After the collapse of the USSR and the end of the world socialist system stories contrary to the opinion of Washington apologists, it has not come. Neither socialism nor the crisis of capitalism has disappeared. The first, however, acquired Chinese specificity and integrated the mechanisms of market self-organization, giving rise to a new type of socio-economic relations, which half a century ago P. Sorokin propitiously called an integral structure. The crisis of capitalism in the guise of financial acquired a global scale. But just like the Great Depression of the 30s, the socialist economies did not hurt, among which, along with China, Vietnam, Cuba, and partly India, and the DPRK preserving its uniqueness. On the contrary, just as the USSR used the Great Depression in capitalist countries for the purposes of socialist industrialization, China, having mastered a wide range of Western technologies, in response to the global crisis, took up the rise of the domestic market.
Of course, these are nothing more than historical parallels that illustrate the complexity of the process of global economic development. Unchanged in it, according to the apt expression of Russian President Vladimir Putin, is only geopolitics. Its anti-Russian essence has not changed either after the collapse of the world socialist system, or after the collapse of the USSR, remaining the same as in the times of the Russian Empire. The question arises as to the reasons for the unchanged Russophobia of the Anglo-Saxon, Germanic and generally Western geopolitical schools. Without an answer to it, it is impossible to either explain the current anti-Russian hysteria in the West, much less predict the further actions of its politicians.
Since our western "partners" think, apparently, by geopolitical categories, having analyzed them, we will try to make a forecast. Otherwise, we will only measure the stupidity of the statements made by the representatives of the American authorities in terms of psaki, without understanding the logic of their actions. And it undoubtedly exists, since American taxpayers have to pay a considerable price for these actions and, therefore, they should know the answer to the question: “Why?”.
Judging by the consensus with which both houses of Congress vote for anti-Russian resolutions, the American establishment at least thinks it knows the answer to this question. Not for the sake of the unfortunate Ukrainians, the American special services staged their Maidan followed by political terror, massacres and a threefold drop in the standard of living?
For an inexperienced reader, geopolitics seems to be an intricate juggling of familiar words, in which is hidden and incomprehensible to the uninitiated sense. For example, the opposition between land and sea, which has become a classic in Western political science textbooks. More precisely, the countries of land and sea, as if doomed to compete with each other. For Russia, located between the three oceans, this opposition seems to be nothing more than an entertaining game of the mind, just like the concept of Heartland - the Middle Earth, control over which supposedly gives domination over the world. Being in its geographical position this very Heartland of Eurasia, Russia was in vital need of access to ice-free seas for conducting international trade. For normal self-sufficient development, she needed both land and sea. To protect against the greedy neighbors - and the army, and the fleet.
Russian geopolitics has always been substantive and determined either by internal needs (“to cut a window to Europe”) or by external threats (to take oppressed fraternal peoples under the hand of the White Tsar). Therefore, the abstract construction of Western political science for the Russian consciousness seem mysterious and obscure. Just as its practical implementation in the foreign policy of the Western powers. For example, their obsession with unchanged for centuries by Drang nach Osten, the unrestrained desire to seize our lands and destroy our people. It would seem that the famous saying of Alexander Nevsky, “Whoever comes to us with a sword, will be killed by the sword”, the Western European aggressors have repeatedly checked the hard way and could have calmed down. But no, and in the third millennium after the birth of Christ, they continue to persistently violate the principles of “Do not kill,” and “Do not steal.” And they again go to war with us, relying on their multiple financial and material superiority.
Until now, however, wars with Russia did not bring great victories to the West. But caused considerable damage to both Russia and Europe. True, not all of Europe, but its mainland, on which Russian troops used to go around not once, finishing off the aggressor in his lair. Britain, on the other hand, always remained outside the zone of hostilities, actively participating in them on foreign territory. Also avoided the horrors of two world wars and residents of the United States, who consider themselves nevertheless in them winners. One involuntarily wonders about the secret geopolitics of the Anglo-Saxons, which has allowed them to dominate most of the planet for more than two centuries, to wage wars on all continents, and never during this period prevent the enemy from entering their territory.
The question is not so simple. At least twice the opponents of England — Napoleon in 1812, and Hitler in 1940 — were powerful enough to crush her. But instead they fell on Russia, substituting the back of the British. Indeed, if we assume that Napoleon would persuade Alexander I to conclude an alliance and secure his sister’s hand, then England would be doomed. Instead, he got involved in a suicidal campaign against Moscow. After a century and a half, Hitler repeated the same mistake. What would Europe and the world look like today if Hitler did not break the peace treaty with the USSR? It is unlikely that England could withstand the onslaught of Europe united by the fascists. Why did the two European superpowers of their time, instead of the obvious path to domination in Europe and, consequently, in the world by conquering small and vulnerable England, get involved in a hopeless war with the Eurasian giant?
There is also a symmetrical question about Russian geopolitics, which has allowed the country to be drawn into grueling wars with enormous human and material losses. Alexander I could have avoided the war with Napoleon, who, for the sake of union with him, twice asked for the hands of his sisters. Nicholas II could not be drawn into the senseless and fatal World War I with his cousin. Both times, Russia played for England and both times suffered huge losses. The first time was to pay for the ruin of Moscow and then with the costly restoration of European monarchies and the content of the royal courts that hate us. And the second time - the death of the empire, civil war and millions of innocent people who died.
And England won both times. As a result of the defeat of Napoleonic Europe, she seized control of the European market and became the "ruler of the seas", eliminating the main competitor in the struggle for overseas colonies. As a result of the First World War, all the remaining monarchical empires in the world, whose territory was fully opened for the development of English capital, collapsed. The British government did not even consider it necessary to conceal its deep satisfaction with the overthrow of the Russian tsar, a relative of Her Majesty. When British Prime Minister Lloyd George found out about the fall of tsarism, he rubbed his hands and said: “One of the British goals of the war has been achieved.” And as soon as the Civil War broke out in Russia, a recent ally went to military intervention, trying to seize Russian territory and divide the country.
Of course, historians will find many explanations for all these events. But the fact remains the striking success of British geopolitics - on the one hand, and the Russian losses from engaging in it - on the other. As, however, and other countries for which cooperation with the British turned into disasters. As Russian geopolitics Alexei Yedrikhin wisely remarked: “Only one thing can be worse than hostility with Anglo-Saxon — friendship with him.”
Ingenious analyst C. Marchetti once remarked that nations behave like people. Just as people compete, intrigue, envy and find out between themselves under the influence of emotions. The anthropocentric view on international relations often manifests itself in the political lexicon, when in relation to an entire nation they say: “Give a bite”, “Kick ass”, “Pat nerves”, “Punish”, etc. If you follow this analogy, then the question of the value system of values in international relations. Do they play as important a role in relations between nations as they do in relations between people? And if so, what is the peculiarity of English geopolitical ethics? And how does it differ from, say, Russian?
The Russian national consciousness, in the opinion of F. M. Dostoevsky, is distinguished by “worldwide responsiveness”. It was clearly manifested in the foreign policy of both the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union. The kings responded to the requests of oppressed peoples, taking them into citizenship and helping in development. Russia considered itself responsible for the entire Orthodox and Slavic world, putting a lot of Russian soldiers in defense of Georgia against the belligerent Caucasian tribes and the liberation of the Balkans from the Ottoman yoke. And she completely lost her head, having got involved in a world war because of the Austrian threat to the autonomy of Serbia and the obsessive idea of liberation of Constantinople and the Straits from the Turks. The USSR waged an exhausting struggle to build socialism on all continents, helping the communist parties, national liberation movements and developing countries of socialist orientation. And stuck in Afghanistan while neutralizing the dubious threat of interception of control over this country by the Americans.
In other words, Russian geopolitics was always ideological and oriented to help fraternal peoples. Unlike the British, who organized the slave trade in their colonies, the peoples who joined the Russian Empire did not discriminate, and their leading stratum was included in the Russian ruling elite. In the USSR, the subcontracting priority was given priority - the Soviet empire was the only one in the world that developed its “colonies” at the expense of the center, and did not pull out super profits from them, as the British did in India, China, and Africa.
The decisive significance of ideology was also manifested in the allied relations that Russia built in different historical epochs. In World War II, she suffered excessive losses, going at the request of the Allies in an unprepared offensive to divert the German troops from Paris, and sent an expeditionary force to help the French. Give life "for your friends" for Russian geopolitics as sacred as for the Russian people. And they gave millions of lives, freeing Europe from fascism. But Stalin could stop at the liberation of the USSR, agreeing to a separate peace with Germany in exchange for reparations and the liberation of the Slavic peoples, giving the battlefield to the Anglo-Saxons ?!
The Anglo-Saxons behaved differently. While the Russians were shedding blood, delaying German forces from the Western Front during the First World War, the British special services were preparing a revolution in St. Petersburg. Drawing the Russian emperor into an alliance and into a war against Germany, the British simultaneously planned its overthrow. Entangling the Russian establishment with Masonic networks, recruiting generals and politicians, seizing control of the media, discrediting and physically eliminating influential opponents, English geopolitics have achieved considerable success in manipulating the Russian political cuisine. The murder of Stolypin opened the way for them to prepare the Russian ruling elite for war, and the elimination of the English spy Rasputin - for the revolution. All the fatal mistakes made by the king were played out, as per notes. Killing the heir to the Austrian throne in Sarajevo, the organizers of the war unmistakably provoked the Russian czar’s decision to mobilize, organizing ultrapatriotic hysteria through the media. Just as two and a half years later, they provoked a riot in St. Petersburg and a conspiracy by the military-political elite against the tsar, which ended with his abdication and the subsequent collapse of the monarchy.
Today, enough data has been accumulated that makes it possible to assert the critical importance of British geopolitics in unleashing World War I by manipulating the ruling circles of the participating countries, as well as in organizing the February Revolution in Russia. The Anglo-Saxons did not behave better in the run-up to and during the Second World War. Favorably taking over the seizure of power in Germany by the Nazis, the American-British oligarchy continued large-scale investments in German industry, investing about two trillion dollars in modernizing it at current prices. In 1938, in Munich, English Prime Minister Chamberlain blessed the fascist beast raised with the help of Anglo-Saxon money for a military campaign against the USSR, sacrificing Poland, which was allied to England. He even personally saved Hitler from the conspiracy of German generals who were afraid to fight, preventing the coup d'état revealed by British intelligence by his unexpected visit to the Führer. And until the opening of the second front in 1944, American corporations continued to receive dividends from their assets in Germany, profiting from the war. In accordance with the well-known phrase uttered by G. Truman in the 1941 year: “If the Russians win, we must help the Germans, and if the Germans, then the Russians must help. And may they kill each other as much as possible. ”
But the Americans did not have time to help the Germans - the Red Army was advancing too quickly. They had to break the Munich agreement and open a second front to keep control of at least Western Europe. At the same time, on the initiative of Churchill, the operation “Unthinkable” was planned - an attack by the USA and Great Britain on the allied USSR using aspiring Wehrmacht troops. But although the German troops, as you know, did not offer the Anglo-American serious resistance, the rapid advance of the Red Army to Berlin disrupted these insidious plans. Nevertheless, the Yankees left many fascists in the ranks to prepare for the new war against the USSR. Just as tens of thousands of Hitler's collaborators saved by taking them from Ukraine for use against the Soviet Union. They were useful, however, after its collapse - for the cultivation of Ukrainian Nazism in order to draw Russia into a new war with the united NATO Europe.
The collapse of the USSR itself was not without active work of the American special services. It is enough to read the book of the then CIA Director P. Schweitzer Victory to verify the fundamental role of the American special services in the collapse of the USSR. Once again, one has to be surprised at their art and systemic approach, as opposed to our naivety and helplessness.
Dodged "new thinking"
Arguments that the Soviet Union collapsed under the pressure of internal problems do not hold water. The recession, which first arose in his planned economy at the end of the 80s, cannot be compared with the collapse of the beginning of the 90s. Public discontent with the shortage of essential goods and bursts - with a repeated drop in consumption and living standards after shock therapy during the transition to a market economy. After the Chinese economic miracle, it can be reliably argued that if the Soviet and then post-Soviet leadership chose to gradually introduce market mechanisms and create conditions for private enterprise while maintaining state control, ownership and planning in basic and infrastructure industries, including the banking sector and the media, disaster would not have happened. Not China, but the USSR would become the core of the formation of a new world economic structure based on the convergence theory (combination) of capitalist and socialist economic development mechanisms developed by a number of Soviet and American scientists based on the harmonization of private and public interests under state control.
But the leadership of the USSR, including the majority of the leaders of the Union republics, was struck by cognitive weapons - imposed by Western agents of influence a false understanding of the laws of socio-economic development, contrived "universal values" and "human rights", elusive guidelines of market democracy. In the minds of political leaders formed a "new thinking", denying the existing order in the name of radical change for the better. The image of the latter was a pink mist, while the flaws of the existing order of things looked prominent and did not seem to be corrected. In this case there was a discredit of carriers of knowledge and historical experience, which were defamed as retrogrades and orthodox. They were ridiculed, dismissed, in every way removed from the top management, which was thus isolated from the carriers of knowledge, and his consciousness was opened up for manipulation by Western agents of influence.
Simultaneously with the disorientation of the top leadership of the USSR, the American special services were preparing a strike force of a new political force with the aim of overthrowing it. Today, in the offices of the National Democratic Institute and the International Republican Institute in Washington, one can see campaign posters and leaflets of the Yeltsin election campaign of 1990, which under the guise of Gorbachev's glorification as a modern world leader were led by American special services. They created a network of agents of influence for the purpose of the collapse of the USSR and at the same time extolled Gorbachev for the reorganization organized by him, the essence of which was reduced to the self-destruction of the system of government. As soon as chaos allowed to organize a new political force, strong pressure was exerted on Gorbachev from Western leaders using his confidence in order to paralyze political will and restrain from the use of legal force to restore order. At the same time, Yeltsin, fostered by the American special services and surrounded by Western agents of influence, organized an anti-Soviet Maidan in the Supreme Soviet of the RSFSR, paralyzing the activities of the allied authorities. Organized shortly thereafter, with the support of the leadership of the United States, the Belovezhsky collusion prepared in advance by American agents of influence by the leaders of the three Slavic republics buried the USSR The communist leadership of the former Soviet socialist republics instantly repainted into nationalists, taking up the establishment of the oligarchic dictatorships of their personal power in the new national states on an anti-communist and Russophobic basis.
With the collapse of the USSR, the Americans began to colonize the post-Soviet space, imposing a policy of shock therapy based on the antiscientific dogmas of market fundamentalism, suicidal for their economic sovereignty to the leaders of the new independent states. And again, the domestic scientific community was cut off from the influence on decision-making, whose authoritative representatives were reproached as survivors of the minds of reactionaries compared to the “young reformers” that were artificially grown by American experts. The latter implemented the doctrine of the “Washington consensus” imposed by the overseas oligarchy, the essence of which was reduced to dismantling the system of state regulation of the economy in order to fully disclose it to free movement of foreign, mainly American capital and subordination to its interests.
In parallel with the colonization of the post-Soviet space by Western capital, American geopolitics strongly encouraged centrifugal tendencies, declaring as their main goal the prevention of the formation of a new one, comparable to them by the influence of the state. At the same time, in accordance with the German-Anglo-Saxon geopolitical tradition, the main emphasis was placed on separating Ukraine from Russia and further disintegrating the latter. Demonstrating Yeltsin’s full support and praising him as a world-wide recognized political leader, including an invitation to the G7 club uniting the leaders of the leading world powers, they simultaneously encouraged separatism of the national republics, sponsoring a rebellion in Chechnya and provoking a war in the Caucasus. The leaders of the United States, Great Britain, and Germany hugged Yeltsin and promised him perpetual peace and friendship on the one hand, and at the same time pulled the former Soviet republics into NATO and supported the Chechen militants on the other.
Putin stopped the process of disintegration of Russia, restored the vertical of power, pacified Chechnya and launched the process of Eurasian integration. Thus, he challenged the American geopolitical line in the post-Soviet space and began to be perceived by the American political establishment as an enemy. Having failed to destabilize the situation in Russia, the American special services intensified in the post-Soviet space in order to undermine the process of Eurasian integration, which was perceived by American politicians as the “restoration of the USSR”. In response, the EU launched the Eastern Partnership project to drag out the post-Soviet republics under the jurisdiction of Brussels as members of associations with the EU deprived of their rights. This project was supported by a sharp expansion of agent networks and the education of young people in the spirit of primitive nationalism and aggressive Russophobia. The chain of “color revolutions” organized by the American special services led puppet governments to power in Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia, which adopted nationalist Russophobic policies. In all cases, this policy has caused a split in society and the use of violence against dissidents. In Georgia and Moldova, this split ended with the collapse of the state, in Ukraine it led to the seizure of power by neo-Nazis and the formation of a neo-fascist regime that launched a war with its own people.
It's no secret for anyone that the main and only goal of American geopolitics in the post-Soviet space is to separate the new sovereign states from Russia and to liquidate their independence by forcing them to enter the EU jurisdiction. This goal is motivated not only by the desire to hold back or weaken Russia.
Western capital controls its economy, the main players of which depend on foreign loans, keep their savings in offshore areas under Anglo-Saxon jurisdiction, have Western citizenship and raise their children there. The collapse of the ruble exchange rate that occurred last year and the involvement of the Russian economy in a stagflationary trap demonstrated Washington’s ability to manipulate the macroeconomic situation in Russia. Fears of reviving the USSR on the basis of the Eurasian Economic Union are as groundless as the risks of reviving the Third Reich in the EU space.
Objectively, Americans do not need to restrain Russia - its macroeconomic state is manipulated by Washington international organizations, and the financial market is overseas oligarchy. Nor do anti-Russian sanctions for the United States make sense - our country is not a recipient, but a donor of the Western financial system, in favor of which about 150 billions of dollars go annually from the Russian market. Why did the United States launch a hybrid war against Russia, the exploitation of the economy of which brings huge profits to overseas capital, and the generals of Russian business voluntarily went under the American command, hiding their savings in offshore areas under Anglo-Saxon jurisdiction?
The end of the "printing press"
The point is not to contain Russia. The stakes are much higher. This is a battle for global leadership, in which American hegemony is undermined by China’s growing influence. In this fight, America loses, which provokes its ruling elite to aggression. Its object was Russia, which, in accordance with the European geopolitical tradition, is regarded as the owner of the mythological Heartland, control over which, according to Anglo-German geopolitics, provides control over the world.
The world, however, does not remain unchanged. If two hundred years ago, the Russian empire really politically dominated in the world and “in Europe without a Russian tsar, not a single gun could shoot”, today the global economy is controlled by Western transnational corporations, whose expansion is supported by unlimited emission of world currencies. The monopoly on the issue of world money is the basis of the power of the western financial oligarchy, whose interests are served by the military-political machine of the United States and its NATO allies. After the collapse of the USSR and the collapse of the world socialism system connected with it, this power became global, and the leadership of the USA seemed final. However, any economic system has development limits determined by the laws governing the reproduction of its technological and institutional structure.
The current escalation of international military-political tensions is due to the change of technological and world economic structures, during which a profound structural reorganization of the economy takes place on the basis of fundamentally new technologies and mechanisms for the reproduction of capital.
In such periods, as the half-thousand-year experience of the development of capitalism shows, there is a sharp destabilization of the system of international relations, the destruction of the old and the formation of a new world order. The possibilities of socio-economic development on the basis of the established system of institutions and technologies are being exhausted. The countries leading before this face insurmountable difficulties in maintaining the previous rates of economic growth. The re-accumulation of capital in obsolete production-technological complexes plunges their economies into depression, and the existing system of institutions makes it difficult to form new technological chains. Together with new institutes for organizing production, they are making their way in other countries that are breaking into the leaders of economic development.
The former leaders seek to retain their dominance in the world market by increasing control over their geo-economic periphery, including methods of military-political coercion. As a rule, this entails major military conflicts in which the former leader is wasting resources without achieving the desired effect. The potential new leader, who is on a wave of recovery by this time, is trying to take a wait-and-see attitude in order to preserve its productive forces and attract the minds, capital and treasures of howling countries fleeing from war. Increasing their capabilities, the new leader enters the world stage, when the howling opponents weaken enough to claim the fruits of victory.
After the Cold War between the United States and the USSR, with the collapse of the last, the United States seized global leadership due to the superiority in the development of information and communication technological structure and the establishment of a monopoly on the issue of world money. Associated with the global "printing press", American transnational corporations formed the basis of a new world economic structure, the institutional platform of which was liberal globalization.
Today, before our eyes, a new, more efficient socioeconomic system is being formed compared to previous ones, 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 Genoese-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.
At the present time, as it was in previous periods of changing secular cycles, the losing influence of the leader resorts to compulsory ways of maintaining his dominance. Faced with the re-accumulation of capital in financial pyramids and outdated industries, as well as the loss of markets for their products and the fall in the share of the dollar in international transactions, the United States is trying to retain leadership by unleashing a world war to weaken both competitors and partners. The establishment of control over Russia, combined with domination in Europe, Central Asia and the Middle East, gives the US a strategic advantage over rising China in controlling major sources of hydrocarbons and other critically important natural resources. Control over Europe, Russia, Japan and Korea also ensures dominance in the creation of new knowledge and the development of advanced technologies.
Not fully aware of the objective mechanisms of cyclical development, condemning the United States to the loss of global domination, the American ruling elite fears the expansion of the composition of countries beyond its control and the formation of global expanded reproduction independent circuits. Such a threat is the deepening integration of the BRICS countries, South America, Central Asia and the Far East. Russia's ability to organize the formation of such a coalition, declared the successful creation of the Eurasian Economic Union, predetermines the anti-Russian vector of American aggression. If the Eurasian strategy of V. V. Putin, which was conducted according to the WTO rules, caused irritation of the USA, its decisions on the Crimea there were perceived as a shock to the foundations of their world order and a challenge which they cannot but answer.
State as moderator
Modern studies of long-term patterns of economic development make it possible to sufficiently convincingly explain the ongoing crisis processes. Phenomena such as the rise and fall of oil prices, the swelling of financial bubbles, the decline in production in major industries, which led to the depression in advanced countries, along with the rapid spread of new technologies and the rise of catch-up countries are 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.
The continuous innovation process characteristic of the leading branches of modern industry and services does not allow the economy to achieve a state of equilibrium, it has become chronically non-equilibrium. The main prize of market competition is the possibility of extracting intellectual rent derived from technological superiority, protected by intellectual property rights and allowing you to have excess profits as a result of achieving greater production efficiency or higher quality products. In pursuit of this technological superiority, advanced firms constantly replace many technologies, the performance of production factors varies widely, making it impossible to determine the equilibrium point even theoretically. The attractors arising in the evolution of the economic system, determined by the limits of the development of existing technologies, are temporary, as they disappear and are replaced by others with the advent of new technologies.
However, the recommendations of Russian scientists working in the paradigm of evolutionary economics were ignored by the ruling elite, blinkered by the doctrine of market fundamentalism. The economy went through a series of artificially created crises, lost a significant part of the national income due to nonequivalent foreign trade and degraded. The scientific and technical potential available in the Russian economy was not used. Instead of rising on a new long wave of global growth, it fell into a crisis, accompanied by the degradation of the remaining scientific and technological potential and the growing technological gap not only from advanced, but also from successfully developing countries. Among the latter, China has achieved particular success, whose leadership is acting in accordance with the above-mentioned strategy of advancing development of a new technological order while modernizing traditional industries based on it.
All the “objective” explanations for the high growth rates of the Chinese economy by its initial backwardness are partly fair. Partly because they ignore the most important thing - the creative approach of the PRC leadership to building a new system of production relations, which, as the Chinese economy comes to the fore in the world, becomes more and more self-sufficient and attractive. The Chinese themselves call their formation socialist, while developing private enterprise and growing capitalist corporations. At the same time, the communist leadership continues to build socialism, avoiding ideological clichés. It prefers to formulate tasks in terms of national well-being, setting goals for overcoming poverty and creating a society of average prosperity, and subsequently - reaching the world’s best standard of living. At the same time, he tries to avoid excessive social inequality, while preserving the labor base for the distribution of national income and orienting the institutions of economic regulation to productive activity and long-term investments in the development of productive forces. This is a common feature of the countries that form the core of the Asian cycle of capital accumulation.
Regardless of the dominant form of ownership - state, as in China or in Vietnam, or private, as in Japan or Korea, the Asian secular cycle of accumulation is characterized by a combination of central planning institutions and market self-organization, state control over the basic parameters of economic reproduction and free enterprise, ideologies of the common good and private initiative. At the same time, the forms of political organization 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 management system of socio-economic development is based on the mechanisms of personal responsibility for improving the well-being of society.
The primacy of public interests over private interests is expressed in the institutional structure of economic regulation that is characteristic of the Asian cycle of accumulation. First of all, in the state control of the basic parameters of capital reproduction through the mechanisms of planning, lending, subsidizing, pricing and regulating the basic conditions of entrepreneurial activity. At the same time, the state orders not so much as it plays the role of moderator, forming mechanisms of social partnership and interaction. 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.
War will write off debts
Of course, the cyclical patterns described above may not work this time. However, judging by the behavior of the American authorities, they are doing everything possible to cede leadership to China. The hybrid war against Russia unleashed by them pushes it toward a strategic alliance with China, increasing the capabilities of the latter. Additional incentives appear for the deepening and development of the SCO, which is becoming a full-fledged regional association. On the basis of the EEU and the SCO, the world's largest economic space of preferential trade and cooperation emerges, uniting half of the Old World.
Washington’s attempts to organize coups in Brazil, Venezuela, and Bolivia are pushing South America out of US hegemony. Brazil, already participating in the BRICS coalition, has every reason to strive for a preferential trade regime and the development of cooperation with the SCO countries. This creates opportunities for the formation of the world's largest economic association of the countries of the EAEU, SCO, MERCOSUR, to which ASEAN is likely to join. Additional incentives for such a broad integration, covering more than half of the population, the industrial and natural potential of the planet, gives the US an obsessive desire to form the Pacific and transatlantic zones of preferential trade and cooperation without the participation of the BRICS countries.
The United States is making the same mistake as the previous world leader, the United Kingdom, which at the time of the Great Depression sought to protect its colonial empire from American goods with protectionist measures. However, as a result of the Second World War, provoked by British geopolitics in order to block the development of Germany, gain dominance in Europe and establish control over the territory of the USSR, Great Britain lost an empire along with the collapse of the entire system of European colonialism, which held back global economic development. Today, the American financial empire has become such a drag, drawing all the resources of the planet into the service of the growing US debt pyramid. The volume of their public debt reached exponential growth, and the value of all American debt obligations already more than an order of magnitude higher than the US GDP, which indicates the approaching collapse of the American, and with it the entire Western financial system.
To avoid collapse and keep global leadership, the US financial oligarchy is committed to unleashing a world war. It will write off debts and allow you to maintain control over the periphery, to destroy or at least restrain competitors. This explains the American aggression in North Africa, in the Middle East in order to strengthen control over this oil-producing region and at the same time over Europe. But the direction of the main attack is due to its key importance in the eyes of American geopolitics Russia. Not because of its strengthening and not as a punishment for reunification with the Crimea, but because of traditional Western geopolitical thinking, preoccupied with the struggle to retain world hegemony. And again, according to the precepts of Western geopolitics, the war with Russia begins with a fight for Ukraine.
For three centuries, at the beginning Poland, then Austria-Hungary, Germany, and now the USA cultivated Ukrainian separatism. For this, they constructed the Ukrainian nation — Russians who hate everything Russian and bow down before everything European.
Up until the collapse of the USSR, this project did not have much success, limiting itself to the temporary establishment of the Ukrainian People’s Republic on German bayonets in 1918 and the formation of Ukrainian nationalist organizations in 1941 – 1944 under the occupation authorities. Every time, in order to keep the Ukrainian nationalists raised by them in power, the Germans resorted to terror against the local population. Starting with the genocide against the Ruthenians, organized by the Austrians during the First World War, and ending with the mass punitive operations against the population of Ukraine occupied by the Nazis during World War II. Today, this tradition is continued by the Americans, who established control over Ukraine after the February 21 coup that they organized in February and brought the puppet Nazi junta to power.
Rejecting the conventions, the US intelligence services, with the hands of the Nazis raised by them, organized terror against the Russian population. Ukrainian neo-fascists under the leadership of American curators and instructors commit war crimes in the Donbass region, forcibly mobilize young men “to go to war with the Russians”, sacrificing them to Ukrainian Nazism. The latter became the ideology of the Kiev regime, which is descended from Hitler's minions, convicted by the Nuremberg Tribunal as war criminals.
War of Consciousness
The goal of American politics in Ukraine is not to protect its interests or its social and economic development. This goal is reduced to the use of artificially grown from stupid Nazi propaganda of Russians who believed in their Ukrainianship as cannon fodder for starting a war with Russia with the expectation of drawing NATO partners into this war. Both the First and Second World Wars in Europe are considered by American historians to be good wars. They ensured the rise of the American economy by moving across the ocean the wealth accumulated in Europe, capital, the available minds and technologies. In these wars, the United States grew into a world leader, establishing hegemony over European countries and their former colonies. And today, American geopolitics is betting on stirring up a world war in Europe as a tried-and-true means of increasing its power.
The ridiculous aggressiveness and the frailty of American politicians that seem to many of our experts should be taken very seriously. It is aimed at inciting war, and outright lies and even ostentatious nonsense of American speakers are intended only to camouflage the seriousness of the intentions of the overseas oligarchy. He can only preserve his global dominance by unleashing a world war. The presence of weapons of mass destruction changes the nature of this war. Experts call it a hybrid, because it’s not so much the armed forces that are used as informational, financial, cognitive technologies designed to weaken and disorient the enemy as much as possible. And only when the latter is so demoralized that it cannot provide decent resistance, in order to fix the victory and demonstrative reprisals against the recalcitrant, they resort to military operations, more like punitive actions than fighting.
This is exactly the way - without bloody fighting clashes, the United States carried out the occupation of Iraq, Yugoslavia, Libya, Georgia and Ukraine. The skillful combination of financial, information and cognitive technologies is of key importance in a hybrid war. On the financial front, the United States has a strategic advantage due to the ability to issue world money and conduct monetary and financial attacks on national economies of any capacity. On the information front, the United States reigns supreme in the global electronic media space, dominates the global film and television market, and controls global telecommunications networks. Combining monetary and financial aggression in the economy and information processing of public consciousness, the United States can manipulate the motives of the behavior of national ruling elites. A cognitive weapon plays a key role in this — defeating the consciousness of national leaders with a false understanding of the essence of the events and the meanings necessary for American aggression.
Above, we mentioned the importance of the cognitive weapons used by the USA for disorientation of the leadership of the USSR and then of Russia. In order for it to work, you need to inspire confidence in yourself and knock out the possibility of developing an objective understanding of what is happening. The first is achieved by flattery, bribery, deception. The second is to discredit the national expert community and replace it with agents of influence, their promotion in all structures of power, the media, in the highest business, cultural and intellectual sectors of society. Often used to solve this dual problem is to pull out the first-level managers from the national communication environment to the international one, imposing on them charming foreign and already prepared national “world's best” experts and consultants. This method worked perfectly for Gorbachev and Yeltsin, whose "new thinking" was manipulated by experts specially trained in the West while isolating reputable domestic scientists and specialists. He also worked on Yanukovych, whose minds were manipulated by American advisers and, at the final stage, directly by the leaders of Western countries.
Understanding the technology of destruction of consciousness with cognitive weapons does not provide automatic protection from it. Even very intelligent, honest and decent people with great life and political experience can be the object of defeat. A striking example of its successful application is our own political consciousness, in which cause and effect relationships are easily confused. The ratings and ratings fabricated by American institutions on the basis of their interests are perceived as true, contrary to objective reality. Objectively, the failure results of macroeconomic policies are given for great achievements, and those responsible for the disastrous consequences of their decisions are declared the best ministers in the world, bankers, specialists, the most influential and intelligent people. And oddly enough, it still works. The network of agents of influence developed by the Americans continues to shape macroeconomic policy, substituting Russia for the blows of the ongoing US monetary and financial war. And although the damage caused by macroeconomic policies conducted under the leadership of American agents has already far exceeded the material losses of the USSR due to the fascist German aggression, they enjoy the same confidence and continue to determine the economic policy of the state.
The defeat of the consciousness of the Russian ruling elite by American cognitive weapons is bearing fruit, weakening Russia and strengthening the United States and NATO.
Losing the war on the monetary and financial front, where annual direct losses are estimated at 150 billions of dollars exported from Russia to the western financial system of capital, and the cumulative damage is equivalent to half of the productive potential, Russia will not last long. Already this year, instead of the objectively possible 10-percent growth in production and investment, we get the 5-percent decline, and in terms of poverty, we are rolling back more than a decade ago.
Indirectly recognizing the legitimacy of the Ukrainian Nazi regime, we are losing the war on the cognitive-information front, giving the strategic initiative to the enemy. Although with a systematic approach and relying on international law, it would be possible to bring the Ukrainian Nazis to clean water, revealing to the Russian people living in Ukraine the truth about manipulating their consciousness and freeing the Russian land from the neo-fascist occupation regime set by the Americans.
Regardless of the position of Russia, the Americans will lose the battle for leadership with China. Such is the logic of changing world economic structures, into which the hybrid war unfolding against us from the United States and its NATO allies fully fits. Established in China, taking into account our historical experience, the system of institutions of an integrated society, combining the advantages of a socialist and capitalist system, convincingly demonstrates its superiority over the American system of oligarchic capitalism. Together with Japan, India, Korea, Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia, China forms a new center of world economic development on the basis of a new technological order and creates a new world economy. Unlike global liberalization based on the interests of the American financial oligarchy, the new world order will be built on the basis of recognition of the diversity of countries, respect for their sovereignty, on an equal, fair and mutually beneficial basis.
Anglo-Saxon geopolitics is a thing of the past. Together with geopolitics itself as pseudoscience, designed to camouflage Anglo-Saxon or German aggression. The Chinese political system is well protected from cognitive weapons. The same applies to India, which suffered from the colonial oppression of the British, who had experienced the horrors of the war with the United States of Vietnam. There is no confidence in the Americans in South America, who drank "America for the Americans." The Japanese will soon celebrate the seventieth anniversary of American atomic bombing.
The space of American hegemony is inexorably narrowing. The modern ruling elites of the BRICS countries and their integration partners are unlikely to be led by Anglo-Saxon geopolitics. The secret of its amazing efficiency, which lies behind the mist of meaningless abstractions and high-flown phrases, is very trivial - deceit, meanness and deception. With the exception of Europe and North America, it no longer works. But it continues to work partly in the post-Soviet space, leaving us vulnerable to the next western aggression. This vulnerability gives American geopolitics euphoria a sense of near victory, which makes them extremely self-confident and very dangerous. The Russophobia inflated by them may well set fire to the flames of a new war in Europe, which will be conducted to destroy the Russian world by the hands of Russian people, to the joy of the American-European geopolitics.
In order to survive in the hybrid war launched by the Americans, it is first necessary to protect themselves from its main damaging factors - a cognitive, monetary, financial and information weapon. It is easy to do this by freeing the monetary authorities from American agents of influence and switching to domestic sources of credit based on sovereign monetary policy. Having dedollarized and deoffshorized the economy, Russia will not only gain independence, but also be able to restore its research and production potential, as well as weaken the possibilities of American aggression based on using the dollar as a world currency, which makes it possible to finance a hybrid war at the expense of the enemy.
Protection from information weapons is the truth, which is that American geopolitics threatens the world with destructive chaos and world war based on artificial reincarnation of seemingly outdated forms of Nazism and religious fanaticism against the backdrop of the moral decay of the Western ruling elite. Based on this truth, it is necessary to intercept the strategic initiative in resolving the Ukrainian crisis on the ideological and political platform of the decisions of the Nuremberg Tribunal. This will open the way to the formation of a broad anti-war coalition of countries interested in the transition to a new world economic order, in which relations of financial exploitation will be replaced by relations of pragmatic cooperation and, unlike liberal globalization, the policy of sustainable development will be pursued based on common human interests.
Of course, the transition to a new world economic structure will not automatically save the world from conflicts. The Chinese foreign policy strategy will not necessarily be humanistic - it suffices to read the famous “36 stratagem” to assess the willingness to use the most diverse methods to achieve their interests, including very far from the norms of Christian morality. The illusions of the ideology of a bright communist future for all mankind are alien to the leadership of the PRC, which builds socialism with Chinese characteristics, the essence of which boils down to a strict pursuit of one’s own national interests on the basis of the socialist ideology of public benefit and Confucian principles of responsible government. To a certain extent, this philosophy resembles the Stalinist ideology of building socialism in one country. Only in contrast to the internationalism characteristic of Soviet socialism, the Chinese version focuses exclusively on national interests. But at least they are pragmatic and understandable. First of all - the construction of a society of average prosperity. To do this, unlike the Anglo-Saxon geopolitics of world domination, China needs peace and active foreign economic cooperation. And there is absolutely no need for a world war being unleashed by the Americans.
Although China has no historical experience in global policy, it has a clear development strategy. Russia has experience in global policy, but there is no development strategy. Without its development and consistent implementation of historical experience will not help. In order not to be again on the periphery, now it is no longer the United States, but China, an ideology and a development strategy are necessary. Such an ideology — a neoconservative synthesis of religious tradition, socialism, democracy, and a planned market economy in an integral structure — is developed in general terms. A development strategy that takes into account long-term patterns of technical and economic development is also. What is lacking is the political will paralyzed by the offshore oligarchy.
Russia can become a leader in the formation of a new world economic structure and become part of the core of a new center of world economic development. But to do this, while remaining on the periphery of American capitalism, is impossible. Worse, remaining on this periphery, Russia provokes US aggression, because it makes its economy dependent on overseas oligarchs and creates the illusion of easy victory for American geopoliticians. For us, unlike the Chinese who are winning the battle for global leadership, the hybrid war with the American special services that occupied Ukraine has become existential. Either the Nazi chimera created by them will be defeated by us, and the Russian world will be freed from division, or they will destroy us. Just as in the past two patriotic wars with the united West, the question is an edge: who to whom?