The fourth world war and its historical features
“The Cold War was in fact the Third World War, and now the US has got involved in the Fourth World War, which will last for many years,” admitted former CIA director James Woolsey.
“In order to control the whole world, the United States entered the war, to the end of which we will not live,” - US Vice President Richard Cheney echoed.
Mentions of the Fourth World War are increasingly appearing in the statements of representatives of the Russian and foreign public, in the media (for example, a heading under this title appeared on the NTV television channel). At the same time, the concept of the Fourth World War has not yet been recognized either in scientific circles, or in politics, or in public consciousness, which does not negate the fact of this war as such. A recent statement by President of the Russian Federation V.V. Putin and other senior officials regarding the war being waged against Russia, and it is being waged by external forces. Unfortunately, questions concerning the nature of the war, the real enemy, the necessary measures to repel aggression, remained behind the scenes that they did not clarify.
The current Fourth World War was not officially declared by anyone. This is what distinguishes it from the First (1914-1918), the Second (1939-1945), and even the Third (1946-1991) World Wars. The formal beginning of the Third World War, widely known as the cold one, is considered to be the speech of the former British Prime Minister Churchill in Fulton (1946), when they, in the presence of the American President Truman, declared the “crusade” of the union of English-speaking nations against communism, Soviet Russia. Thus, Churchill marked then a new era in international relations. By analogy with the Third World War, 1991 can be taken as the starting point of the Fourth World War, when US President Bush Sr., after defeating the Soviet Union, declared the need to establish a new world order.
Consider what unites the world wars of the XX and XXI centuries?
Firstly, in all of them, the classical definition of war as a continuation of politics by all available violent means and methods was confirmed, although they took place in every new historical epoch. The attempts of the post-Soviet liberals in Russia to refute this truth and thus hide the underlying socio-political causes of the war proved to be invalid. The political goal determines the war, which is the initial methodological setting for analyzing its historical content, essence, and social nature.
Secondly, the world wars of the XX and XXI centuries are united by their absolute subordination to the Law of the continuity of wars, derived by General A.Ye. Snesarev (1865-1937), the largest military theorist and strategist of the tsarist and Soviet times, “Russian Sun Tzu”. Over the course of a century, one world war consistently turned into another. There is, for example, convincing evidence of how the United States and Britain developed the strategy for conducting the Third World War as early as the Second World War.
Thirdly, all world wars were unleashed by the states of Western civilization, first of all, the USA, England, Germany, France. At the same time, they pursued, in essence, the same goals: the conquest of world domination, the mastery of world raw materials and markets, ensuring their own survival through conquering and oppressing other countries and peoples. In all these wars, unseemly goals were invariably covered up with false slogans of defending democracy, rights and freedoms, and liberating peoples from terror and tyranny.
Fourth, the United States of America proved to be the most aggressive power in the world in the 20th and 21st centuries. According to the famous American political figure 70-80-ies of the twentieth century William Fulbright, “internal militarism” was formed in the United States. “It is a depressing impression,” he writes, “that we in America are clearly accustomed to wars. For many years now, we either fight or are ready to immediately start a war in any part of the world. War and the military have become an integral part of our everyday life, and violence is the most important product in our country. ” The ruling elite has developed a strong conservative, militaristic thinking. The neocons (neoconservatives) or “Trotskyists” constitute the brain trust of the Bush administration. As Malor Sturua writes, “almost all members of the brain trust are Jews ... They apply the out-of-the-way theory of Trotsky’s permanent revolution to Bush’s aggressive policies in the fight against the so-called evil forces.” War for America has become synonymous with prosperity and the assertion of its dominance.
Fifth, all world wars are intercivilizational in the presence of, of course, other essential features. The well-known Russian philosopher N.A. Berdyaev, considering the historical nature of the First World War. In his work “Destiny of Russia”, he noted that “racial and national instincts turned out to be more powerful than social and class instincts in the twentieth century” and that “the struggle of races, the struggle of national virtues, the struggle of great empires for power and dominion over the world began to determine its future” . Given this discovery, the thoughts of our contemporary Huntington on the “clash of civilizations” seem more than relevant.
Sixth, in all world wars, the object of Western claims has been and remains Russia. Western states skillfully pulled Russia, against its national interests, into these wars. Our country has always become their main victim. The United States, Britain, France, being in allied relations with Russia in the First and Second World Wars, pursued a perfidious two-faced policy towards it. Its essence was cynically expressed by the former US President G. Truman: “If the Germans win, the Russians must be helped, and if things turn out differently, then the Germans must be helped. And may they kill each other as much as possible. ” The policy of destroying Russia and mastering its resources in all world wars was and is a priority for the West. This is what the former adviser to the US president on national security, the most quoted American political scientist Z.B., said recently about this. Brzezinski: “A new world order with US hegemony is being created ... against Russia, at the expense of Russia and on the ruins of Russia”.
These are the essential features of the world wars of the XX and XXI centuries, which belong to the category of political, historical, social, class, religious, racial components of the evaluation. The differences in these wars relate mainly to the technologies and means of warfare used in them. If in the First and Second World Wars, military means and traditional armed forms of struggle dominated, then in the Third and Fourth World Wars, non-military means and non-traditional, unarmed forms of war predominate. The Third and Fourth World Wars can rightly be attributed to the new type of wars.
In my opinion, the most profound explorer of this new type of war is the Russian white emigre officer, the distinguished political scientist of the twentieth century E.E. Messner (1891-1974), graduated from his days in Argentina. In his work “The World-Wrinkled World”, he writes: “... I predicted the form and properties of the Third World War, now unfolding in front of blind humanity throughout the world.” Indeed, “blind humanity” as a whole has actually overlooked the Third World War, which has already ended in a crushing defeat of the Soviet Union and the communist system, and does not notice the Fourth World War that is gaining momentum. These wars are very similar to the one that Messner calls the “global rebellion”, global in scale and total in coverage of all spheres of human activity in the human community.
It should be noted that Messner himself, unlike the author of the article, did not consider the Cold War the Third World War, calling it a “semi-war” and defining it as Trotsky’s formula “neither war nor peace”. His commitment to the West and the rejection of the Soviet Union apparently did not allow him to fully understand the essence of the Cold War, objectively assess the actions of the parties in the historical confrontation of the two systems, their goal-setting. At the same time, the methodological approaches of Messner, used in the study of a new type of war, are, in our opinion, correct, because they contain a denial of the traditional notion that the main criterion of war is the use of fire weapons, and there is a statement that the goals of war can be achieved by any means, including non-fire (informational, psychological, spiritual, economic, etc.). His recommendations also have important methodological significance: “In order to understand pastry, understand that pastry is a modern form of war, we must abandon the established concepts of war over the centuries. We must stop thinking that war is when they fight, and peace when they do not fight. ”
Unfortunately, in their time, the top Soviet leadership, the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the USSR, could not move away from the established ideas about the war and adequately respond to the historical challenge of the Cold War to the prevailing stereotypes. With perseverance that deserves better application, they continued to prepare the country for the last war and overlooked the current one, which was one of the main causes of the social catastrophe that befell the Soviet Union. The most pernicious is that our generals and officers both did not recognize and did not recognize the Cold War (Third World War) as a war, despite the obvious fact that the enemy was implementing its goals: the defeat and destruction of the Soviet Union. It turns out that if the army did not fight, if the bombs did not fall, and the enemy soldiers did not enter our land, then the Cold War was peace for the country, which for some reason was not from such a world. In the Cold War, non-military, non-traditional means, methods and methods of struggle turned out to be many times more effective than the traditional military. The scale of the demographic, territorial, political, economic, psychological and spiritual losses of the Soviet Union is immeasurably greater than the damage to Germany and Japan, who lost the Second World War. It seems that in this denial by servicemen of the obvious fact of the existence of a new type of war, not only their political illiteracy, lack of professionalism, but also the desire to justify themselves for their unfulfilled duty to the Fatherland - ensuring its security in all conditions. It is a shame and a crime when the most powerful army loses the war without engaging in battle.
Traditional concepts of war and peace that persist in the army, in society, and in the institutions of power can most likely play the same fateful role in the fate of post-Soviet Russia as the USSR. Although today it has become absolutely clear that the Cold War or the Third World War between opposing socio-political systems and civilizations from the twentieth century has passed into the XXI century, both in the former and in the new forms, forms and methods of “war” the Russian state the concept of war is still seen mainly through the prism of armed struggle between states, the dogmatic absolutization of this struggle continues to take place. There are not even attempts at the official level to determine the real multifaceted, complex and controversial essence of the current Fourth World War in all its historical, political and military diversity.
What characteristic features distinguish the Fourth World War from all previous ones?
First, in concrete terms, it is in close connection with the new era - globalization, which has clearly identified itself since the beginning of the 90 of the XX century. It is a product of globalization. It can even be called the “first global war,” a war for globalization. The war is indeed global in nature, encompassing more than before, not only physical space (land, sea, air, space), but also informational, psychological, ideological, spiritual, civilizational, and economic space. . In this war, unlike in the past, theaters of war are not sliced by territorial, but by spatial attribute. The directions of the main attacks coincide with the directions of globalization.
Secondly, if in the Third World War, the opposing sides were mainly two opposing socio-political systems of capitalism (USA, their allies) and socialism (USSR, its allies), then in the Fourth World War the split line passes between the so-called “golden billion ”(West led by the USA, about 20% of the population) and the rest of humanity. The United States is an instrument of globalization, its main engine. But there is a lot of evidence that a certain “world elite” is standing behind them, claiming the role of world government and world governance. In addition, the organized global criminal community, transnational criminal groups that are trying to integrate into the global process of the struggle for survival, to take part in the global redistribution of property, finance, and resources objectively stand on the side of the “golden billion”. Given this factor, it is quite possible to talk about the criminal nature of the Fourth World War, and even to attribute it to the category of great criminal wars.
Thirdly, the goal-setting of the side serving in the Fourth World War as its instigator and aggressor (and this is the West led by the United States, Western civilization, the “golden billion”) differs significantly from the targets of the main opposing forces in the past world wars. queue associated with globalization. If the goals of the Third World War were mainly to defeat the Soviet Union and communism, then in the Fourth World War, along with the traditional aspiration of specific countries-participants to gain material and other benefits in case of victory, super-tasks of a global nature are solved. It is about the violent dissemination of a new networked world order that builds humanity into a single networked structural-functional system without state national entities, with a single cosmopolitan ideology and moral based on lowly instincts, with a new way of life, controlled by a new global race of gentlemen (“golden billion "). In essence, the task of forming a future model of the world, based on Western-liberal values with the denial of all others, with the unification of views, behavioral attitudes, intercivilizational differences, is being solved. Therefore, it can be argued about the homogeneity of the Fourth World War, which is that it organizes a new liberal market world order based on common principles, common liberal values, a single consumerism ideology, based on erasing national, ethnic, religious differences, creating a unitary planetary state, governed by a world government. The fourth world war is designed to implement the Western-American philosophy of the exploitation of all mankind, using the total free market.
Fourthly, the model of the Fourth World War is fundamentally different than the First and Second, and even has significant differences from the Third World War similar to it, which it largely repeats in its characteristics, using methods that proved themselves in terms of the winners, ways to fight.
These differences relate primarily to the ratio in the use of military and non-military means, the methods of war used, the qualitative characteristics of weapons and military equipment, the changing nature of losses due to the outbreak of war in new spaces.
With regard to armed struggle, the strategy of “indirect actions”, it clearly showed a tendency to conduct combat operations in a non-contact way. Thus, the United States, with 1991, conducted six wars by applying high-precision strikes by unmanned aerial and ground-based weapons through aerospace space, which were massive and time-consuming (up to several dozen days). At the same time, in contactless aggression, it was actively used and practiced weapon new generation.
If we talk about non-military means of struggle, their role in the Fourth World War has increased dramatically. The capabilities of the United States and NATO in this area have increased immeasurably due to the defeat of the Soviet Union in the Third World War and thereby the elimination of the main obstacle to their expansion. On the other hand, in the context of globalization, further development was gained by the revolution in the technical basis of the media and communications, as well as in the methods of their use, which made it possible to have an impact on almost every person on Earth. The effectiveness of information weapons is manifested in the fact that it hits the essential basis of a person, his cultural core, morality, mentality. People do not have time and are not able to comprehend the continuous large flows of information and therefore often act in the logic proposed by the enemy.
The technology of preparation and use of “fifth columns” or internal opposition in the countries-victims of aggression has become more perfect. In a number of countries, the United States has succeeded in planting regimes acceptable to them, facilitating the arrival of politicians oriented toward the West.
The tendency of increasing military losses in the spiritual, psychological, political, social and economic spaces, which became decisive in the outcome of the war, clearly manifested itself.
Fifthly, the Fourth World War, unlike all previous ones, is more permanent, continuously expanding in time and space. The United States and NATO are consistently exploring the region after region, sphere after sphere of vital activity, creating a network of controlled reference spaces on the path to world domination and the establishment of a new world order. There is every reason to assume that the Fourth World War may be longer than all the previous ones, taken together, stretched for a century, or maybe longer, because the scale and complexity of the tasks that its instigators set for it are too large. They do not just need the territory, raw materials and markets. They set their sights on changing the vector of the evolutionary development of all mankind, thought forms of life, on a new world order. Obviously, this protracted war will have several phases or stages with limited goals. The current phase of the Fourth World War involves the consolidation of the outcome of the Third World War, the seizure of Russia and the entire post-Soviet space, the creation of a global springboard for the decisive clash with China. It can last up to 2020. If events in the world develop in the current paradigm, then the war of the United States and NATO, of Western civilization with China, seems inevitable. There is a great danger that the West can draw Russia and the post-Soviet states that are in the sphere of its influence into this war on their side. But it will already be the second phase of the Fourth World War, if it is not possible to prevent it.
After 13 years after the start of the Fourth World War, there is reason to sum up its first results and draw some practical conclusions.
It is impossible not to see that all types of conflicts that humanity knows are reflected in this war: national, religious, racial, ethnic, civilizational, colonial, civil, criminal, marketing, financial, informational, etc. They have occurred and continue on all continents - in Europe, Asia, Africa, America, - taking traditional and non-traditional, open and hidden forms. The most significant traditional armed conflicts include the wars of the United States and NATO against Yugoslavia (1999), Afghanistan (2001), and Iraq (2003)
The Balkan War was the first major battle of the Fourth World War in Europe. During the 78 days, US-NATO troops launched rocket-bombing attacks on livelihoods and livelihoods in the territory of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and forced the leadership of this country to surrender, in fact, without a fight. It was a deliberately indicative punitive operation by the US and NATO in punishment not only of the Serbian people, but also in the punishment of the whole world. In the Balkan war, the projects of the US National Security Strategy for the New Century and the NATO Strategic Concept were passed on to the use of military force anywhere in the world and contrary to international law, in violation of the fundamental principles of the UN. The United States and NATO used prohibited weapons in the Balkans - cluster bombs and ammunition containing depleted uranium. A number of scientists believe that the massive missile and bomb strikes of the United States and NATO on Yugoslavia caused a whole chain of natural disasters in several areas of the world. So, the seismologist B.N. Khovansky is convinced that the earthquake in Turkey, destructive with great casualties, is a direct consequence of these impacts. According to him, the Balkans are located in the Alpine seismic zone, which stretches from the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific through Eurasia. A huge number of rockets and bombs, which were blown up consistently at one point, excited deep-focus, that is, with an epicenter far from the surface of an earthquake, and they in turn excite subsequent earthquakes, which may be located in Turkey, Taiwan, India, China, Iran. , Iraq, the Caucasus and other places. It is possible that the current tsunami in Southeast Asia may be a prolonged consequence of the US-NATO bombing in the Balkans.
The United States and NATO have developed new military social technologies in Yugoslavia. It is about gaining complete domination in the information space, about inflicting information and psychological blows that deform the public consciousness, neutralizing the country's leadership from making decisions on organizing resistance to the aggressor.
It should be noted that the experience of Vietnam, Korea, Cuba clearly showed that small states, possessing the national will, are able to win the war many times greater than the enemy. But it was precisely the will and spiritual weapons that the Yugoslav people, the army, the political leadership lacked, and therefore they looked so helpless in the face of the aggressor. The army with good reason could attack the enemy, its strategic facilities in the countries of Europe where they were located. She would have to resist his rocket-bombing attacks with partisan, sabotage and subversive actions in the deep rear of the enemy. However, Yugoslavia did not show the proper will to resist. The Serbian population almost completely fled from Kosovo, a national shrine, instead of mobilizing themselves to defend their native land. As a result, the US-NATO troops rejected this territory from Serbia, strengthened their positions in the Balkans. The country as a whole was ruled by the conquerors. Thus, the USA and NATO from the European country of Yugoslavia began the practical implementation of plans for the reorganization of the world according to the Western model.
The war in Afghanistan (2001) became the logical continuation of the US and NATO war in the Balkans. The pretext for it was air strikes with the help of hijacked airplanes to the end still not clarified by the enemy in the Pentagon and the International Trade Center. US President Bush appointed the main symbol of modern terrorism to Osama bin Laden, who was hiding on the territory of Afghanistan, the main cause of the tragedy and the enemy of America and announced future actions of retaliation. The purpose of the war was officially declared the seizure or destruction of Osama bin Laden.
The Afghan war largely repeated the “Yugoslav scenario.” The United States launched air strikes from aircraft carriers, submarines, and aircraft using seven-bomb bombs, cluster bombs, cruise missiles. Actively acted in order to demoralize the enemy and gain the trust of Afghans 4-I group of psychological operations (special propaganda). Carried out the pinpoint action of the American special forces. The American command carried out the ground operation with the landing of assault forces on the territory of Afghanistan only after the formation of the allied Northern Alliance liberated almost the entire country from the Taliban. Within two weeks, the Taliban surrendered all the cities one by one, including the capital Kabul, without a fight. Perhaps, this time, the Eastern proverb worked: “If the city does not take the army by attack, its gate is able to open a donkey loaded with gold.” Having occupied Afghanistan, the USA thus secured a breakthrough to Eurasia, made a decisive rush to Central Asia, directly in the underbelly of Russia, China, India, Iran, established control over the Pre-Caspian oil basin and ways of exporting oil and gas to the world market. The United States entrenched in Central Asia and the Caspian Sea on a long-term basis.
In the war with Iraq, the United States fully implemented the key position of the new National Security Strategy, adopted at the end of 2002, giving the US the right to conduct preventive wars. The strategy underpins US national security with “proactive proactive actions and the destruction of threats before they occur.” Therefore, the United States did not even begin to look for any reason to start hostilities against Iraq. They simply ignored the opinion of the United Nations, Russia, France, Germany, the world community regarding the absolute illegitimacy and groundlessness of the war being unleashed.
The hostilities largely took place according to the already established scheme in Yugoslavia and Afghanistan: the concentration of a powerful ground force grouping in the Persian Gulf (about 300 thousand people) and the Navy grouping (115 warships); the application of massed rocket-bombing of several thousand a day; the use of “smart weapons”, controlled by satellites, microwave bombs and unmanned aircraft; priority application of the “strategy of indirect action” in combination with military force. For two weeks, the US-British troops occupied Iraq.
It is noteworthy that in Iraq, as before in Yugoslavia and Afghanistan, the United States did not win a single decisive battle on the battlefield. The outcome of the war was predetermined by a conspiracy behind the backs of the Iraqi people by high-ranking US and Iraqi figures, the bribing of military leaders and the betrayal of officials. The Iraqi leadership did not take advantage of the possibility of launching a preemptive strike against American forces concentrated in Kuwait to attack the country, although the inevitability of US aggression was obvious.
The establishment of control over Iraq, which has the second largest reserves of crude oil, practically makes the USA one of the leading members of OPEC and allows them to dictate their conditions in this organization. In geopolitical terms, the United States secured control over international land and air routes linking Europe with the countries of the Middle East and South Asia through Iraq. The control over Iraq strengthens the position of the United States in the whole of this region, opens up additional opportunities for them to plant in neighboring countries suitable regimes.
Thus, within the framework of the Fourth World War, the United States and its NATO allies for a short period (within five years) launched three local wars in three regions of the world - in Europe, Central Asia, and the Middle East. While they were accompanied by military success. With a little blood they managed to win private battles of the Fourth World War in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq and achieve their political goals. US President Bush said that the experience gained here will be used in other regions. Thus, he confirmed that the United States intends to move the main road of the war further. Another victim of aggression has already been declared - Iran, there are also threats to Syria, North Korea, Cuba, Belarus.
In recent years, the Bush administration has repeatedly threatened to attack Iran. The reason for such blackmail and threats are the Iranian nuclear energy program and the alleged assistance of the Iraqi resistance forces to the US-British invaders. Representatives of the Iranian leadership firmly stated that Iran will respond to the US attack, strike back the same day that it is attacked. Of course, such resistance evokes respect. At the same time, from conversations with the Iranians, I had the opinion that they did not take Washington’s threats seriously, believing that America was stuck in Iraq and would not risk attacking Iran, which has a powerful spiritual and material potential. An underestimation of the enemy is always fraught with grave consequences. Yugoslav political figures until recently did not believe in the possibility of American-NATO aggression and lost the country. The difficulties of the United States and its allies in Iraq cannot be an obstacle to an attack on Iran. On the contrary, by expanding the front of aggression, transferring military operations to Iranian territory, the United States hopes to consolidate its positions in Iraq and advance towards its goal of mastering the entire Greater Middle East. The United States certainly will not send ground troops against Iran into battle. They have already mastered the benefits of contactless war, replenished missiles and bombs in the past year and a half and, as usual, will strike at nuclear centers and life support facilities. The United States can go for the use of nuclear weapons if, in their opinion, the situation demands it. There is a precedent - Japan. But even later, during the Korean War, General D. MacArthur, who commanded the American troops, persistently sought permission from the US President’s administration to bomb China. Then he did not get it. But it is impossible to exclude the option of the use of nuclear weapons by the Americans. Being in a situation of waiting for American aggression, Iran can save itself only by finding asymmetric solutions, the implementation of which will allow the enemy to cause unacceptable damage.
The war for the USA, the West, in the form of armed violence is, as we see, a necessary means of winning world domination and reorganizing the world according to globalist patterns. At the same time, armed struggle is only a visible iceberg of the Fourth World War. The United States, the West is implicitly using in this war a disproportionately greater arsenal of non-military means to achieve its goals. In the literature, one can find the definition of their use as “devilish methods of warfare”, which emphasizes its particularly sophisticated and destructive nature. This, apparently, is about new, hidden, barbaric forms, methods, types and means of extermination in this war of alien peoples, states, civilizations, their religions and cultures.
One such devilish trick is the declaration of war against terrorism. It is noteworthy that this was done in the United States before 11 September 2001, when President Bush called the attack on America a terror and declared: “The time has come to act”. For example, in June 1995, US President B. Clinton sent 15 to federal agencies a secret memorandum in which he instructed them to “mobilize all funds and resources to protect US territory from terrorists.” The memorandum stated that the United States intended to "act independently of the consent of foreign authorities to seize terrorist groups based on their territory, and also to" force states to cooperate in combating terrorists with appropriate measures. We note immediately that the United States managed to force Russia to join the anti-terrorist coalition led by them, contrary to its national interests.
The mythical image of terrorism is created in order to hide the true strategic goals of the United States and its allies. Some of these goals are disclosed by the former director of the CIA of the USA, mentioned above, J. Woolsey. According to him, the Fourth World War is not just a fight against terrorism. This is a war “for spreading democracy to those regions of the Arab and Muslim world that threaten our freedom-loving civilization, the creation and protection of which we spent so much strength during the First, Second and Third World Wars.”
Even from Woolsey’s clouded words, it can be seen that terrorism is not a specific adversary, but a means by which certain goals are achieved. Terrorism is one of the ways to act in a war, it is a means of information-psychological war, it is a tool of globalization. The concept of terrorism is used by apologists of war to prohibit the national liberation struggle, the right of the people to rebel, strengthen police regimes, provide control over strategic transport corridors, undermine the economy and social sphere of their competitors, etc. The United States, the West, under the pretext of fighting terrorism, themselves create international terror, the victims of which are whole countries and peoples. In Iraq alone, at least 15 thousands of civilians perished during the year of the US-British occupation, while, according to the Bush administration, in 2003, worldwide, at the hands of terrorists, casualties were 625 killed and 3546 wounded. The concept of terrorism is a big lie, and if you follow this false trail, you can unwittingly turn into a tool of the United States, the West and act in their interests, but to their own detriment. Therefore, it is necessary to abandon the American interpretation of terrorism imposed on the world and agree at the international level on a common understanding of this term (there is an 200 order of its definitions) in order to exclude or limit the possibilities for speculating with this concept and using it for unseemly purposes.
With full justification, the number of devilish methods of the Fourth World War can be attributed to the speculative, demagogic use of the concept of “democracy” by the United States and the West in foreign policy and in international relations. At the same time, democracy here appears in a kind of purely symbolic, virtual meaning completely out of touch with the real content of this concept. It is enough to look into any dictionary to make sure that democracy is not imposed by force of arms. And President Bush recently announced the intention of the American leadership to “democratize” the entire “Big East” through the ongoing war there. Democracy has become a cover for true goals and the justification of the Fourth World War, its symbol, flag and motto, under which the conquest of the world is carried out.
The diabolical methods of warfare were particularly vividly manifested in operations to create democracy through elections and civil disobedience, which was reflected in the so-called “velvet revolutions” of various colors in a number of countries around the world. The English newspaper The Guardian writes that the methods of these operations have become so polished that they have become a guide to winning other people's elections and overthrowing unwanted regimes. She talks about their successful use by Americans in Serbia, Georgia, and Ukraine, and complains that “an identical campaign to defeat Belarusian dictator Alexander Lukashenko failed.” According to her, the lead role in the removal from power of Slobodan Milosevic in Serbia in 2000 was played by US Ambassador to Belgrade Richard Miles. He, being the ambassador to Tbilisi, “repeated the same trick in Georgia, having taught Mikhail Saakashvili how to overthrow Eduard Shevardnadze”. She admits that “the experience gained in Serbia, Georgia, Belarus was invaluable for the overthrow of Leonid Kuchma in Kiev.” The newspaper calls the orange “revolution of chestnuts” in Ukraine “a campaign - a creation of Americans, a sophisticated and brilliantly planned doctrine on mass marketing and promotion of the American brand.” The Guardian predicts that America will certainly try to apply this strategy in the post-Soviet space, for example in Moldova and the states of Central Asia. I note that Anders Aslund, Director of the Russia and Europe Program at the Carnegie Foundation, who worked in 1994-1997. Economic Advisor to the Government of Ukraine, defined the Ukrainian “Orange Revolution” as a “classical liberal revolution”, “bourgeois revolution in the full sense of the word.”
It is noteworthy that the United States does not hide its authorship in the implementation of state coups in Georgia and Ukraine. February 10 in Washington, President Bush and President of Poland Kwasniewski thanked each other for their contribution to the victory of democracy in Ukraine. You can say, congratulated each other on the victory over Ukraine. Kwasniewski noted that “nothing would have happened without the participation of the United States,” and Bush expressed his admiration for Kwasniewski, who demonstrated “remarkable leadership” in regard to Ukraine.
It seems to be the height of cynicism and mockery of the very idea of the Nobel Prize, the nomination by the American senators of both their appointees M. Saakashvili and V. Yushchenko for awarding this prize. Obviously, for the successful implementation of the tasks of the American special services. One of them was revealed in a recent congratulation of US Secretary of State C.Rice to the new Minister of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine, B.Tarasyuk, “promoting Ukraine’s integration into Euro-Atlantic structures,” which naturally means separating it from Russia.
In the framework of the Fourth World War, democracy creation operations should be considered, which are systematically and consistently carried out by the United States and the West in Russia. Since 1991, our country has been persistently imposing a liberal-market model of development according to Western drawings. The model is vicious, disastrous for Russia, rejected by the majority of Russian society, contrary to the Constitution of the Russian Federation, in which there is no concept of liberalism, and the state is proclaimed as social. Although Russia's policy is pro-Western and liberal, the United States has, all these years, used accusations of its undemocraticism as an instrument of pressure on the Russian leadership and, as a rule, achieve the results they need. Recently, during a meeting of Russian Foreign Minister S. Lavrov with the new US Secretary of State C. Rice, the American side did not miss the opportunity to express concern about the “concentration of power in the Kremlin”, insufficient media freedom and the fate of YUKOS. What is behind this discontent can be judged by the words of Anders Aslund: “The United States will again have to purposefully contribute to the destruction of a soft-authoritarian regime armed with nuclear missiles.” This task in the West is not considered difficult, because, as Aslund claims, “Russia is too weak to pose a threat.” In addition, it is surrounded by a ring of US and NATO military bases that can be used to attack it from many directions, the possible capture of its nuclear and other facilities.
Especially vividly anti-Russian policy of the United States is overlooked in their attitude to the role and place of Russia in the post-Soviet space. Former US Secretary of State Colin Powell warned the Russian leadership: "Russia must forget that it has some interests in the republics of the former Soviet Union." The USA constantly demands from our country not to interfere with the democratization of the new independent states. The United States, the West, pursuing narrow selfish goals, initiate disintegration processes in the post-Soviet space, provoke interethnic clashes, deepening the split between the former Soviet republics who have lived together for centuries.
American commentaries contain passages that “Putin secretly restores influence on the former Soviet republics, and went too far in his attempts to restore Moscow’s influence in Ukraine,” which they say may prompt the White House to “defend democratic values in Russia and the nearby region. ” The United States regards the change in Georgia and Ukraine as its important victory, where political leaders oriented to the West, the European Union, and NATO have come to power. American liberal technologies of war, weapons of disintegration worked quite effectively in the post-Soviet space. As a result, the vector of political orientation of the majority of new states is not directed towards Russia.
Among the purely devilish ways of the Fourth World War, the myth of the partnership between the United States and NATO with Russia should be attributed. This invention of Western technologists of war is particularly cunning. Taking advantage of the fact that liberal-minded politicians are in power in Russia, the USA and the West have imposed on our country a lot of projects designed to formally confirm their benevolent, benevolent attitude towards us. In fact, Russia is already suffocating in partnership arms. Experience shows that the United States has never reciprocated unilateral concessions to both Soviet Russia and post-Soviet. Getting Russia into the globalization projects of the United States and NATO into the so-called civilization world as an ally or partner is nothing more than a “peaceful” way to conquer Russia, tested in World War III in the Soviet Union. Paul Richter, in his article in the Los Angeles Times, gives an example when one official from the US presidential administration, opposing the hawks demanding tighter policies towards our country, told them that “the most effective way to promote democracy in Russia lies in close partnership allowing the use of uniform, constant, implicit pressure. ” The article notes that “Moscow still has a lot to offer as an ally, and if alienation comes, it could seriously harm US plans in the Middle East and elsewhere.”
And finally, the devilish technology of the Fourth World War is the heating up of internal conflicts in Russia itself. In the West, they skillfully use the fact that there is an internal civil war in Russia, and they constantly throw combustible material into its fire. On the preference of the civil war in Russia spoke, in particular, former US Secretary of State Kissinger. We define this war as a liberal-criminal-organizational. This three-part concept should be disclosed, since it applies to the definition in the Fourth World War.
The criminal component means the presence in the public, public and private sectors of life of criminal elements aimed at unjust power or fraudulent seizure and retention of someone else's property, as well as authority. At the same time, in order to realize their criminal goals, they enjoy the lack of adequate social protection both of the state and its institutions, and the population as a whole. Criminality permeates all pores of life of Russian reality, all segments of the population, culture, art, and the media. People live both “by notions” and “legal norms” at the same time. Power itself is often built on a criminal basis, since “dirty elections” have become the rule. Criminal relations infected power structures. Werewolves in epaulets - not the only phenomenon. The same can be said about administrative crime. “Rollback” to officials of the budget money allocated for the implementation of state projects is also commonplace. Bloody "disassembly" in criminal Russia occur hourly. The criminal component was organized and legalized thanks to a liberal policy.
The liberal component is a market ideology exported from the West, designed to create favorable conditions to deprive people of their resistance, making them agree with public robbery and indifferent to the ongoing political changes in the country towards capitalization and Westernization. Quite a wide section of the former Soviet nomenklatura, numerous representatives of the media, and criminal elements have become active carriers and conductors of this ideology in Russia. Liberal ideology is not freedom of creation, but freedom of destruction, theft, deception, permissiveness and irresponsibility. Liberals, connecting with the crime, organized a civil war in the country. At the same time, they stand on the side of minorities, from sexual to oligarchic, against the overwhelming majority of the people.
The organizational component is a later socio-political and economic entity that emerged in post-Soviet Russia during the massive transformation of organized crime into organizational crime and management. At this level, there was a merger of criminals with government officials and representatives of law enforcement agencies and the political elite. This community has taken on new legitimate forms, giving it the opportunity, quite legally, to directly participate in both domestic and foreign policy, and in determining the strategy and tactics of the state. The organizational component is most clearly seen in the practice of oligarchic formations and the activities of liberal public associations. In fact, a criminal-liberal-organizational network structure has been formed in the country, covering all spheres of life.
A civil war is being waged by criminal-liberal-organizational methods, which allow to conceal its real goals, instigators, and destructive ideas. It is enough to recall the most noticeable events of this war: the counterrevolutionary coup in the USSR (1991); the shooting of parliament (1993 year); depriving citizens of their savings; looting of state property (the so-called privatization); default; dragging bourgeois inherently constitution; the war in Chechnya, in the North Caucasus as a whole; the abolition of the state monopoly on the production and sale of alcoholic beverages; anesthesia; family planning; destruction of education, culture, agriculture, industry, free health care; the collapse of all power structures endless organizing; inviting NATO troops to the post-Soviet space and much more.
In all these components there are American and other Western specialists, consultants, sociologists, diplomats, non-governmental organizations that develop, finance and implement war technologies.
Thus, modern Russia found itself in the conditions of two types of war: external or Fourth World War, and internal or civil. At the same time, internal war is organically intertwined with external warfare, since it is for the goal-setting and management directed from a single external center. At the same time, the stereotypes of perception of war that have developed and possess the minds of people do not allow the overwhelming majority of people to really assess the military-political situation in the country and in the world; determine your place in life in military coordinates; clearly identify the opponents, the direction of their blows, methods, methods and means of their use of violence. Victims of aggression are not aware of themselves as such, and even shy away from recognizing the fact of war itself. But in fact, if there is no understanding of the state of war, the slogan “Fatherland is in danger” is not proclaimed, then there is no adequate behavior, lifestyle, or necessary protective measures in the directions of both the main and secondary attacks of the enemy.
The main goal, the main national interest of Russia in the Fourth World War is survival. At present, the level of dangers and threats to it is much higher than the available opportunities for ensuring national security, for survival. Therefore, we need a verified strategy of Russia's behavior in this war. In particular, it should proceed from the establishment of the closest allied military-political alliances with China, India, Iran, in order to jointly resist the aggressive aspirations of the West led by the United States to world domination and the establishment of a new world order. The situation of war requires a change of basic concepts and values from Russian society. We should abandon liberal ideology and the false paradigm of strategic partnership with the West. We need a national, state ideology of Russia — an ideology of survival, the preservation of our Fatherland as a state, a people, a civilization. A transition to the mobilization type of vital activity is needed. It requires adaptation of the way of life to the war, increasing the sense of responsibility of everyone for the fate of Russia, of all mankind. Recognition of Russia's presence in the state of the Fourth World War with the West in no way means the immediate deployment of military actions against the United States and NATO. On the contrary, it will allow to correctly place accents in pursuing a constructive foreign and domestic policy that takes into account national interests and the needs of the world community.
I am convinced that the resistance of peoples to the aggressive aspirations of the United States and their allies in the Fourth World War will increase as they become aware of the destruction of their goals and plans for most of humanity. Rebuffing neo-colonialists who claim world domination and spreading democracy with fire and sword can take many different forms from protest movements against globalization to acts of armed opposition and attacks on the US, as happened on September 11 of 2001. For example, the DPRK has found for itself a means of protection in creating its own nuclear weapons. 3 February of this year, North Korea officially announced that it has several atomic charges for self-defense. The DPRK MFA motivated the need for the country to have such weapons by saying that “the United States began attempts to overthrow the DPRK political system at any cost, threatening to launch a nuclear attack on the country ... Nuclear weapons will become a deterrent and will help ensure our security. Occurring events show that only force can protect truth and justice. ” To avoid the worst, slipping into a universal catastrophe, one should revive the traditions of the struggle for peace between countries, peoples, civilizations, return to the policy of peaceful coexistence.
Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter