- Dear Andrei Ilyich, do you think that current events in the Middle East signify an important episode in the development of the World System? How can you characterize what is happening now in Turkey, Syria, Israel, Libya and so on?
- What is happening this year in the Middle East is an important moment in the restructuring of the world system in the interests of the top of the world capitalist class, locus standi, whose home port is the United States.
To try to present these events as a “democratic shift” or “struggle against dictators and tyrants” can be either idiots or malicious liars. Outside the context of global restructuring, outside the struggle of various groups of the West between themselves and them together - it is difficult if not impossible to explain what is happening in the Middle East to China.
The unfolding World Crisis, which, despite the non-catastrophic development of events, is likely to stretch across the entire 21st century, will require the United States to exert maximum effort in order to remain as the World Host, the collective general secretary of the Capitalist Order of the modern system. And the strength is not enough. The US has overstrained: aggression against Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya - costly measures; If you add to this huge, swollen debt, growing economic problems and the unsuccessful presidencies of Bush and Obama, the picture becomes rather gloomy.
America can no longer dominate the world in this way and in the forms in which it has taken place in the last twenty years - Too wide stride, here and "tore his pants." Therefore, today, American analysts are thinking: some, like Charles Kapchan and Adam Mount, offer a kind of “autonomous control” - the transfer by the United States of some of the police-punitive functions that ensure global accumulation of capital, to the “praetorian states”. Others, such as Niall Ferguson, generally warn that the collapse of the American empire can happen very quickly - collapsing.
Today, the US is reminiscent of the Roman Empire of the era of Trajan and Adrian. In the first half of II. AD The Roman Empire reached enormous proportions and was forced not only to stop expansion, but first to go over to strategic defense and intensify the construction of protective shafts, and then begin to leave the conquered territories. One hundred years have passed and the crisis of the 3rd century has broken out. AD, after which Rome and the Romans have never become the same - vixerunt; in the 21st century, all processes go much faster — for a hundred years they can easily keep within 10 – 20.
At the turn of the XX – XXI centuries, the informed and insightful American analyst Chalmers Johnson in the trilogy "Blowback", "The Sorrows of the Empire" ("The sorrows of Empire") and "Nemesis: The Last Days of the American Republic" ("Nemesis: The last days of American Empire ”) predicted that in the 21st century, America will get a return primarily in Asia and Africa on what it did in the second half of the 20th century (starting with the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki), and she, America, will have to leave. And now the US is really leaving (it’s not by chance that Hollywood began making films about legions forgotten on the periphery of the Roman Empire), including from the Middle East (that is, from North Africa and South-West Asia). But leave not at all, but trying to change the form of presence from direct to indirect, from orderly to chaosogenic.
Geopolitics and geo-economics, like nature, do not tolerate emptiness. In place of the Americans can come competitors - the Chinese, Western Europeans. How to make so that the Middle East does not get sworn friends? Is it possible? Maybe. In the beginning was the word. And the word was “chaos” - controlled, of course (hello to the developers of the Santa Fe Institute and similar structures). It seems that the strategy of controlled chaos was chosen by the Americans as a solution to the Middle East question. Why? After all, they have already applied this strategy - and successfully. Stephen Mann, a high-ranking US official several years ago, frankly admitted that in the 1980s the United States used the strategy of controlled chaos against the USSR, and market reforms and “democracy” as a form of political modernization became its means.
The logic of the Americans, hiding behind the events in the Middle East is this: if you can not directly hold certain zones and leave, then, first, you need to create chaos in them, shattering large power formations as much as possible into smaller ones; secondly, to organize instability. Who is best suited for organizing instability in the Middle East? Of course, the Islamists. Moreover, they were created by the American special services - much has been written about this (for example, “Terror Dollars: USA and Islamists” R. Labevera, “Islamism and the USA: Union against Europe, etc. ). Besides, Islamists and transnational corporations, whose cluster is the United States, objectively have a common enemy - the national state. Both TNCs and Islamic terrorist (essentially political and economic) corporations are supranational in nature and work together for their "bright future."
Even those people and regimes who were more than loyal to the United States, such as Hosni Mubarak, were subjected to cleansing. Their time has passed, they are no longer needed and they are “drained”. In the Middle East, however, there are two countries in which Islamists are relatively weak, and the chaos à la Tunisia and Egypt are not passing here. These two countries are Libya and Syria. Their ruling regimes are distinguished not only by the exclusion of Islamists from the game, but in general they control the situation well, which means that they interfere very much, for example, with drug trafficking and related financial, political and criminal circles (clans) of the West. In this context, journalists often call the trinity: Ahmad Wali Karzai - the chief drug lord of Afghanistan, the recently killed younger brother of the president of Afghanistan (his death, by the way, coincided with the death of another character whose name journalists are actively associated with drug traffic - Holbrooke), a former French foreign minister associated with Zbigniew Brzezinski Bernard Kouchner and needing no introduction Hashim Thaci; In addition to economic interests, the Trinity is also linked by certain preferences - nontraditional. Of course, the affair is not limited to this unholy trinity, but it is very visible.
In the Mediterranean, drug traffic goes through the Tunisian port, and the port itself is controlled by one of the five largest New York gangster families - Bonanno (other families - Gambino, Genovese, Colombo, Dekavalkante). I subscribe to the opinion of those analysts who believe that the destabilization of Tunisia and the Maghreb as a whole cannot be viewed in isolation from the redistribution of control over drug trafficking. Analysts also point out, firstly, the role that port unions played in the “popular uprising” in Tunisia — that is, in the fall of the first domino bone in the so-called “revolutions of the Arab spring”; secondly, the close ties of the Bonanno family with the CIA and the Cuomo family (Andrew, and then his son Mario Cuomo, governors of the state of New York; in the interval between their governorship, this position was held by Rudi Giuliani, whose name journalists connect with the Gambino family).
The situation with Tunisia makes us remember the role that the American and Sicilian mafia played during the Second World War in the landing of the allies in Sicily, ensuring the beginning of this process. From this point on, by the way, the activation of mafia relations with the American special services began. So, in Libya and Syria, the Americans (and the Euro-Atlantic elites in general) can create chaos only by destroying these states from the outside, by aggression. What is happening. At the same time, it must be remembered that the Middle East is only one, albeit a very important “platform” of the global crisis restructuring. Perestroika is global and its players are global. And global rates - the power and privileges in the post-crisis (perhaps post-capitalist) world.
- What do you think, what world forces besides America are trying to play this game? Is someone else involved?
- A few years ago, journalists launched the phrase “global tribes” (“global tribes”), which included Anglo-Saxons (British and Americans), Jews (Israel and the world Jewish diaspora), Chinese and Arabs. I have doubts about the Arabs, but the first three tribes are named correctly; I would only reduce their number to two, since the first two "tribes" over the past two centuries are closely intertwined with each other. However, the "tribe" - "tribe", and there are more real groups, structures leading the world struggle for power, information and resources, approximately 10 – 15 - in terms of the number of global financial flows and their collective controllers.
Global players are, with the exception of (perhaps, so far with the exception of) China - not states, but stable clusters, network structures, organizations of order (as well as neo- and quasi-Orden) types. Therefore, when I say “USA”, I mean not so much the US state as the USA as a cluster of TNCs and financial information structures, as the area of activity of such structures - primarily the Federal Reserve System. I believe that the US national state did not live two years before the 200 jubilee: as a result of the creeping coup of 1963 – 1974, which began with the killing of Kennedy (swung at the Fed) and ended with the Nixon impeachment, the USA turned into a cluster of TNK, financial oligarchies and their supranational structures (for example, the Tripartite Commission). It is significant that since 1976, not a single US president came from the east coast, all the presidents were either from the south or from the west, and all were closely connected with the TNCs. The victory of the TNC cluster over the national state is the defeat of the eastern (Atlantic) US establishment.
The modern world is arranged in such a way that one structure as a world player can represent several states (or, in general, like the Vatican, not represent any specific states), and one and the same state can be represented by several players who are also members of different supranational clusters. or orders.
Hence the development, firstly, of fundamentally new forms of secret foreign policy, significantly different from the secret policies of the past; secondly, the development of secret "external politics" - just like that, in the plural. The subjects of secret foreign policies are integrated clusters of TNCs, special services, financial, religious, informational and academic structures of various countries. Corporatocracy, unlike the state-monopoly bourgeoisie, is both supra- (supra-) national and infra-national.
The players of the world platform represent the most diverse forces - these are American, English-Dutch and Jewish international capital, these are the Vatican, old and new order-type structures, and order-networking organizations (for example, the so-called “Group”, the foundation of which was laid by a supporter of the Anglo-American idea). the establishment of Rhodes; what has been dubbed the “Black International”, which seems to be becoming increasingly active).
Their economic integrator is offshore zones, starting with the City of London and ending with the Bahamas, and political - clubs and commissions (Bilderberg, Trilateral and those that we still do not know or just guess, calculating how Urban Le Verrier “calculated” Neptune) .
The integration of various global (from 1980-s - global players) does not exclude contradictions and sharp conflicts between them. So, in 1929 – 1931. Montague Norman, director of the Central Bank of England, “closed” the British Empire (25% of the world market) from the rest of the world, thereby delivering a conscious and powerful blow to the United States. It was this contradiction that played a huge role in the rise of the Second World War and made a significant part of the American elite set the task of undermining the destruction of the British Empire as a top priority. (Including during the Second World War, not to mention the post-war period - Allen Dulles spoke directly about this - and he is far from alone).
“Dulles is 1940 – 1950's. Today?
- The same thing is happening today. I will give one example just from the events around Egypt. 30 January 2011 Mr. Obama sent to Cairo as special envoy Frank Wiesner. It is worth mentioning this figure in more detail - I am grateful to my colleagues, who drew my attention to Wizner and Maysan's publications about him. First, the Ambassador in Egypt in 1986 – 1991, then in the Philippines and in India; after leaving the diplomatic service, this “quiet American” worked in the sad memory of the Enron corporation, in a number of non-governmental organizations, later co-chair of the working group on Iraq and - attention - the US special representative in the troika to determine the future status of Kosovo, this criminal Narco-Islamic enclave, managed by the CIA and the Mafia on behalf of supranational structures. In short, as they say, Frank - "not to hell." Wiesner's father, also Frank, is one of the organizers of the CIA, who noted the participation of the CIA in the preparation of the anti-Soviet insurgency in Hungary. Frank Jr. is married to stepmother Nicolas Sarkozy, that is, the second wife of the father of Sarko-American and has four children from her. It was he who, according to the famous French journalist mud scraper Tieri Meyssan, played a huge role in Sarkozy’s career, in tying him to the US (hence the nickname “Sarko-American”). According to Maysan, one of the sons of Wisner was Sarkozy’s press secretary for the Anglo-Saxon media presidential campaign, and the other was one of the main figures in the Carlyle Group; this Fund manages the assets of the family tandem “Bush - bin Ladin”; in the same Foundation Wiesner added his brother Sarkozy, Olivier.
Wisner, according to Obama's idea, had to convince Mubarak to leave quietly. However, it was not there. First in Cairo, and then on February 5 in Munich at a security conference, Wieser states that the United States and Europe should support Mubarak and he should not leave. Hillary Clinton, in response, makes a completely Obama-like statement about the need to support "democratic forces", but Wiesner essentially disavows this statement. And then Obama stops his mission. I roughly imagine how a person of the level, career and family traditions such as Vizner should perceive the couple of Clintons, Obama and the like. But the point, of course, is not personal predilections. There is a clash between two clans that look at the future of the world and the Middle East in different ways, the clans, which are supported by various supranational groups. At the same time, families from different clans can have a common business. Life is changing. For example, the Rothschilds once supported de Gaulle (one of the first to talk about generals with bankers was Henri Coston in the book Onz ans de malheur), and today they are using Sarkozy to break down what is left of the Gaullist movement and this is also part of the global crisis restructuring, crisis management.
- Is there something that somehow regulates this group struggle for the future?
- Structures, groups, in which the hosts of the world game are organized, wage an acute struggle among themselves, but struggle according to certain rules. At least it has been so far. Will these rules be preserved as the inevitable aggravation of the struggle for the future in a crisis? There are doubts. Over the past few months, events have occurred that these doubts fuel. This is a demonstratively brutal and humiliating, organized as a personal smear on the wall of the arrest of Strauss-Kahn, the terrorist attack in Norway and partly the unrest of the colored bottom in London. The fact that Breivik is not a loner (or rather, the same “loner” like Oswald, Sirhan Bishara Sirhan or Karl Weiss is the killer of the most dangerous rival of Franklin Roosevelt, Hugh Long, the prototype of Governor Willy Stark - Robert Penn Warren, the protagonist of All Kingly Ratio) and the “element” of the international network is beyond doubt.
The fact that the killing of several dozen children (and children who are not proletarians at all) is a signal that certain groups of the world elite send to others is also beyond doubt. But the fact that the victims were children, testifies: the world struggle in crisis conditions is becoming so fierce that a signal is given: if anything, we will not spare children. I wonder if there will be an answer, and if so, which one and where, but it is clear that in any case it will increase instability.
- And what is the global goal of this kind of incitement of instability?
- The main goal is to create a new world order in which the current “rulers of financial rings” will retain their power and privileges, reduce the population of the planet and try to establish tight quasi-caste control over the rest with bank cards, built-in biochips, possibly turning into other creatures sociobiological type. This is a long-term perspective. In the medium term, the events of winter - summer 2011 of the year, be it the Middle East, Norway or London, are working to strengthen the right and, in the future, right-wing forces in Europe. The chaos in the Middle East has already thrown additional waves of migrants into Europe, and after all Merkel, Sarkozy and Cameron already say that the strategy of multiculturalism has failed and must be finished with it. In this context, it is clear that the appearance of the author's book in Germany with a very speaking surname Saratsin was not an accident, but a planned preparation of public opinion.
But what does it mean to end multiculturalism? Where do Turks, Kurds, Arabs and Africans living in Europe go? Deport? How? Where? A huge mass of immigrants from the "third world" is unlikely to get somewhere "to put." They can only try to put them in a rigidly subordinate position, limiting the rights and placing them in the ghetto. But it is clear that, first of all, only right-authoritarian nationalist regimes that spit on “Multur-cultures” and a number of liberal values can try to do it. Does it happen that something similar to the rehabilitation of National Socialism begins in the West, which is only timidly manifested? We are talking, for example, about an exhibition in Germany devoted to Hitler (for the first time), about the interpretation of national socialism as a lesser evil compared with “Stalinist totalitarianism”. Secondly, the attempt to rigidly change the situation in many respects of people from Asia and Africa who are used to the free life of theirs will provoke their resistance.
Today, on the one hand, those who seek to strengthen Europe by establishing right-wing orders in it are interested in the attempts of the radicalization of Europe, which will automatically require the transformation of Western Europe into an imperial-like formation, a strict hierarchization of the European Union into “cleaner” (German -french core) and on those "who went out for a walk"; rigid sociopolitical hierarchization within societies with the transformation of colored bottoms into an incomplete segment of society; cooling relations with the United States, and therefore the ousting of the Euro-Atlantic segment of the elites by the national / imperial and, of course, a more or less close alliance of the Roman-Germanic Europe (Carolingian Europe) with Russia.
On the other hand, in an attempt to create right-wing radical regimes in Europe, those who are keen to weaken Europe are also interested, believing that Western European attempts to solve their problems through right-wing quasi-imperialism will lead to an explosion on a socio-racial-ethnic-religious basis, to an explosion that will undermine Europe and will become a means, technology controlled (by it) from outside the chaos. Opposing forces do one thing - with different goals. Hence, the possibility of a tactical (contactless or through intermediaries) union. There are plenty of examples in the history of this. So, at the end of 1916 - the beginning of 1917, the interests of Germany coincided, on the one hand, and Great Britain and the USA, on the other, in overthrowing the Russian tsar and destabilizing the situation in Russia.
- Andrei Ilyich, and what motives does China have for joining this global game? Is it just a struggle for some kind of energy source or something else?
- I am not an expert on China, I am interested in China from the point of view of my professional interests - analysis of the global struggle for power, information and resources. Forced to be a power with global ambitions, China should be present at the maximum number of global and regional sites, capturing maximum space. This is the principle of the Chinese game "wei qi", which is known in the world as the Japanese game "go"; the task is to arrange your “stones” in different parts of the board, connect them in a “chain” and surround the enemy. The Celestial Empire "exposed" many of its "stones" in Africa, in the Middle and Near East, and in Latin America. True, in recent months China missed two hits - Libya and Sudan, which the Americans managed to divide into two parts. But, first, these blows, despite their sensitivity, are tactical success from the point of view of the world game, and secondly, I am convinced that the Chinese will find an asymmetrical answer.
Today, the Chinese elite are playing a very difficult game. On the one hand, it objectively conducts a political, economic and financial attack on the US position in the world, while its economic successes create serious social problems associated with a fragile social structure, demography and ecology. On the other hand, the Chinese elite is doing everything to avoid a military clash with the United States, while a number of problems that arise will be more and more difficult and difficult to solve by non-military means. Such a situation will require the Chinese ruling elite top of skill and virtuosity.
Generally need to say that The current confrontation between the Chinese (East Asian) and Western elites, organized into clubs, lodges and network structures (primarily its Anglo-American-Jewish core) is a most interesting and hitherto unseen process. The western elite first encountered an adversary who, although a non-Western civilization, is a global player; so far, only the capitalist West was global, relying in its expansion on the geo-culture of the Enlightenment.
The confrontation between the West and the USSR and, accordingly, the Western and Soviet elites was a confrontation between the personifiers of the two versions of the Enlightenment geoculture; the Soviet project was a variant of the Big Left project of the Modernity - Jacobin; the struggle started in the framework of the European-Christian range.
Not to mention the fact that the counter-elites who committed the revolution in Russia and personified the first, “international” phase (1917 – 1927 / 29) of the revolution in Russia, and also played an active role in the second, “national” (1927 / 29 –1939 years.) Phase, either directly created by the West, or underwent good Western training. They were largely associated with the Western elite (finance, politics, special services); they associated themselves primarily with the world, and not with the Russian processes; here it is also appropriate to recall Trotsky's phrase that real revolutionaries are sitting on Wall Street, and the role that Wall Street played in the revolution and the civil war in Russia.
The elimination of the “westward” left-globalist segment of the Soviet elite was a necessary condition for eliminating the possibility of turning Russia into “brushwood for the world revolution” and / or as a raw material appendage of the West, a necessary condition for the transition from the “world revolution” strategy to the “red empire” strategy and, ultimately, to turn Russia / USSR into a superpower. At the same time, as the Anglo-Saxons say, every acquisition is a loss. The change of elites during the national phase of the revolution, the coming to power of representatives of broad sections of the population, the lower classes, became one of the factors that caused the decline in the level of the Soviet ruling elite (lack of communication with both the pre-revolutionary tradition and 1920’s). after Stalin’s death, especially in the Brezhnev period, which apparently (and, in many respects, in fact) was the peak of the development of the USSR.
Actually, The USSR lost in the battle of the elites: part of its ruling stratum went over to the side of the main enemy, and the other - opponents - turned out to be inadequate and untenable.
The situation is completely different in China.
First, despite the revolution, which according to Chinese tradition is an element of dynastic rupture, which were quite a few in Chinese imperial history (between Han and Tang, between Tang and Song, the communist victory in 1949 only crowned and completed the centenary another period of chaos) , the Chinese elite relies on three thousand-year-old power technologies and stratagems. First of all, there are well-functioning mechanisms of interaction between the center and the regions, as well as mechanisms for the transfer of power. By the way, the Russian ruling elite had never been able to boast of either one or the other.
Secondly, over the last quarter of a century, the Chinese elite, especially its middle and younger generations, have acquired an important experience of playing at a global venue. Is it enough for success - time will tell.
Although the Chinese elite is inferior to the modern western in terms of such a parameter as the experience of the world, which began its formation of 300 – 400 years ago as the world - due to the formation of the world market, which, as Marx noted, was created by capitalism to the same extent him. By its historical complexity, the Western ruling elite has no analogues, and this multi-component, forming, however, a single whole, is in itself a powerful geohistorical weapon.
Historically, the Western elite has absorbed many traditions, and victorious ones: the Roman, Roman-German, Anglo-Saxon, Jewish, Venetian traditions connected with the Catholic Church and at the same time with various heresies and Protestantism.
Each tradition had its own forms of organization - secret and explicit, often - order structures. In the XVIII – XIX centuries. Masonic and Paramason forms were added to this, in the XIX – XX centuries. - Club (from the Rhodes and Milner societies to the Bilderberg and Trilateral commissions) or even neo-order. Most of these organizations were originally supranational or acquired it. In the twentieth century. they turned out to be closely connected with the special services and the academic community.
The circulation of elites in the "pentagram" "supranational structures - business - state structures - special services - academic community" cultivated a skilled, I would even say, sophisticated elite. I do not idealize and do not overestimate people like Arnold Toynbee Jr., Dulles brothers, Kissinger and Brzezinski, but it’s impossible to imagine figures similar to them in Russian or Soviet reality, not to mention the post-Soviet reality.
For several centuries of the capitalist era, the Western elite has developed many effective power, information and financial technologies, learned the social-strategic experience of Venetians and Jewish communities, and integrated it and its bearers. Difficulty is the power of the Western elite. However, it may also be a weakness. Western elite is not invincible. It is necessary to learn how to turn tactical victories into strategic ones - but this is a separate conversation.
The Chinese elite has no such internal complexity.
It, in contrast to the Western one, which was formed in a constantly changing environment of revolutions and interstate wars, developed in a relatively homogeneous, one-plane imperial environment. China is an empire, not a system of states, and from the Chinese point of view it is not by chance that the whole history of the West is a complete chaos. But it is such a complicated story that forges winners. The complexity and sophistication of the Chinese ruling elite - in another, above all - in the ability to put in the service of both the achievements and weaknesses of the enemy (35-th stratagem - "chains").
Despite the constant internal struggle, national contradictions, and so on, the Western elite went along the path of strengthening internal cohesion and organization, and this happened, again, at the supranational level. This was achieved in two ways.
The first way is the use of old supranational forms (masons, illuminati, etc.) and filling them with new content; as well as penetration into the old forms (Vatican), plus the creation of new supranational forms, intensified after the end of the First World War and especially after the Second, in the conditions of the Cold War.
The second way is the establishment of kinship between elite families. An important milestone here is the death of Queen Victoria, an ardent opponent of marriages between aristocrats and “shopkeepers” (that is, financiers, industrialists, etc.). A year after the Queen’s death, the European aristocracy gathered and decided that marriages between aristocrats and representatives of the “financial and industrial sector”, regardless of the latter’s nationality, are perfectly acceptable. At the same “congress” a de facto decision was made on a kind of “division of labor” in the new aristocratic-financial class. In the future, for example, for the Habsburgs, this meant one thing; for some Grimaldi, another, less honorable, but necessary for the western top, which was rapidly turning into a world one.
The entire twentieth century is a further consolidation of the western elite, in spite of, and sometimes in spite of national and corporate conflicts, its active use of the upstarts characteristic of the era of mass society. (the so-called "democracy") - examples here Trotsky, Mussolini, Hitler. The Western elite is strategic in its essence, planning for many decades (it’s aristocracy which thinks in terms of line, as the American sociologist Edward Banfield clearly noted), one of the most vivid confirmations is the “Liote” program. In 1949, a perpetual program of struggle against the USSR was adopted, the first intermediate results were supposed to be summarized in 50 years. Ironically, they turned out to be final: 2 – 3 December 1989 Gorbachev designed the surrender of the USSR to the Western top during a meeting in Malta (a symbolic place, there is still geohistorical taste and humor among Western elitarians).
Unlike the Western, the Russian (“in the Russian politics of the last half century, neither the plan nor the sequence was” - Wrangell Sr. about Russia in the second half of the XIX - early XX centuries) and the Soviet (except for the period from the middle of 1920 to the middle 1950-ies) there was no elite strategy. But the Chinese comrades have it, the question is how quickly and successfully they will transfer it to the global level.
But there are serious problems with the western elite. It is formed by the capitalist system, the capitalist era, Christianity and European civilization.
However, the capitalist era ends, the dismantling of capitalism is underway; European civilization seems to have outlived itself; white man, her carrier does not reproduce their own kind; Catholicism in the religious and financial company "Vatican"; The biblical project as a means of control over the masses practically does not work.
Western elites are beginning to show signs of inadequacy and even degeneration à la Buddenbroki, only instead of four generations, there are four centuries here. In other words, in a crisis, the game begins anew. Will the Western elite be able to recreate itself in accordance with the new conditions, be updated and create new forms of (self) organization? New knowledge about the world and man as a psycho-historical weapon? This is one question.
Another question is whether other subjects of strategic action will be able to use the opposition of the West and China, solving their problems, and using - according to the principle of judo - the power of the enemy. Unfortunately, it seems RF to such subjects at the moment does not apply. She is too weak after the Third Troubles, she is largely out of the game. The following example shows how offside it is.
17 February 2011 President Medvedev signs an agreement with Italian President Berlusconi, under which the Italian corporation ENI assigns Gazprom 33,3% of its stake in the Elephant oil project in Libya. 28 February was scheduled for approval by the Libyans, but "it was smooth on paper": February, the Italians and Russians are fleeing Libya from 21 February - hostilities began, and Berlusconi could not know that they would begin. As Don Corleone used to say in such cases, "he did not show respect." Did not show. Because he knew that nothing would happen.
The ruling stratum of the Russian Federation, which is closely connected with the West, is focused on someone else’s and is not confident in its own way, and therefore in itself - this is a characteristic muddy post-mute state.
This has already been in our history. During the Smolensk War (1632 – 1633), one of the commanders of the Russian army, Vasily Izmailov, during meetings with Lithuanian "colleagues" praised the Polish-Lithuanian king, belittling his sovereign: "How can we fight against such a great sovereign to our Moscow ransom?". Is history repeating itself? If yes, then bad: pribavstva, indeed, never win anything, they are not winners, but nothingness, losers. Hopefully, there is still no, and we will have a subject of strategic action (for more, see my article about this in the journal However, 2011, No. 1).
The unfolding confrontation of the Western elite, first of all its Anglo-Saxon-Jewish core, and the Chinese elite is an unprecedented phenomenon in the history of the world struggle, this is a fascinating picture where many surprises await us. In many ways, it is this struggle that will determine the future - the post-capitalist and in general. We must try to ensure that this struggle does not turn into the Great Hunt, about which Kipling boa Kaa said that “after this hunt there will be no more little man or little wolf, only bare bones will remain”. This is the minimum program. Maximum program: on the principle of a monkey watching a tiger fight, or in full accordance with Chinese stratagems, for example, 5 or 14 or - extract maximum benefit from the confrontation of Leo and Dragon.
- Andrei Ilyich, but do you believe in the possibility of the emergence of Central Asian and Pacific centers of instability in the coming years, since we have had such a detailed and intensive conversation about China?
- As for the Pacific or Asian-Pacific hearth, there is none, since there is no Asia-Pacific region (APR). I agree with those researchers (for example, with Oleg Arin) who, in principle, deny the existence of such a region, consider it a fiction. Need to talk about the East Pacific. For the time being, it is not a source of instability. But it can become so, firstly, in the event of a sharp deterioration in the natural geological situation in Japan; secondly, if disintegration processes or any other social cataclysms begin in China.
But in Central Asia, a center of instability has already been created. I mean Central Asia in the narrow sense of the word, i.e. five post-Soviet "stans" - five former republics of the USSR plus the north of Afghanistan and Pakistan, Kashmir.
In 2003, when the actions of certain forces to create a hotbed of instability in Central Asia were just beginning, in a paper written in Russian and in English, I called this new role of the region “Centrality of Central Asia-2”.
By "centrality-1" I meant the era from the middle of the 2nd millennium BC. (the emergence of Indo-Europeans on their chariots in the Northern Black Sea region, which caused the crisis of the XII century BC and turned the Mediterranean) to the XIII – XIV centuries. AD, when the Mongol conquests turned the whole Old World upside down. During these three millennia, serious changes in Central Asia, the emergence of nomadic and semi-nomadic powers in it, and migration from east to west, ultimately led to the restructuring of the whole ecumene.
In the XVII – XVIII centuries. Russia and Qing China have squeezed Central Asia in a vice, severely limiting the possibilities to influence the world or at least have any serious significance in it.
Russia was able to keep its part of Central Asia until the end of the twentieth century, but after the collapse of the USSR, Central Asia again began to play a serious role in world geopolitics and geo-economics (“centrality-2”), but not as a source of change, but as a zone: 1 a) mineral resources; 2) transport transit; 3) Drug Production and Drug Traffic; 4) geopolitical platform to create problems for Iran, Russia, India and China.
The words spoken once about Afghanistan by the poet Iqbal (“the heart of Asia”) and Lord Curzon (“the bridge of Asia”) can be extended to Central Asia today. Therefore, the NATO (in essence, the American) invasion of Afghanistan is not an accident. Another thing is that the Americans, like the Russians, did not learn the British history lesson and moved into a country that is not accidentally called the "graveyard of empires."
In connection with the centrality of Central Asia, the interested forces and structures will do everything to, firstly, to spread the hotbed of instability from the “narrow”, “small” Central Asia to the Greater Central Region (Greater Central Asia includes, in addition to the above, the Iranian province of Khorasan, Indian Kashmir, Mongolia, in China - Tibet, Qinghai, Xinjiang-Uygur District and Inner Mongolia), creating problems primarily for China; secondly, to connect the Middle East center of instability with the Central Asian one, creating a huge strip, arc, funnel or, if you will, a black hole of chaos in the Old World, in Eurasia, applying the strategy of organized chaos to the Heartland.
Paraphrasing Mackinder, we can say: today, the one who is randomizing Heartland, is randomizing the whole world and thus manipulating them. Another question is whether the whole world agrees to be randomized? Of course, the grandmasters of the game of world chess are very difficult to beat. But you can - quite in the spirit of “lateral thinking” of De Bono - go the other way, namely, sweep the pieces from the chessboard, and cut the board itself, as it should, to the crafty grandmaster. Adequate answer amateur professional!
I’m not even talking about the fact that, first, chaos releases such jinn out of a bottle that can destroy the sorcerer’s master. Secondly, no grandmaster can figure out all the options. Therefore, I will end our conversation with an example from the history of the state with which we began the conversation - the Roman Empire.
451 year. The Romans, under the leadership of their last great commander Aetius and their allies, the Visigots under the leadership of Theodoric (prototype of the Tolkien King Theoden) came together in a battle with the Huns on the Katalaun fields (the prototype of the battle on the Pelinore fields of the “Lord of the Rings”). After the fierce battle in the rain, Attila retreated, but the next day Aetius did not continue the battle. He calculated the prospect: Theodoric is an unreliable ally, and in future dealings, including the inner Roman Attila, may be useful.
Aetius seemed to have counted everything - except for one thing: he did not know that Emperor Valentinian III had already ordered to kill him on his return to Rome.
Do the Lords of World Chaos calculate that, in the womb of their society, like "alien", "aliens", the coming attiles are already ripening in the human body? And how to know if they will blow up from the inside, the global World-created New Chaosorder at the very moment when it will seem that the New World Chaosorder is becoming a reality, eh?
 Labevierre R. Les dollars de la terreur: Les États-Unis et les islamistes; Del Valle A. Islamisme et États-Unis: Une alliance contre l'Europe;