advanced socio-economic system in this century. To study and adopt the Chinese experience of development, as not so long ago, China used the Soviet experience of building socialism.
News Front: Maybe this annoys Mr. Inozemtsev, who criticizes Putin for the analogy of Russia and the USSR?
S.Glaziev: We only have to regret that because of such apologists of the West as Inozemtsev, we had a strategic mistake to copy the American system of economic regulation. Today, market fundamentalists are tabooing the Soviet experience in managing economic development, despite the obvious successes of socialist construction, which allowed the USSR not only to win the Second World War, but also to create a so-called “second world” that encompassed a third of the planet. Many elements of this experience were perceived and preserved by China, Vietnam, India and formed the basis of the institutional structure of the Asian accumulation cycle. The USSR was a pioneer in creating a culture of state management of economic development, and not a dead end branch of economic civilization, as it seems market fundamentalists. The Soviet Union could well become a new center for the development of the world economy, beating China in this. We then had more opportunities and more experience of socialist construction on a global scale. Having embarked on the introduction of the doctrine of the Washington Consensus, developed in order to adapt national systems of economic regulation to the needs of American capital, we inevitably became a donor for him, dropping to his raw material periphery and losing most of the scientific and production potential. Our place of the leader of progressive humanity was taken by China, who managed to creatively rework our and American experience and create essentially a new institutional system that differs from those indicated by a harmonious combination of public and private interests, planning and market self-organization in the interests of the development of the whole society. The primacy of public interests over private interests is expressed in the institutional structure of economic regulation that is characteristic of all countries of the Asian cycle. First of all - in the state control over the basic parameters of capital reproduction through the mechanisms of planning, crediting, subsidizing, pricing and regulating the basic conditions of entrepreneurial activity. At the same time, the state does not so much order as it plays the role of moderator, forming mechanisms of social partnership and interaction between the main social groups. Officials do not try to lead entrepreneurs, but organize joint work of the business, scientific, engineering communities to form common development goals and work out methods for achieving them. The mechanisms of state regulation of the economy are tuned to this. The state ensures the provision of long-term and cheap credit, and businessmen guarantee its targeted use in specific investment projects for the development of production. The state provides access to the infrastructure and services of natural monopolies at low prices, and enterprises are responsible for the production of competitive products. In order to increase it, the state organizes and finances the necessary research and development, education and training, and entrepreneurs implement innovations and invest in new technologies. The public-private partnership is subordinated to the public interests in the development of the economy and the improvement of the people's welfare, improvement of the quality of life.
News Front: Are you not inspired by Inozemtsev’s proposal to integrate Russia into the EU “if it accepts European rules and regulations”?
S.Glaziev: We have long ago adopted European rules and regulations in the regulation of the economy and we were even accepted into the WTO, the IMF, the EBRD, the Council of Europe and other institutions. But the trouble is that, as the story with the European integration of Ukraine, and before that of Eastern European and Baltic countries, convincingly showed, this integration can only be in the nature of absorption. The EU does not discuss with the partners on the integration of its rules, it imposes them on them. Sometimes bribing elites, as in Poland or Bulgaria, sometimes by political intervention, as in the Baltic States, sometimes by brute force, as in Ukraine, in Georgia and in Moldova. In this case, the essence of integration in all cases comes down to the subordination of the integrated country to Brussels. It must blindly comply with all directives of European supranational institutions without any ability to influence their content and adoption. Tell me, for the sake of what should we transfer our sovereignty to Brussels officials? After all, they stubbornly ignore the constant proposals of the President of Russia to create a single economic space from Lisbon to Vladivostok! They also rudely rejected his proposal to jointly work out an optimal trade regime in relations with Ukraine after Yanukovych’s refusal to sign a clearly unfavorable Association agreement. Instead, they staged Euromaidan with the violent overthrow of Yanukovych who disobeyed them. I directly consulted on these issues and was always surprised at the persistent reluctance of the European Commissioners to take into account the national interests of Ukraine. According to the calculations that we conducted together with scientists of the Ukrainian National Academy, the signing of the association agreement entailed a significant and lasting deterioration in the trade balance of Ukraine, a slowdown in growth and a decrease in the competitiveness of the economy. But European officials were not interested in all this. They exerted a powerful political pressure on the Ukrainian leadership, invaded the internal affairs of Ukraine, sponsored anti-state activities, and ultimately resolved the issue by force. I am surprised how Inozemtsev, knowing these facts, accuses not the leaders of NATO, who organized a coup in a sovereign state, in violation of international law, but Putin, who defended the legal rights of the people of Ukraine not to obey usurpers!
News Front: That is, do you think that in the Ukrainian crisis, it was not Putin “who broke the rules, even international laws,” according to Inozemtsev, but the leaders of the NATO countries?
S.Glaziev: This is obvious to any unbiased specialist in international law. Without even noticing it, Inozemtsev becomes ridiculous when he advises "The West will unequivocally reject any Russian claims for the right to interfere in the affairs of the EU and NATO." After all, it is obvious to everyone that it is not Russia that intervenes in the affairs of the EU and NATO, but, on the contrary, NATO invaded the internal affairs of Ukraine in order to force it into an unequal association with the EU, and when the Ukrainian leadership refused this offer, the American special services organized a coup d'état and led to the authorities of puppets who persecuted against half of the population of Ukraine, who did not want European integration.
Emissaries from the United States and other NATO countries have literally incited Ukrainian Nazis to anti-government speeches and, as is known, from the speeches of State Department officials even sponsored them. They pushed them into a violent coup. According to the Ukrainian constitutional law, the usurpation of power occurred through its seizure by the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine. This means that all decisions made by this body in excess of their powers, including the appointment of an. the president, the prime minister, presidential and parliamentary elections, the ATO, the amendment of the Constitution of Ukraine are illegitimate. By the way, legally, Ukraine lives today without a Constitution - the former was canceled, and the new one was not accepted. So, the Crimean authorities took a completely legitimate decision not to obey usurpers, and the people exercised their right to a referendum, spelled out in Ukrainian legislation. And the residents of Donbass had the legal right to disobey usurpers and hold their referendum, which Russia accepted with understanding in full accordance with international law. In turn, the actions of the neo-Nazis who seized power in Kiev, according to Ukrainian legislation, qualify as crimes against the state, and the support of the junta’s leaders against the Americans as national treason. One has only to regret that this gang of criminals, grown by American and European sponsors, has drawn a huge number of forcibly mobilized decent people into war crimes. Everything that I say is nothing more than a statement of events in Ukraine from the standpoint of the Ukrainian legislation itself. So the aggression against Ukraine was committed by the United States and its NATO allies, not the Kremlin. And if Inozemtsev spoke about international law, he should understand the consequences of complicity in war crimes and genocide committed by neo-fascists he likes.
News Front: And how do you assess Inozemtsev’s hope for a “new Marshall Plan” that will help transform Ukraine into a free, prosperous country that can join the EU and NATO if it wishes? ”
S.Glaziev: This is either stupidity or deceit. Rather, the second, since Inozemtsev is well aware of modern history and certainly follows the position of the West regarding assistance to Ukraine. Until now, it is much less than the assistance that Russia continues to provide. Not only Donbas, but the entire energy system of Ukraine with gas and nuclear fuel supplies, as well as millions of Ukrainian citizens who fled from repression of Ukrainian neo-Nazis. Washington and NATO seriously ready to help only weapons, pushing their neo-fascist puppets to a fratricidal war with Russia. The EU and the IMF provides loans mainly to service Ukraine’s foreign debt in the interests of its own banks. Which country forced joining the EU and NATO brought prosperity and freedom? A ruined Yugoslavia, a ruined Bulgaria, a depressed Romania, or a de-industrialized Baltic? Even boiling Poland, apart from modest Western investments in factories transferred to the control of foreign capital, has nothing to boast about. I have already spoken about the calculations that we carried out in conjunction with Ukrainian scientists. The association agreement did not promise anything good for Ukraine. The losses were obvious, and the benefits are elusive. Therefore, Yanukovych and refused to give up the national sovereignty of Brussels. And today, the people of Ukraine can experience the delights of European integration in their own skin. The sharp drop in the standard of living, the shutdown of enterprises associated with cooperation with Russia, mass unemployment, the lack of electricity, the collapse in production — all of these consequences were calculated and published. But the Ukrainian elite preferred to ride on the Maidan, and believe in tales about European investment. For this betrayal of national interests, today the people of Ukraine are paying the price, which European integrators want to use as cannon fodder in the war with Russia.
News Front: That is, you consider the path of European integration proposed by Inozemtsev to be disastrous. And what do you think about the second way - “to follow Putin into isolation, hitting, probably, as a result, under the influence of China”, which he believes will result in the loss of Eastern Siberia?
S.Glaziev: This is a typical horror story of American agents of influence, I have heard it many times from many like-minded people of Inozemtsev. No one, however, did not bother at least some argument of this chinathobia. An unbiased analysis suggests otherwise. Unlike the American accumulation cycle, characterized by the use of violent methods of safeguarding the interests of American capital in international relations through wars, revolutions and coups on all continents of the world, the Asian cycle is characterized by the formation of mechanisms of mutually beneficial cooperation with respect for national sovereignty of different countries. This is the path that Russia leads its President. The projects of Eurasian integration implemented with the participation of China, Russia, and India are based exclusively on voluntary principles, proceeding from common interests and non-interference in internal affairs. The SCO and BRICS work on these bases, as well as the Eurasian Economic Union. For the latter, China is the most important partner with which all EAEU countries have long-term interests of a strategic partnership. China accounts for the largest share of the foreign trade turnover of the EAEU, mutual investments are growing rapidly, and cooperative ties are expanding. If for the US and the EU, Russia will always be the periphery, which needs to be milked through mechanisms of non-equivalent economic exchange and forced to obey, then it can still be integrated on an equal footing into the core of the new secular cycle that is forming around China, India and Japan. It only becomes an independent path of development and for all countries participating in this process Russia is a welcome partner for the following reasons. First, by virtue of the still remaining scientific and technological potential and the possibility of combining competitive advantages in the development of a new technological order. This opens up the possibility of mutually beneficial cooperation in the production of high-tech areas of the economy. Secondly, due to the ability to protect themselves and partners in any international conflict due to nuclear-missile parity with the United States. Thirdly, due to the innumerable natural resources and rich raw material base. Fourthly, due to the attractiveness of Russian culture and spiritual values, corresponding to the paradigm of sustainable development, creating the basis of the emerging Asian accumulation cycle. Fifth, only Russia from the core countries of this cycle has the experience of world leadership. This has become an important cementing element in the formation of the BRICS association, in which Russia plays the role of an informal leader. The leaders of Russia and China have repeatedly stressed the enormous importance of the strategic partnership for the development of both the national economies of the two countries and for the formation of a new architecture of the world economic system. It is embodied in the transition to settlements in national currencies, the creation of joint development institutions, the creation of zones with a preferential regime of trade and economic cooperation in Eurasia. In the future, the creation of the world's largest common economic development space, in which the competitive advantages of the national economies of the giant continent will be effectively combined. At the same time, the uniqueness of each country will be preserved, and in combination with each other they will give the diversity of cultures, jurisdictions, political systems and economic practices necessary for the further development of humanity. So Inozemtsev and here all mixed up. The path that Putin leads the country is a broad road of open mutually beneficial and constructive international cooperation.
News Front: What does he expect, risking his image of a scientist?
S.Glaziev: Did you not understand? For Western grants, of course. He directly asks for help to those who are going to push Russia into European integration, regardless of national interests or objective laws. To give them a chance that for adherents of market fundamentalism means only one thing - money. And he probably sees himself as an intellectual leader of this process and invites the West to immediately provide him a fitting place in the post-Putin occupation regime. Also, Bandera hoped for a happy life in the “millennial” Third Reich in post-Stalin Russia. I think that the fate of their current followers, who believed in the end of history and hurried to give Ukraine under the external control of NATO and the EU, will be similar to the fate of Hitler's minions.