Wars on our planet arise because of ignoring the objective laws of the existence of human civilization
Under the definition of "cataclysm" as a destructive upheaval in human society, war falls with good reason. Undoubtedly, the preservation of a large number of interfaith, interethnic, territorial, border and other contradictions on the globe this year predetermined the theme of the meeting of the Valdai International Discussion Club - “War and Peace: Man, State and the Threat of Major Conflict in the 21st Century”.
Russian President Vladimir Putin in his speech at his final plenary session, in particular, said: “The antiwar immunity acquired after the two world wars, which existed literally on a psychological, subconscious level, began to weaken. The perception of the war has changed: for viewers at TV screens, it turned and turned into a spectacular media image today, as if in the course of military operations they did not die, people did not suffer, cities and whole states did not collapse. ”
PRICE ERROR POLICY
The world around us, as well as human society itself, exists and develops on the basis of objective laws that we have known or not.
And the deeper we penetrate the secrets of the universe, the more harmoniously with the outside world and within ourselves and, let's say, safer humanity develops. Any violation of objective laws or their ignoring, voluntary or involuntary, leads to serious consequences, often associated with the death of people. However, the price of a mistake is significantly different in different areas of human activity. For example, mistakes made by an aircraft designer, a civil engineer of a bridge or a building can lead to the death of several people, in the worst case hundreds. Ignoring or ignorance of the laws of human development sometimes leads to the death of hundreds of thousands and even millions. A striking example here is the hasty and ill-considered decolonization of the African continent, which in this region led to an endless number of armed conflicts, during which many millions of people died and died from starvation and various epidemics. However, none of the politicians repented of their deeds.
Perhaps the loudest recent announcement about the recognition of past mistakes was made on October 25 by former British Prime Minister Tony Blair. In an interview with CNN, he said, among other things, that one of the reasons for the emergence of an “Islamic state” (a terrorist organization banned in Russia) was the invasion of the US and its allies into Iraq in 2003. True, this was done in a very streamlined manner. In response to a question from a CNN anchorman, whether the invasion of Iraq was the "main reason" for the appearance of the IG, Blair said: “I think this is part of the truth. Of course, you cannot say that those who displaced Hussein in the 2003 year are not responsible for the situation in the 2015 year. ” At the same time, he apologized for the mistakes made in that war: “I apologize for the fact that the intelligence was incorrect. I also apologize, by the way, for some mistakes in planning and, of course, for our mistakes in understanding what will happen after we change the regime. ” This misunderstanding is the main mistake.
In the USA in 2001-2003 the rationale for the invasion of Iraq was based on outright lies. For example, then-Secretary of State Colin Powell lied 254 times during this period.
It should also be added that according to a study of American, Canadian and Iraqi scientists, published in 2013, about half a million people in the country became victims of the Iraq war. Approximately 60% of them died as a result of hostilities, the rest - under the influence of indirect causes. Operation Iraqi Freedom also cost 4423 to the Americans and 179 to the British. In addition, this venture turned out to be very expensive for the US: the Nobel Prize winner in economics and the World Bank’s chief economist Joseph Stiglitz calculated that only the first days of the war cost the US $ 5,5 billion. He also suggested that indirect total losses would cost the world the $ 6 trillion community, and two thirds of this amount will come from the United States. According to the Christian Science Monitor report, the war in Iraq, taking into account inflation, cost more than World War II. How much it will cost the world community to fight the ISIS is difficult to say.
The US leadership covered its mistakes with deceit. In 2002-2003 In Washington, great efforts were made to prove that the regime of Saddam Hussein is a danger to the international community. Iraq has been accused of developing weapons of mass destruction and supporting al-Qaida. The data of American intelligence spoke of the exact opposite, but they were ignored by the top leadership of the United States. This information was not communicated to the US Congress and was not made public. The American Civil Liability Center, together with the Foundation for Independence of Journalism, conducted a study in which it was estimated that from September 2001 to September 2003, the US leadership made 935 false statements about Iraq. President Bush became the “leader” - 260 of false statements. 232 of them - about the presence of Saddam weapons mass destruction, 28 - about Iraq’s al-Qaida connections. Former Secretary of State Colin Powell lied 254 times. His most "outstanding" achievement in the area of fraud was the 5 February 2003 performance at a special meeting of the UN Security Council, where he tried to prove that Iraq was concealing weapons of mass destruction from international inspectors. In 2004, Mr. Powell admitted that the data he published was largely inaccurate, and sometimes falsified. The allegations of links with al-Qaeda are even more absurd in light of the fact that its fighters fought as part of the anti-Iraqi coalition in the 1991 war. Moreover, in the 1980-s. Hussein resolutely waged war with radical Islamist groups on his territory.
Similarly, the US administration acted in the case of Libya.
The American Conservative, in an article entitled “Shameful Facts about the War in Libya” on October 27, writes: “Another reason why the US administration was able to evade responsibility for illegal military actions in Libya is that very few congressmen from both parties are ready to challenge executive when it comes to war. This has become more apparent now when Congress continues to avoid discussion or voting on the war with ISIS, and in 2011, it was just striking. Very few in Congress think that there is a need to stop the president, and even fewer are willing to make such an attempt. The deep problem that the Libyan war revealed was that our congressional representatives had completely lost their role in deciding whether it was worth it and how the United States waged a war, and this leaves us at the mercy of the whims of the president. When he does not want to intervene, the United States remains outside the war, but if it “turns around 180 degrees” and decides that a regime change must nevertheless occur, then the United States “works” to overthrow the foreign government. Nothing can be more unreasonable and contrary to our state system, but so far it seems to have become the norm. When members of Congress are not interested in keeping the executive power under control (and most of them are not interested), then they have no incentive to question the questionable and often contrived arguments presented by administration officials and presidents in support of another intervention. Discussion of the arguments of the executive about the need for war calls into question the president’s right to start a war, and almost no one wants to do that. ”
Operation Iraqi Freedom cost 4423's lives to Americans. And it was one of the reasons for the emergence of the Islamic State group.
What effects this practice may have for the international community are perhaps most accurately described in an interview for The National Interest 24 in June 2013, Mr. Zbigniew Brzezinski, last presidential adviser to Jimmy Carter on national security. Regarding American foreign policy, he said: “America ... is guided by good intentions. But it is also a country with an extremely simplistic understanding of the affairs in the world, with still great confidence in its ability to dominate, if necessary with the help of force. I believe that in a difficult situation, the simplified solutions proposed by demagogues are something that people can buy into. ” Apparently, Tony Blair in his time and "bought into" the proposal of George W. Bush. A kind of justification for this can be the publication in the Daily Mail of a document called “Memorandum for the President”, which confirms that former US President George W. Bush and former British Prime Minister Tony Blair even a year before the invasion of Iraq agreed to military actions against Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. It is noted that the document for more than ten years was kept under the heading "secret."
The most interesting thing is that only former politicians admit their mistakes. And the reason for this fact is very simple: all current politicians strive to stay in power for as long as possible, and admitting their mistakes is a guarantee of defeat in the next democratic elections. However, it has long been known that the non-recognition of errors always leads to their repetition, only in the worst version. Here's what about this in the article "Washington's Reckless Foreign Policy," published by 21 February in Forbes, writes Douglas "Doug" Bendow, a political analyst who served as special assistant to the president for political analysis in the presidential administration Ronald Reagan: "It's not just that almost all bombing campaigns, invasions, occupations and other forms of intervention only aggravated the situation. Virtually every new invasion is an attempt to solve the problems that have arisen as a result of the previous steps of the United States. And each new US military move, as a rule - almost guaranteed - leads to the emergence of new problems, crises and catastrophes. And they, in turn, lead to new calls for the beginning of the war, drone strikes, occupation, bombing campaigns, the provision of humanitarian assistance, invasion, diplomatic pressure and other forms of intervention. Meanwhile, foreign policy experts almost never admit that the results were negative. ”
As for the practice of deceiving the world community, it is already used by the United States in the field of international security. At a meeting of the Valdai International Discussion Club, Vladimir Putin said: “Under the pretext of a nuclear threat from Iran, as we know, the fundamental basis of modern international security, the Treaty on the Limitation of Anti-Ballistic Defense, has been destroyed. The United States unilaterally left it. Today, by the way, the Iranian nuclear problem has been solved, there was no threat from Iran, as we said, and no. The reason that seemed to have prompted our American partners to build a missile defense system has disappeared. And we would have the right to expect that work on the development of US missile defense will also stop. And what really? Nothing like this happens; on the contrary, everything goes on. Recently, the first US missile defense tests were conducted in Europe. What does it mean? This means that we, when arguing with our American partners, were right. We, and the whole world, tried once again to mislead simply. And quite simple to say - they were deceiving. This is not a hypothetical Iranian nuclear threat that never happened before. The point is in an attempt to destroy the strategic balance, to change the balance of forces in their own favor in such a way as not only to dominate, but to be able to dictate their will to all: their geopolitical competitors, yes, I think, to their allies. This is an extremely dangerous scenario, detrimental to all, including, in my opinion, the United States itself. The deterrent factor of nuclear weapons began to devalue. Some may even have the illusion that a real victory of one of the parties is once again achievable in a world conflict - without irreversible, unacceptable, as experts say, consequences for the winner, if there is a winner at all. ”
Naturally, no one would have such illusions about the possibility of winning a nuclear war, having covered up with an anti-missile umbrella, Russia would have to give an adequate answer. 10 November in Sochi, Russian President Vladimir Putin at a meeting on the development of the Armed Forces, said: "We have repeatedly said that Russia will take the necessary measures to strengthen the potential of strategic nuclear forces." The head of state stressed: “We will work on the missile defense system, but at the first stage, as we have repeatedly said, we will work on attack systems that are able to overcome any missile defense system”.
However, judging by the statements of some American politicians, Zbigniew Brzezinski was right when he said that the United States is a country "with still great confidence in its ability to dominate, if necessary by force". Therefore, it is possible that if a politician like Bush becomes president in the United States, he will be able, without informing Congress, to make a decision that will lead to an error at the cost of a third world war. By the way, it was George W. Bush who made the decision on the unilateral withdrawal of the United States from the ABM Treaty by 2001. Russia, in turn, insisted on preserving this most important bilateral document, which had international significance and, in Moscow’s words, was "the cornerstone of strategic stability and security." At the forum mentioned above, Vladimir Putin said, “the generation of world leaders of 1950's, 1960's, 1970's and even 1980's really regarded the use of military force as an exceptional measure. And in this regard, they behaved responsibly, weighing all the circumstances and the possible consequences. "
The result of the so-called "Arab spring" became the ruins of cities and the corpses of civilians.
In modern conditions, besides deception, politicians, first of all American ones, perfectly justified their phraseological phrase “To bring down from a sick head to a healthy one” to justify their actions. This is confirmed by the statement by the head of the Pentagon Ashton Carter during his speech at the military-political conference in the Ronald Reagan Memorial Library. His words, 8 of November, are transmitted by TASS: “The rattling of nuclear weapons by Russia is of most concern and raises questions in the area of compliance by Russian leaders with obligations regarding strategic stability and their respect for the norms of non-use of nuclear weapons. Russia and China are challenging world order. ” This is truly a complete misunderstanding of the consequences of the United States abandoning the ABM Treaty, which just provided strategic stability. And these absurd statements Ashton Carter has already done a lot.
As experience shows, the tone of such statements is often determined by the nature of the politician who is inclined to assess the surrounding reality for the most part in the plane of his own emotions and preferences, and not in the plane of the action of objective laws.
THE NATURE OF HUMAN AS A CAUSE OF MANY PROBLEMS
The need to understand the reasons for such behavior of politicians and ordinary citizens is also due to the fact that when a conflict escalates into a stage with the use of weapons, the actions of the warring parties are extremely cruel to each other, as well as to civilians not participating in the conflict. This has been and is taking place in Africa, Asia and in the very center of Europe - in the armed conflict on the territory of the former SFRY. Today, unprecedented cruelty is shown by the IG terrorists.
Oddly enough, there is nothing unexpected. The nature of a person, reflecting his behavior in certain life circumstances, has not changed over the past 2-2,5 for thousands of years. You can easily see this if you read Plutarch's “Comparative Biographies”, where he sees positive or negative examples, the personification of certain moral principles in the life and deeds of famous commanders and statesmen, ordinary citizens of that time. Plutarch believed that the lack of high moral qualities due to a lack of education. And he noted the importance of self-education, thanks to which one of his heroes (King Num of Rome, who ruled the city after its founder Romulus) “tamed not only base desires, but also renounced passions that were approved by ignorant peoples, - from violence and self-interest ".
At the same time, fostering positive traits of a person’s character requires considerable effort on the part of both educators and the effort of the will of the person being educated. At the same time, the negative tendencies of a person grow like weeds — quickly, without any difficulty, as soon as conditions are created. For example, in the summer of 2005 in London, a series of powerful explosions thundered. Killed about fifty people. More than 700 injured. The attacks were committed by young people of Great Britain (the youngest was 19 years old, the oldest was 30) of Pakistani origin. As the English press wrote: “The worst thing is that they were all Europeans,” that is, born already in England. All suicides came from families who could well claim to be ideal in all respects immigrants - EU citizens. So, the family of one of the terrorists owned a fish store, a mansion and two luxury cars. His friends in a conversation with journalists did not believe in what happened and called him a “cool guy.”
News about the death of Muammar Gaddafi, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton greeted with joyful laughter.
This suggests that at some point in the lives of these young people a “educator” appeared who was able to prove to them the necessity of committing such a crime. According to the police, shortly before the terrorist attack, two of the possible suicides had been to Pakistan. What "educational methods" were used there, it is not clear. It is only known that, approximately 30 minutes before the attack was committed, the surveillance cameras recorded, according to the police, a suicide farewell scene. All four stood in the center of the platform, laughing and making fun of each other. What kind of character it was necessary to commit a crime against the country that raised you, gave you education and provided all the possibilities for a decent life. Therefore, it is important today to know: where, in what situation, who and what teaches the youth. After all, it is obvious that terrorists are becoming not because of poverty (the former leader of Al-Qaida, Osama bin Laden was a millionaire) or lack of work, but thanks to the corresponding educational work.
Today tens of thousands of refugees from the Middle East and North Africa rushed into Europe. How they will behave in the new conditions is unknown. In a commentary for the newspaper “Vzglyad”, Alexander Rahr, scientific director of the German-Russian Forum, said: “Germany still lives in the ideas of a summer fairy tale - everyone is happy, everything is correct, the triumph of humanism, multiculturalism”. He explained that representatives of the elite, as well as the media, believe that refugees are good, people who will bring Germany economic power, because the population of the country will age, and these people will work and support the future generation of old people. “Therefore, they are generously received and carried in their arms,” the expert noted. However, further developments will depend on how the integration of several million people through 2-3 will be implemented. “These are mostly poorly educated people who have never imitated Europe, with their very conservative views, Islamic roots. How much they can assimilate is a huge question, ”said Rahr. If there is a radicalization of the newcomers or it turns out that crime has crept into the stream of refugees to Europe, then the attitude towards them will immediately change dramatically, the source added. Unfortunately, it happened: November 13 almost simultaneously, the attacks occurred in six points in Paris. “This is an act of war that was committed by the army of terrorists of the“ Islamic State ”, jihadists against France,” said French President Francois Hollande in a November 9 14 televised address. At the same time, at least one of the terrorists recently arrived in Europe with refugees.
Indeed, judging by the TV cadres among the refugees, there are too many young healthy guys, who also may have appropriate educators, like those London guys. As the French edition of Atlantico writes in October in the article “From Ukraine to the Arab Spring: unnecessary revolutions and chaotic interventions,” 21 says, “if war rages in the country, the desire to take out women, children and the elderly can be understood. But why are these men in their prime years fleeing from their own state? Why did they not stay to fight for or against Assad? It turns out that they are only interested in the West with its imaginary wealth. But no one notices this obvious fact. ” That is why many European experts are at a loss: they do not know what politicians will do next. But we are sure of one thing: irreversible processes began in Europe.
Or take another example of the manifestation of a human character. In September, 2001, the world community was indignant at seeing television reports from the streets of Palestinian cities, where a crowd was celebrating celebrating the destruction of the towers of the World Trade Center in New York and the death of several thousand people as a result of the terrorist attack. But it was a street crowd, not really, and maybe completely uneducated people. But how to explain the overt joy of US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who had just been informed of the brutal murder of Gaddafi. After all, not much time has passed since he was a handshake in many capitals of the world. And such a reaction to his death. It cannot be said that Hillary Clinton has a lack of upbringing and education or there was a low level of position in society and the state. Nevertheless, there is no difference in motive behavior with a crowd of Palestinians.
Undoubtedly, the character traits of a statesman can have a significant impact on a country's policy. This is vividly illustrated by the actions of George W. Bush, who unleashed the war against Iraq, led by Saddam Hussein, who for some reason did not like the US President very much. Today, a similar situation is developing around Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, to whom many politicians feed the unexplained antipathy and will not wait for him to leave the presidency.
The French edition of Atlantico, in the above-mentioned article, writes: “Speaking about the conflict in Syria, the media present the situation as if 250000% were victims of the civil war 90% - on the conscience of Damascus. This is a completely grotesque and insane statement. Recall that more than 60000 soldiers of the regime were killed in the battles, and that no less number of civilians who were against the Islamists (most of them are Alawites) suffered the same sad fate. If Asad had shed so much blood, he would be overthrown, or he would regain control of the country. The media systematically omits the fact that the regime does not have a monopoly on violence at all and that massacres (unfortunately, this is not uncommon for any civil war) are organized by both camps. The present manner of presenting events ignores the excesses committed by the Islamists, or absolves them of all sins if their aggression is directed against Assad and his regime. ”
An illustrative example of the influence of the character of a statesman on his decisions can be the aggression of Georgia in August 2008 against South Ossetia and the Russian peacekeepers there. This is how the reason for its reason in an interview with the Georgian TV channel Imedi and Voice of America radio station on 2013 was former US Ambassador to Tbilisi Richard Miles on the eve of the 10 anniversary of the Rose Revolution. He said that on the August adventure Mikhail Saakashvili pushed the successful rearmament of the Georgian army. “If he had not bought offensive weapons, self-propelled artillery, heavy armored vehicles, attack aircraft and other equipment, he would not be tempted to draw the Georgian army into military operations,” the former ambassador said. In addition, Miles said that "Saakashvili could not settle relations with the Russian Federation, could not establish a dialogue with representatives of the Abkhaz and South Ossetian sides, he was in a great hurry about everything." He expressed bewilderment about the inadequate behavior of the former Georgian leader during those events (probably история with a tie). “I don’t know what Saakashvili was hoping for, did he really believe in success or that the US openly intervene in this conflict?” Richard Miles, the main ideologue of the “rose revolution” in Georgia, asked a rhetorical question authorities. A similar situation is observed today in Ukraine, when official Kiev is intensively equipping the army with modern weapons systems, while at the same time refusing to conduct direct negotiations with the leadership of the DPR and the LPR, although this is provided for in the Minsk agreements.
By the way, in this regard, the position of Russian President Vladimir Putin regarding personal relations between politicians is of interest, which can help prevent conflicts. At the end of the participation in the jubilee, 70 session of the UN General Assembly, one of the Russian journalists asked him a question: “Petro Poroshenko, at the head of his delegation, pointedly left the hall during your speech. You thought you might offend him? How do you comment on this? "Vladimir Putin said the following:" First, I never get personal. Never, because practice and experience show that personal contacts can always be useful for solving intergovernmental relations, in solving issues in which millions of people are interested. Therefore, personal ambition is better to keep silently in reserve. This is the first. The second. I did not notice that the President of Ukraine was not present at my speech.
Thirdly, in principle, it was not very important for me to have everyone without exception, especially those who are not interested, and should not be there. ”
Considering all these circumstances above, i. understanding that a person’s character determines his actions, one should not hope that, overnight, for example, by sitting the opposing sides at the negotiating table, the problems of the conflict can be solved and its consequences can be removed. Character traits caused by feelings of hatred and revenge, the causes of which can be various factors (interfaith, inter-ethnic, etc.), require considerable time to eliminate them. Does this not explain the fact that the Croats and Serbs three times in the last century found out the relationship between themselves with the help of weapons. Or more. In Spain, it was only after 50 years that a common monument was erected for all who died in the civil war on both sides of the barricades. It happened so late for the reason that it took time to heal the wounds of the civil war, especially for people who fought, lost relatives and friends.
EVOLUTION OF SOCIETY
As is known, the character of a person largely depends on the state of society, which is constantly changing in accordance with historical laws. These changes consist in the change of socio-economic formations. It is considered that the society as a whole cannot pass through any of the historically necessary steps in its development. These levels constitute a genetic series of social types in which no link can be thrown without violating the objective logic of social evolution without distorting its actual content.
However, at one time a theory was proposed about the possibility of non-capitalist development of countries that were late in their socio-economic evolution. This approach to history prevailed in some places, especially in the 1960-1970-s. In some states of Africa, Asia and Latin America, the leaders of their political regimes announced the construction of socialism in their countries, which created a conflict situation there that was usually resolved by armed means. In a number of countries, political movements emerged with the same goals, which led an armed struggle against the legitimate government in order to overthrow it. Almost everywhere, events developed along the same lines - declaration of independence, civil war, militant tribalism (the superiority of a tribe over other tribes), transcendent corruption, hunger, suppression of freedoms, etc. Former flourishing colonial states turned into independent ruins. So it was in Nigeria, Burundi, Rwanda, Chad, Sudan, Angola, Mozambique ... The USSR and the USA with their NATO allies took an unofficial part in most conflicts. It consisted in the supply of weapons, sending advisers, and sometimes contingents of the armed forces.
In 1980's The CIA was actively helping Al-Qaida, headed by Osama bin Laden ...
Here's how it looked in Afghanistan: first the king was overthrown (thanks to the monarchy for many centuries the people of this country lived in peace and stability), then the “revolutionaries” came to power, who decided to start building socialism that demanded international assistance from the USSR, which led to to the country of a limited contingent of the Soviet Armed Forces. In the end, the Soviet Union was forced to withdraw from Afghanistan, failing. True, not only the Afghan Mujahideen fought against him, whose preparation and arming were organized by the United States and its allies. By the way, in those years, the notorious Al-Qaida was created to fight the Soviet troops.
American General Wesley Clark, who from 1997 to 2000 was the Supreme Commander of NATO's Allied Forces in Europe, wrote the following in his book How to Win in a Modern War. This group, "originally organized by the United States at the expense of Saudi Arabia and with the support of Pakistan ... after successfully completing the campaign against communist expansion, shifted its activities ... to the Middle East and beyond." He also notes that it was the United States that helped Al Qaeda create bases along the Afghan-Pakistan border in the 1980-ies. The retired general writes in his book that CIA agents worked with Osama bin Laden during the 1980s, however, when and why he “got out of their control” (it is accepted in the CIA about such agents) her not a word. The outcome of this al-Qaida exit from control is well known - “the snake bit its former owner”.
At present, the West is trying to create a democratic state in Afghanistan. A question arises in connection with this: is it possible to build a democratic state in Afghanistan on the Western model? Apparently - no. The most important prerequisite for this, as is known, is the formation of a nation as a socio-economic, cultural-political and spiritual community of people inhabiting a certain territory.
It was the formation of nations that helped to eliminate feudalism and the establishment of capitalism. This process in Europe continued for several centuries. However, even in the Old World, this process has not been completed in some countries to this day. An example of this is Belgium. What then can be said about Afghanistan, in which there is not and never has been a single nation. The territory of present-day Afghanistan was formed in 1895 as a result of the conquest of Uzbek, Tajik, Hazara and other lands. This has changed the national composition of Afghanistan, where Pashtuns (Afghans), which are the titular nation, now make up no more than 50% of the population. This existing ethnic diversity of the state and the contradictions between different nationalities do not allow us to hope for a speedy process of the formation of the Afghan nation. And in such a country they are trying to build a democratic state on the Western model. There can be no Western democracy in a country in which citizens vote according to ethnic, clan or confessional principle.
Judging by the situation, many other states of the Greater Middle East will also develop negative processes, since there, too, nations have not yet been formed. For example, in the same Libya today began a sharp turn, not really fit into the western scenario. The Libyan performers of the Arab Spring are also “out of control”, as happened with al-Qaeda. By the way, in the current Libyan leadership there are former members of this organization, although there are no former terrorists, like former intelligence officers. Therefore, the Islamization of Libya could have the most negative consequences for the entire region, including Europe. Those who hope that the new Libya will succeed in combining moderate Islam and democracy will face deep disappointment. The affirmation of “Islamic values”, and simply the planting of Shari'ah, will surely become a convenient tool for tribal and clan massacres in a country inhabited by several hundred Arab tribes, Berber and Tuareg, desperately fighting for spheres of influence.
Probably, so far nothing better than a democratic form of government has been invented. But this does not mean that democracy is a panacea for all ills. Its ancestors in ancient Greece, by open vote, handed down a death sentence to the greatest man of the time, Socrates, for telling the truth. Hitler also came to power in an absolutely democratic way: after winning the election under a multiparty system, and Germany very quickly became a totalitarian state of a democratic one. It seems that this historical situation in Europe should be well remembered, but apparently, human memory is still short.
The most interesting thing is that the processes in the countries of North Africa and the Middle East, called the Arab Spring and under the banner of democratization of the regimes existing there, in addition to the Western powers, are also actively assisted by Wahhabi monarchies. Such an amazing unity of the Western democracies and eastern despots makes any sensible person doubt that the coming to power of new politicians will indeed end with the construction of democratic societies. Most likely, the world will witness the return of these states to the Middle Ages.
In his September 28 speech at the plenary session of the 70 session of the UN General Assembly in New York, Russian President Vladimir Putin said the following: “All of us should not forget the experience of the past. For example, we remember examples from the history of the Soviet Union. The export of social experiments, attempts to spur changes in certain countries, based on their ideological attitudes, often led to tragic consequences, led not to progress, but to degradation. However, it seems that no one learns from the mistakes of others, but only repeats them. And the export of the now so-called "democratic" revolutions continues.
Just look at the situation in the Middle East and North Africa, as mentioned by the previous speaker. Of course, political, social problems in this region were brewing for a long time, and people there, of course, wanted change. But what happened in practice? Aggressive external intervention led to the fact that instead of reforms, state institutions and the way of life itself were simply unceremoniously destroyed. Instead of the triumph of democracy and progress - violence, poverty, social catastrophe, and human rights, including the right to life, are not put into anything.
... then control of this Islamist organization was lost, leading to the September 11 tragedy.
One would like to ask those who created such a situation: “Do you at least understand now what you have done?”. But, I am afraid, this issue will hang in the air, because a policy based on self-confidence, conviction in its exclusivity and impunity has not been abandoned. It is already obvious that the power vacuum that has arisen in a number of countries in the Middle East and North Africa led to the formation of zones of anarchy that were immediately filled with extremists and terrorists. Under the banner of the so-called "Islamic State" tens of thousands of militants are already fighting. Among them are former Iraqi soldiers who, as a result of the invasion of Iraq in 2003, were thrown into the street. Libya is also a supplier of recruits, whose statehood was destroyed as a result of a flagrant violation of Resolution No. XXUMX of the UN Security Council. And now members of the so-called moderate Syrian opposition, supported by the West, join the ranks of the radicals. They are first armed, trained, and then they go over to the side of the so-called "Islamic state". Yes, the Islamic State itself did not arise from scratch: at first it was also nurtured as an instrument against unwanted secular regimes. Having created a foothold in Syria and Iraq, the Islamic State is actively expanding its expansion into other regions, aiming at domination in the Islamic world and not only there. Only these plans are clearly not limited. The situation is more than dangerous.
In such a situation, it is hypocritical and irresponsible to make loud declarations about the threat of international terrorism and at the same time close our eyes to the channels of financing and supporting terrorists, including through the drug business, illegal trade in oil and weapons, or try to manipulate extremist groups, put them on service to achieve their own political goals in the hope of somehow sorting out with them, and simply speaking, eliminating them. ” Unfortunately, the experience of creating Al-Qaeda did not teach the West anything, as did the tragedy of September 11 2001. Probably not by chance, the French edition of Slate.fr November 14 publishes an article entitled “November 13 attacks - September September 11 for France”.
The issue of terrorist financing was raised by Russia at the G20 summit. During it, Russian President Vladimir Putin gave examples of terrorist financing by individuals from 40 states, including some G20 countries. The president said: “I even showed our colleagues our pictures from space and from airplanes, which clearly show and see the scale of the illegal trade in oil and oil products. The columns of the tanker trucks are stretched for tens of kilometers, so that from the height of 4-5 thousands of meters they go beyond the horizon. It just looks like an oil pipeline system. My colleagues and I, of course, discussed this issue, and I hope that we will continue this work, which, in my opinion, is extremely important for the fight against terror. ”
And on September 17, at a meeting at the National Center for Defense Management of the Russian Federation with the participation of Vladimir Putin, the Chief of the General Staff, Army General Valery Gerasimov, reported that the bombers
Su-34 from our air group in Syria on the same day covered two columns of tankers, destroying around 50 cars. As a result of the action of the VKS of the Russian Federation, taking into account the blows inflicted earlier on the means of transporting petroleum products (total 410 packs were destroyed) and certain infrastructure elements, the capabilities of militants for the illegal export of energy carriers are significantly reduced. And this is the real actions of Russia in suppressing the financing of the IG.
STATE AND ITS TERRITORY
Conflicts, as is known, can be both within the state, as well as between public entities. Probably, it will be easier to understand the nature of conflicts, if you understand what a state is. The most concise and capacious definition of the state was given by Russian scientist and public figure Boris Chicherin (in 1882 he was elected Moscow mayor). Taking into account the views of Aristotle, Cicero, Hegel, he defined: "The state is the union of a people bound by law into one legally whole, ruled by supreme power for the common good." As follows from the definition of Boris Chicherin, the people are the first and necessary element of the state, for the union is made up of persons for whose cohabitation you need to have your own territory, which also belongs to the state.
If from these theoretical premises we turn to the states formed on the site of the colonial system, then there, firstly, there was practically no union of the people anywhere, and secondly, their territory itself was the result of forcible seizure and sharing between the colonial powers. As soon as these territories and the population living on them became the property of independent states that were actually artificial formations, a bloody chain of armed conflicts began both within the countries themselves between different clans, tribes, and between neighboring countries for joining the part inhabited by the tribesmen . In some countries it was a real full-scale genocide - no one will say how many ethnic groups and tribes were exterminated solely on the basis of race in Burundi or Nigeria. These conflicts have already led to the formation of a number of new states. Recently, Sudan has been divided into two states. The separation of the latter questioned the principle of integrity and inviolability of the borders of African states.
A similar picture with the borders and within the CIS, because at one time the leadership of the USSR established them between the republics in a voluntarist way. In addition to voluntarism, political and economic considerations were present in the definition of boundaries. So, in the interests of creating an industrial base of Moldova, Transdniestria was included in its structure, where the majority of the population were Russians and Ukrainians. Therefore, today the people of Transnistria do not want to be in union with the whole of Moldova. If Russian peacekeepers leave from there, an armed conflict may begin again there. Or another example. Abkhazia and South Ossetia were incorporated into Georgia with the stroke of a pen of Stalin, a Georgian by nationality. During the time these nations were part of Georgia, an intensified process of their Georgianization took place there.
By the way, Georgia, being part of the first Russian empire, which she joined voluntarily, and then the USSR, almost doubled its territory. But this expansion took place at the expense of the territories of other peoples living in the Russian Empire and the USSR, i.e. someone's land was taken and given to Georgia. However, while this was taking place within the framework of a single state, there were no conflicts, since the peoples living in these territories were citizens of the Russian Empire or USSR. After the USSR ceased to exist and Georgia became an independent state, it turned out that the Abkhaz and Ossetians did not want to be citizens of Georgia. Georgia twice over the past twenty-five years, tried by force to return Abkhazia and South Ossetia under its jurisdiction. Last time - in 2008
There would be no armed conflicts if the Western sponsors of Georgia did not push it towards this by their unwillingness to notice the true state of affairs. Namely: the Abkhaz and Ossetians do not want to live together with the Georgians in the same state, in which they found themselves against their will. Doug Bandow in an article “Electoral shock in Georgia: Tbilisi is time to get rid of NATO aspirations,” published in 2012 in Forbes, wrote that “the biggest failure of Saakashvili’s foreign policy was the beginning of 2008’s war with Russia, in which suffered a defeat. Just as Georgia left the Soviet Union in its time, Abkhazia and South Ossetia separated from the Georgian state, and not without the help of Moscow. However, these republics had the same right to independence as Georgia, when it was separated from the USSR. Alas, Saakashvili believed that the right to self-determination extends only to his people, and invaded South Ossetia, despite the presence of Russian troops there. ” Until this is understood in the West, there will be a threat of war between Georgia, Abkhazia and South Ossetia.
And in the former Yugoslavia, apparently, before recognizing the independence of the republics after its collapse, it was first necessary to draw such boundaries between them that would also be approved by the peoples living there. Then, perhaps, it would be possible to avoid the current situation in the same Kosovo, the borders of which were established by the communist regime of Tito, and which NATO so zealously protects today. Unless it is impossible to return the Serbian regions of Kosovo to Serbia, or it suits someone that Albanians will slowly cut them out there? By the way, in the West, it is considered legitimate to grant independence to Kosovo, and as for Abkhazia, South Ossetia or the Crimea, for some reason there is a different point of view on this matter, although these republics have more reasons for this. It seems that if they had not bordered on Russia, but were in another region, they would have long ago received recognition of their independence in the West.
Sir Malcolm Rifkind, a member of the Conservative Party of Great Britain, who heads the Security and Intelligence Committee of the British Parliament, made this clear. In the past, he held ministerial posts in the offices of Margaret Thatcher and John Major. In an exclusive interview for Nezavisimaya Gazeta, published by 1 in August last year, he said in particular: “When Crimea declared that it did not want to be part of Ukraine, Russia immediately undertook to defend it, to hold a referendum. This is bad ... The Russian government immediately began to refer to Kosovo. But Kosovo was not going to be part of the United States, or Britain, or another country. Kosovo became independent. Russia, however, easily said that now Crimea is part of Russia. ” True, there was no referendum on self-determination in Kosovo. It was forcibly rejected by NATO from Serbia.
Meanwhile, except for Russia, the Crimea could not join anywhere. The statement by the ex-president of Ukraine Viktor Yushchenko, made by him at the end of December 2014 in an interview with Ukrainska Pravda, can be called quite symptomatic: “I understand that Putin’s occupier can of course be angry ... but, on the other hand, there is a feeling that he came to the place where the least Ukrainian, where there is no our language practically, where there is no our memory, where there is no our church, where there is no our culture. ” That is, there is nothing Ukrainian in the Crimea, whose land has been poured with blood of Russian soldiers for centuries, except for the palaces of independent oligarchs. Russia regained what belonged to and rightfully belonged to it, since the current Ukrainian authorities have betrayed the dream of their ancestors, who were striving to be forever in union with the Russian people. It should be recalled that the Crimea, without taking into account the opinion of its population, mostly Russian, was donated by the leadership of the USSR to Ukraine in 1954 on the occasion of the 300 anniversary of its voluntary reunification with Russia. And no one has yet condemned this unlawful act either in Ukraine or in the West. The fact of the return of the Crimea to the bosom of Russia, after Kiev turned away from it and rushed into the arms of the West, is commented in Roman law in a clear and precise way: “Cessante causa, cessat effectus” - with the cessation of the cause, the action ceases.
The author of the article “Russia is being unjustly demonized,” published in The Japan Times on October 26, writes about Crimea: “Historically, he was always Russian (remember the Crimean War?). And he remains Russian. I made two trips there, one of them recently, and for all the time I have not heard a word in Ukrainian in Crimea. Moscow gave Crimea to Ukraine in 1954, because it was more convenient for the Soviet Union. She did this despite the problems associated with preserving the Soviet fleet in the Sevastopol. When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, Crimea should automatically be returned to Russia. His capture in 2014 during the turmoil in Kiev was inevitable. And the population of the peninsula overwhelmingly welcomed these actions. ” That is, it is clear to everyone that Crimea is Russian, the former president of Ukraine does not even deny this, and the desire of most of its residents was unambiguously expressed in a referendum. But in the West they do not pay attention to it and constantly repeat about the violation of international law. In particular, US President Barack Obama said that the United States "will never recognize" the results of the referendum on the peninsula, after which it reunited with Russia. Ignoring these objective facts provokes Kiev politicians of the highest rank to constant statements about the imminent return of Crimea to Ukraine by force.
In an ARD interview last year, Vladimir Putin recalled the decision of the International Court of Justice, according to which Kosovo had the right to self-determination, where “the most important thing is that when deciding on self-determination, people living in a certain territory should not seek the opinion of the central authorities of their state, where are at the moment. Permissions of the central authorities, the government of the country to conduct appropriate procedures for self-determination are not required. " That is, the International Court of Justice clarified the procedure for applying art. 1 of the UN Charter, the second paragraph of which states: "Develop friendly relations between nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples."
By the way, the Spanish government did not allow Catalonia to hold a national referendum on self-determination of the province. Supporters of independence went the other way. 9 November 2014 in Catalonia was a survey of the population on sovereignty, which showed the desire of most Catalans for independence. Exactly one year later, on November 9, on November 2015, the Parliament of Catalonia, by a majority vote, adopted a resolution on “the beginning of the process of creating an independent state with a republican form of government”. The chairman of the government of the kingdom, Mariano Rajoy, immediately declared that the resolution on the independence of Spanish Catalonia "will have no consequences." At the same time, the Spanish Foreign Minister called the situation in Catalonia a rebellion. After such a declaration, it is necessary to begin the antiterrorist operation. Earlier, Rahoy enlisted support on the issue of separatist sentiments in the autonomous region of most EU leaders who advocate the integrity of Spain. Perhaps that is why in Europe they took the referendum in the Crimea so painfully, which gave an example of the application of Art. 1 UN Charter. That is, European politicians who consider themselves supporters of democracy and tolerance are not interested in the opinion of the people both in Catalonia and in Crimea. If it were not for the “polite people”, there would also be no referendum in the Crimea, and the “Crimean Spring” would have been suppressed with the same cruelty as the protests in Odessa 2 of May 2014.
4 November in the article “Ukraine: Odessa Shame” Der Spiegel writes: “After 2 in May 2014, the name“ Odessa ”is associated not with tolerance, but with rampant violence — as well as with the authorities, who did nothing to protect the victims.” All those who died from the actions of the nationalists were supporters of the federalization of Ukraine.
It should be noted that territorial-border disputes often become a source of conflict that is clearly deliberately provoked by third countries with the use of force. Thus, at the end of October, the world witnessed a similar situation, when a US Navy ship patrolled the South China Sea in the area of disputed Subi and Mischif. They are part of the Spratly Islands (Nansha), claimed by Vietnam, China, Taiwan, Malaysia, the Philippines and Brunei. The event caused a sharp reaction from Beijing. On this, as reported by Reuters, said the commander of the Chinese Navy, Admiral W. Shanley. According to him, “if the United States does not stop these dangerous, provocative actions, dangerous frictions may arise between the forward forces of the troops both at sea and in the air, and even a minor incident can lead to war.” Admiral Wu Shanley warned that this tactic greatly increases the risk of uncontrolled developments in the region. Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yu called on the US to “think again” before actions in the South China Sea and “not to create problems out of nothing.”
Undoubtedly, today, the problem of revision and the establishment of borders, to the maximum extent satisfying the peoples living in these states, must be solved without saber-rattling. For this, it is necessary only not to divide one people into different states and not to unite constantly conflicting nations belonging to different faiths in one border, to give the people themselves the opportunity to decide their own fate, and only then declare integrity and inviolability of borders. For example, at present, Western European countries live in peace with historically recognized borders. But for one and a half thousand years, since the fall of the Roman Empire and the formation of several dozen states in its place, wars raged on the European continent, including Centenary, Thirty Years, Seven Years, two world. And after each of them the outlines of the state borders changed. Now it is time to establish the boundaries in a civilized manner, guided by the objective laws underlying the creation of the state. After all, the Czechs and Slovaks, who did not want to live in one country, could peacefully disperse to their national apartments.
Nevertheless, not all politicians understand this, and therefore they sometimes strive at all costs, including the use of armed force, to keep in their submission peoples and territories that rightfully do not belong to them. However, this often leads to sad consequences. It would be appropriate here to quote the words of the outstanding Russian historian and teacher Vasily Klyuchevsky with his assessment of the operation of historical laws in society: “Historical law is a strict unclean of immature peoples and can be their executioner when their stupid children's obstinacy turns into insane readiness for historical selflessness”.