For us, the analysis of the subjects of global governance is especially important, because Russia and the Russians are their existential opponent. For destruction in the first place of Russia or to establish control over its resources and territory was organized two world wars of the twentieth century, and in fact one Big war of 1914-1991., which still has not made many important insights. In particular, until now, these events and their consequences are analyzed without taking into account the interests, goals and activities of the main arsonists and beneficiaries – supranational structures, which today continue to wage a psycho-historical war against Russia and the Russians, planning the final solution of the Russian question.

We live in a time of war – the military twice

NATO aggression against Yugoslavia, or rather – against the Serbs began a permanent hot war, which was the result of the destruction of the USSR: Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria. At the same time hot, then parallel to it, intertwined with her, developing growing power of a different form of the Cold war – an organizational war. Its main goal is to destroy the organizational structures (management structures) of the target society-everyone: from social and financial to the structures of consciousness and knowledge, i.e. the structures of the Psychosphere in the broadest sense of the word. It is this sphere that gradually becomes the main theater of action of the organizational war, which in the Psychosphere becomes a war of psychohistory.

PSYCHOHISTORICAL WAR

Do psychohistorical war (orgvoyny in Psychosphere) multiple levels (dimensions): informational, conceptual, and metaphysical (semantic). Information war in a narrow sense is actions at the level of facts, their falsification, distortion in a certain way. The conceptual dimension of psychohistorical war, as the name implies, touches upon the conceptual interpretation of facts, i.e. develops in the sphere of transition from empirical generalizations to theoretical ones.

Metaphysical war – aerobatics orgvoyny in Psychosphere – mostly a war of meaning; physical victory without a victory in metaphysics, in the semantic field of the impossible.

As a concrete example, we can cite the version of the Katyn events that goes back to Goebbels. Information level psychohistorical action: we are told (by gross factual fraud, collapsing in setting basic questions), that the poles were shot by the Soviet NKVD. Then-the transition to the conceptual level: shot, because the NKVD-an element of the “bloody Stalinist regime”, and the whole history of the USSR-a manifestation of totalitarianism, illustrating it; here hang on the ears of the image (“bloody Stalin’s regime”) and the concept of” totalitarianism”, and the term itself should push the object of information aggression to equalize” Stalinism “and”Hitler”. In General, I must say that the images in psychohistorical war is extremely important: it is possible to act on the information and the conceptual level, in the spirit of some Svanidze, and the figurative-conceptual in the spirit “type Gelman”. But this is a separate issue.

And, finally, metaphysics: totalitarianism allegedly follows from the paradigm of Russian history, from all its experience, its meaning, which, therefore, are subject to change. It is not for nothing that one of the main demons of Gorbachev, looking after her from overseas, said that by restructuring they break not only the USSR and communism, but the thousand-year paradigm of Russian history. This is the action argarose, and its use of “physical realm”, in “physics” was preceded by such in metaphysics. The destruction of the power and financial-economic structures of the USSR was preceded by the destruction of the meanings and values of the Soviet society, ologram Psychosphere. At the same time, the main blows were inflicted on the facts, concepts and metaphysics of history: aimed at communism, and beat on Russia and Russian; aimed at the present and the near past (“Stalinism”), but in fact beat the past in General, on the historical, civilizational whole, and therefore on the future.

The purpose of psychoistorical war is to destroy the organization of the opponent’s Psychosphere, putting him on a false information flow, introducing his concepts of his self in space and, most importantly, in time and depriving him of his own meanings and values and imposing alien – destructive and paralyzing will to fight.

The most important direction psychohistorical war – history

The battle for history is in fact the main battle of the orgwar in the Psychosphere, because it undermines this last in several directions, including psychoanalysts on historical memory (the most important events, the most significant and iconic figures – hence the mud pouring of our Victory, military glory, specific individuals, especially Stalin, the scheme “the myth of Gagarin”, etc.), on identity, on traditional values for this civilization.

The Central event of Soviet history-the Great Patriotic war, the victory in it. This is an absolute value, an absolute bond that unites people not only in Russia, but also in the CIS, and in some ways even beyond its borders. And of course, it is war and victory that become the main target in the psycho-historical war. Very the Great Patriotic war geeks from science and okolnyi or renamed “Nazi-Communist”, or add to the great Patriotic determination of the “so called”. Others after the traitor Rezun try to prove that Stalin was preparing to attack Germany, but Hitler was ahead of him by two or three weeks. Still others try to prove that the USSR bears the same responsibility for the outbreak of world war II as the Third Reich, arguing this fact “Ribbentrop – Molotov Pact” (as they prefer to call the Soviet-German Treaty of 1939). It is this position is held by a number of Western, primarily Anglo-American and German researchers (if in this case you can call the researchers, rather we should talk about propaganda, about the soldiers and officers orgvoyny for the story), and their hangers-on of the comprador (the comprador-collaborationist, patakango) segment of science in the Russian Federation.

Often with propagandists of such views begin to argue in particular or – worse-to justify. But both schemes – the “plan” Stalin’s first attack Hitler and ostensibly equal responsibility of Germany and the USSR for the occurrence of the Second world war – apart from the elementary to the offensive attack at the lowest level psychohistorical war information, allowing you to deploy offensive on a conceptual and metaphysical level.

In the next five years we will have a lot of round dates of Russian and world history: 2014-100 years since the beginning of the First world war; 2015 – 200 years since the end of the Napoleonic wars and the establishment of the “Vienna system”; 2016 – 25 years since the destruction of the USSR; 2017 – 100 years of the October revolution; 2018 – 100 years since the beginning of the Civil war in Russia and 200 years since the birth of Marx. There is no doubt that these dates and the events, trends and faces behind them will be the reason (and the field) for the further development of the psychohistoric war against Russia. Having fantasized, it is possible to imagine, for example, the edition of the multi-volume book devoted to a subject “Russia: world war and revolution”. The goal is to prove that Russia did not play a significant role in the war. The money will give the Western “scientific” foundations. 90% of authors are Western scientists, 10% – representatives of the “comprador” science of the Russian Federation, “children” grant (but not captains of Grants), mostly narrow specialists, not threatening a great narrative and generalizations (is – a monopoly of masters-funders). Well, “sanctify” all the editorial Board of the titled okolonauchnyh officials who do not shun to accept awards from foreign authorities for the protection of their interests in our science. The same, or even worse, can be imagined about the role of the USSR in world war II.

One of the lines of the “game of demotion” in the assessment of the role and importance of the great Patriotic war can be the opposition of the First world war as the “first German” – “second German”. The first signs of this opposition are already appearing. Two war – two German, two world. They played a huge role in history. And in their history a huge, decisive role was played by Russia, whatever it was called. Next year will be the centenary of the first world war, and it is already written about today, including in our country. They remember the heroes of this war, the course of hostilities, the era. Historical memory is being restored, and this, of course, is good. Another thing is not good: it is already clear that there is a tendency to oppose the First world war – the great Patriotic war. It develops in the context of the opposition of the Russian Empire as something positive to the Soviet Union – as something negative.

Today we can say with confidence: the attempt to glorify the white movement, the use of “Lieutenant Golitsyn and Kornet Obolensky” as an org weapon against the red period of our history failed. It is more than likely that under the slogans of restoring “historical justice” about the First world war, an attempt will be made to use it as an anti-Soviet organizational weapon, at least equalizing it in historical significance with the great Patriotic war.

That would be a lie For Russia, Russian and world history the significance of these two wars is incomparable. In Russian 1914, Wilhelm II and the Germans did not, unlike Hitler, set the task of erasing the Russians from history – the physical destruction of one half of the Russians and the cultural and psychological (ie oskotinivaniya) – the other. The stakes in the great Patriotic war were immeasurably and incomparably higher than in 1914 – to be or not to be Russia and Russian in General, and therefore about any equalization of the two wars can not be, with all due respect to the memory of the fallen in the First world war. I Russian soldiers on the fields of the First world war not so much for the Russian interest, but for the purses of Anglo-American and French bankers, who had the autocracy of Nicholas II almost to the ears in debt.

This is first. Secondly, the first German for Russia ended in defeat and disintegration of the state. Of the great Patriotic war the Soviet Union was not just a winner but one of the two superpowers – the Foundation of the Victory the Soviet Union lasted almost half a century, and the Russian Federation exists only because he still failed to destroy this Foundation.

Third, two wars are clear illustrations of the fact that in one case (the Russian Empire) we had a sick society, in the other (the USSR) – a healthy one. Once in 1915-1916 were knocked out of the old officer corps, the army collapsed, and with it the monarchy, the state. To replace officers as personification modal personality type (and it needs some 7-8% of the population) has appeared there is nobody. In 1941, the pre-war officer corps was knocked out, the army collapsed, losing millions of prisoners. But a few months later another newly created officer corps, another army defeated the Wehrmacht near Moscow, followed by Stalingrad, Kursk and the red banner over the Reichstag.

This happened because in the 1930s the very modal type of personality was created, the Soviet man, who emerged victorious in the war by signing the Reichstag. The topic of fundamental differences can be continued for a long time, but it is hardly worth doing it in this work. Here it makes sense to say something else – about an important lesson of the First world war. That war was lost by the oligarchized, corrupt autocracy which turned Russia into financially-dependent raw materials appendage of the West, appendage with considerably limited sovereignty. In the acute situation of the then “chief” – the king – overthrew the Grand Duke-General-bourgeois oligarchy (with the assistance of the British), i.e. representatives of 200-300 families who ruled (as they thought) Russia. Objectively, the oligarchy played the role of the “fifth column” and History – primarily by the hands of the Imperial-minded part of the Bolsheviks and the military General staff – kicked her out of the country. Explaining the reasons for the success of the USSR in world war II, Churchill said that, unlike, for example, from the same France, the USSR on the eve of the war was eliminated “fifth column”. And with the Agency, I will add, both influence and illegal did not stand on ceremony, acting “under the laws of war and the rules of conduct in the front line.”

The history of world wars shows that family-oligarchic systems have no chance to win. Yes, they hand over “chiefs” or overthrow them, hoping to pay off their heads and to prolong the “picnic on a roadside” of History. Vain hope: they fly after the “chief.” The first world war in Russia has demonstrated this with glass clarity, but people do not change, they only apartment (or business – or what other) spoils the issue. This lesson of the First world war, in contrast to the victorious lesson of the great Patriotic war – “good fellows lesson”, unless, of course, they are idiots (in the Greek sense of the word: a person lives as if the world does not exist). This lesson, as well as the sacred memory of our fallen in both wars, we must remember, paying tribute to our heroes of the First world war and not allowing anyone to belittle the value of the heroes of the great Patriotic war and Victory – our Victory – in it. The fact that this kind of humiliation takes place to be that it will develop on the eve of round dates (for example, the 70th anniversary of Victory) will be particularly strong, there is no doubt.

The moral of all the above: in psychohistorical war in General and in information in particular, especially in such an area as history, you should not wait for the enemy to strike, you need to beat the first. We need our own work on the history of events, the anniversaries of which are approaching, but also in General on the history of Russia and – necessarily – on the history of the West, with which and in favor of which Russia is compared. At the same time, in the course of comparison, Russia’s negative protrudes, and then it is simply attributed to something that did not exist in reality, and the West retouches dark spots. In General, it must be said that the ability to taboo topics unpleasant for the West and unsightly criminal pages of its history is a characteristic feature of Western culture, including scientific. It is impossible not to agree with the English historian D. Lieven, who in the work “Empire: the Russian Empire and its rivals” (English edition – 2000) noted that in modern comparative history and political science dominates converted into dogma “strange version of the Anglo-American self-healing-self-praise (self-congratulation), written in the German manner.”

The West, above all its Anglo-Saxon core, has transformed itself, its unique historical self, into a universal yardstick against which everything else is measured. Anglo-Saxons are free, like the “King” and “Duke” of the “Adventures of Huckleberry Finn” to make any kunshtyuki. Our task and duty – not to be caught on them and to bend the line, first of all in the Psychosphere. Therefore, we must write not only our own history, but also the history of the West (and the East, of course) without retouching. We need a systematic, offensive and strategically calibrated work in the field of “fighting for history” (L. February), in the past – primarily his own, but someone else’s too. This is a necessary condition for victory in the battle for the future. In turn, writing the history of the West, Russia, the world as a whole as a condition-the imperative of Russian victory in psychohistorical war requires a theoretical interpretation of the history of the West, Russia, the world as a system. As applied to the last centuries, this means the creative development of the problems of capitalism and real communism (i.e. the Soviet system). At the same time, the analysis and theory of capitalism as a system is primarily an analysis of supranational (global governance), the subject of which is a system-forming element of the capitalist system – organized into closed structures of world coordination and management (“lodges”, “clubs”, “commissions”, etc.) the top of the world capitalist class. This elite, mainly Anglo-Saxon, seeks to turn everything fundamentally non-capitalist into functions of capital and to suppress everything unlike Protestantism. In this regard, Russia is a triple enemy of these structures: the Orthodox experience, the Communist experience, the great power – 200 years standing in the way of creating a “world government”.

History has long been a battleground not only of scientific theories, but of information schemes, ideological constructions and conceptual viruses (memes), a field of psychohistorical war in all its hypostases – informational, conceptual and metaphysical. Psychoinformational attacks on identity, on historical memory have long been included in the Arsenal of various forces of the modern world and are actively used against today’s Russia, as once used against the USSR, and even earlier – against the Russian Empire. We have tried and are trying to impose someone else’s, alien to us the vision of its history, and to present our history as incomplete, not reaching to some universal standards of civilizational value, for which the West (and its “fifth column”) gives himself, beloved. Surprisingly, many still buy this self-styled universality (or universal imposture) of the West and begin to look at their (in this case, our, Russian) history through someone else’s eyes. As M. Voloshin wrote, “We still dream of Russian dream / Under names alien to us”. Well, the one who looks at his country and at his history through someone else’s eyes, sooner or later begins to look at them in someone else’s interests. Pushkin Russian history was right to note that Russian history requires its own formula, that is, its own theory, and not someone else’s, mainly Anglo-Saxon conceptual dress, which is put on Russian history. Conceptualizing its history in accordance with its nature and extent is, therefore, the task is not only scientific, but also psychohistorical war.

Opposition to the theories, interpretations and assessments of Russian history imposed from the outside is one of the directions of psychohistorical war, our actions in which in no case should be defensive in nature – we should write the history not only of our country, but also of the West such as it is in reality – a capitalist predator, behind the democratic facade of which real owners are hiding, United in lodges, clubs and other structures.

No less important is the resistance to attempts of the geohistorical (class, system, civilizational, etc.) enemy to destroy or replace our historical memory, distort identity and instill a complex of historical, cultural and psychological inferiority, as it was done after 1945 with the Germans, speculating on the “inescapable fault of the German people” before all – mainly before the Jews, “forgetting” that the greatest losses, including consciously destroyed civilians, suffered by the Russians.

In Russia, in the last two decades, attempts to instill a complex of historical inferiority have been made by Western propagandists and their “fifth column” as attempts to repent for the “crimes of Stalinism.” The meme “crimes of Stalinism” had not only internal, but also external, foreign policy aspect. It was implemented as an attempt to lay the main blame for the outbreak of world war II on the Stalinist Soviet Union, whereas previously this blame was laid only on Hitler. The Foundation of this accusation was the identification of Stalinism and Hitlerism, the USSR and the Third Reich as two – left and right – forms of totalitarianism, and as a concrete historical evidence used “Ribbentrop – Molotov Pact” (as in the West called the Soviet-German Treaty of 1939), allegedly opened the way to the Second world war and even allegedly became its actual beginning. In fact, the Soviet-German Treaty was the last of a series of treaties between European powers (Italy, France, great Britain) and Germany, which were to create conditions for the aggression of the Third Reich against the USSR, which had no such Treaty with Germany until August 1939. The August Treaty thwarted aggression in 1939 and pushed it back for two very important years for us. Well, really opened the way to war September (1938) Munich collusion, but this is a separate topic for us now important fundamental statement of the question.

Often in response to accusations that the Soviet Union is guilty of inciting the Second world war at least Hitler, our side is on the path of a simple response, ie refutation of unscrupulous concrete theses opponents. This is clearly not enough. It should be about something else – about fixing the fact (the benefit of evidence – an excess, and this much is written by serious and honest Western scientists), that, firstly, it was the British and Americans led Hitler to power, creating a “Hitler incorporated”, that it was the Anglo-Saxons pumped the Fuhrer with money and provided (the British) Munich the military potential, without which Hitler could not start a war against the USSR; secondly, that it was the UK “Munich-38” thwarted the conspiracy of German generals, ready to overthrow Hitler-this the British allow could not; thirdly, what the position of great Britain in may – June 1941 (secret negotiations with Hess and others), Hitler created the impression that the British or peace with him in case of his attack on the USSR, or, at least, will remain de facto neutral, continuing the “strange war”: the blitzkrieg against the USSR was possible only with the guarantee of no strike by the British in the West.

In other words, in may – June 1941, the British pulled off a secret special and diplomatic operation, similar to the one that they worked in July 1914, provoking William II to war, so much so that he, as well as, of course, Germany and the Germans were to blame. Of course, formally to blame the one who started the war, i.e. the one who dropped the last drop in the already filled to the brim bowl. But here’s what he wrote about the First world war, the Frenchman Gustave Le Bon, which, of course, can hardly be suspected of sympathy for Germany in General and Kaiser Wilhelm II in particular. It was Wilhelm, thought Le Bon, – “author” of the last drop, but the historian, the Frenchman emphasizes, it is important to understand who filled the Cup to the brim, as a result of which it was overflowed. This applies not only to the First world war, but also to the Second – and all wars in General.

Below in order psychohistorical offensive combat falsification of history we will focus on the mechanism of occurrence, but rather the organization of the two world wars of the twentieth century, these Wars were not accidental, as in this we are trying to convince some historians – Western and Russian formally to work out the detachable masters silver coins. The owners, of course, it is advantageous to present the war random, they supposedly could not be, if it were not for Germany and/or Russia: in 1914 – two authoritarian regimes, in 1939/41 – two totalitarian. This scheme is collapsing from the elementary information impact, so below will be offered a brief factual analysis of the emergence of both world wars, an excursion into the sphere of historical information. As the father of Cybernetics N. Wiener said, “the right to live is to live with the right information”. We will also talk about the subject or subjects of the organization of world wars, they are also historical enemies of Russia. Russian version of the world, i.e. not only Russian, but also Western history, Russian view on the events of the last century and a half will be offered. I’m not going to refute Western propaganda from science and their henchmen in Russia, the best response is a holistic alternative interpretation, which is based on the question cui bono? – who benefits?

Distortion, falsification of history – a powerful organizational weapon in the field of psychohistorical war in General and information war in particular

Materialized in the form of institutions, educational structures, systems of grants, etc., the falsification of history is one of the elements of global governance, which as of fact and of process, as a rule, denied the conventional (professors-profane) science qualifying attempts a serious study of supranational structures global coordination and control as “conspiracy”, “conspiracy theory”, etc. it is Clear that science, which subject of global governance, needs to deny the fact of its existence. Therefore, the analysis of supranational governance, its structures, forms, stages of development, methods, etc. as a POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC reality means the fight against the falsification of history. In addition, it means the study of the real main enemy of Russia and the Russian, who was hiding behind the signs “UK” and “USA”. Finally, the analysis of these structures allows us to understand the real mechanisms of history and weakens the potential of the organizational weapons, which are used by those whom B. Disraeli called “masters of history”, and O. Markeev – “masters of the world game”. And therefore, acts as an organizational weapon in the ongoing “invisible wars” – information, network, memory, weapons of resistance to global governance. This knowledge is very necessary for us today, when a new global redistribution begins, a new revision of the maps Of History, which will determine the future of the world for the coming centuries.

Today, Russia is more an object than a subject of global governance, which is fixed by its role in the international division of labor. Often the understanding of this “object”, maximum – “semi-object” state is made in the form of conclusions about the randomness of the current situation, about global governance as a simple conspiracy of certain forces. In fact, supranational governance is conditioned by the nature and logic of the development of capitalism and resistance to it: one should not forget, in particular, that the Soviet Union was a subject of world governance both in the Comintern era and in the post-war (i.e. until the end of the 1980s). And, of course, we must remember that without the structures of supranational (since the 1870s – the world, since the 1980s – global) governance capitalism would not be able to reproduce itself as a system.

Supranational governance is not an illusion, not a whim, not a luxury, not a twist of history, but a means of removing one of the most important contradictions of capitalism. Economically capitalism is a whole-world system, a world market, while politically it is not an integrity, but a set, a sum of States. Hence the triple contradiction between capital and the state, the whole and the sum, the world level and the national-state. The big bourgeoisie, no matter what country it lives in (especially if it is a large country), first of all its financial segment, always has interests that go beyond the national framework, beyond the state borders – its own and others’. And these interests can be realized only by violating the laws of your state or others, and often your own, and others at the same time. And it is not a one-time violation, but a permanent and systematic one, which, therefore, must be somehow formalized. It is one thing when capital is opposed by weak or even not very weak politics in Asia, not to mention Africa – there is enough power option, “gunboat diplomacy”. And how to be in the world of equal or relatively equal: Britain, France, Russia, Austria, from the second half of the XIX century. – Germany, USA? That’s different. To solve the problems at this level, we need not firearms, but organizational weapons of a special type, which, solving the problems of the top of the world capitalist class, would remove the contradictions between capital and the state, supranational economic and national political interest and, finally, between the world economic integrity and the world state-political totality.

The structures in the form of which there is such an organizational weapon should be:

– supranational (supranational); – closed (“secret»);

– long-term by type and principle of activity, because, among other things, Express the holistic and long-term interests of the top of the world capitalist class. It was such closed structures of supranational coordination and management that the bourgeoisie needed at the turn of the XVII–XVIII centuries.

However, the bourgeoisie did not have ready-made structures, and it used the existing ones, filling them with new content. We are talking about Masonic structures, the official development of which started in 1717.

Simultaneously with the need for supranational governance and the emergence of its first structures, there was a fundamental possibility of design approach to historical practice. And it is also an immanent feature of capitalism. One of the main meta-historical, institutional differences of capitalism from earlier systems is that at a certain point of development, his story is becoming more of a designed character.

The ability to design and direct the course of history by constructing it depends on several factors:

– the existence of an organization that can set and solve problems of this kind, i.e. has a geohistorical goal-setting, the ability to strategic planning on a global scale and the will to act on this basis;
– adequate object of manipulation as a means of solving problems of design and historical activity;

– having a financial base to ensure access to power and property and to maintain a strong position in both areas;

– control over information flows with a significant role of the latter in the life of society, or at least its top;

– the presence of structures of rational knowledge, analyzing the laws of history, mass processes and behavior of social groups as objects, and means of implementation of design activities.

Any traditional collective, rooted in the “small tradition”, having common norms, values, tradition, whether community, clan, tribe, caste, etc. is difficult to manipulate. Another thing is “the lonely crowd” (D. Roman) cities, especially preindustrial and early industrial, not yet turned into “the working classes” and turning into “dangerous classes”, so vividly described by Eugene sue; it is an adequate facility for large-scale historical manipulation. It appears this object is a “substance” – mass is in the middle of the XVIII century to explode, or rather, to be detonated in the “era of revolutions” (E. Hobsbawm), 1789-1848 in years.

The release of the masses to the forefront of history has provided great opportunities for large-scale manipulators. It is the mass, i.e. such atomized-aggregated human material, which consists of poorly connected with each other individuals is an adequate object of manipulation. In the middle of the XVIII century. surprisingly at the same time there was an adequate object of manipulation – the mass (“substance”), and a powerful financial base (money – “energy”), and new information flows (“information”).

Managing the mass (masses) of people requires Finance and control over information flows – both require organization

In the middle of the XVIII century begins the financial explosion; if in the second half of the XVII century “high Finance” off-crop “long XVI century” (1453-1648 gg.), in the middle of the XVIII century. formed the basis of the modern financial system. Of course, in the pre-capitalist era, at the dawn of capitalism in the XV – XVI centuries. bankers could have a significant impact on the course of events, but their scale is not in any comparison with the possibilities of the capitalist era, when the object of influence were no longer individual events or their chains, and the course of history. The explosion in the development of banking capital in question, which made it all-powerful, was due to three factors that stimulated the development of “high Finance”: the British-French struggle for world domination; the colonial expansion of European powers and the industrial revolution that began.

Finally, last but not least, the role of information. In the XVIII century there was another change in the cardinal order – sharply, qualitatively increased the role of a certain way organized (“Packed”, structured, generalized catalogued, decoded, etc.), supplied as a rational, scientifically sound, fundamentally new and directed information and control over it. These information flows justified the claims of new social groups and their allies from the structures of the Old Order to participate in power and became a powerful psychohistorical weapon of conspiracy in reformatting the consciousness of the elite, social recruitment of adherents by means of carefully prepared interception of power by means of a mass movement, the first of which will later be the French revolution of 1789-1799. “Encyclopedia” has demonstrated the role played in society by applying for rational novelty and socially oriented and ideologically charged and structured information (information for special and political purposes), what is its impact on the elite, putting them under the influence of a certain information flow and thus opening them to the influence of their interests outside the conspiracy or even turning into the outer circle of the latter. In fact, the encyclopedia is the first example of a successful psychohistorical war of the modern Era.

Thus, in the second half of the XVIII century for the first time in history, the unprecedented scale and shape there was a connection came to the fore the logic of the development of capitalism as a system of “big Finance” (money, gold), informaticav and large masses of atomized population. This happened in accordance with the nature of capitalism in General and with the logic of the development (change) of hegemonies in the capitalist system.

CAPITALISM AS THE REALITY OF THE SOCIAL NATURE, THE MAIN STAGES OF DEVELOPMENT, THE CURRENT GLOBAL CRISIS

It is significant that the formation of supranational governance structures occurred during the period when the peak of the hegemony of Holland (1620-1651 years) gone by the end came the Dutch cycle of accumulation and began to take its first steps to the British cycle of accumulation and the industrial revolution, which became the basis of British victories in the wars with France (1756-1763; 1792-1815 years) and the establishment of British hegemony (peak – 1815-1873 gg.). And although in the twentieth century. British hegemony ended, it was replaced by the American, ie. for two hundred years, the Anglo-Saxons are the hegemons of the capsystem, and their functioning as such is closely linked, first, with supranational governance structures – British in origin and, secondly, with Jewish capital, closely linked, as if sewed Britain and the United States and gave the Anglo-Sphere additional integrity and unity. The history of capitalism of the last 200-250 years is a pax exelence history of supranational governance, the structures of which expressed the interests primarily of the UK (and later the US and the UK) and capital with the British (later American and British) “residence permit”.

The subject of supranational governance originally was the upper segment of the ruling British class, including the crown. Structural forms of this subject a long time (until the end of nineteenth digits) were almost exclusively regular Masonic lodges. And almost from the beginning they were represented by two types, what was the main principle and the main mystery of supranational governance, which in the mid-nineteenth century was truly global. The first type included island lodges, the second – continental.

Island lodges, the existence of which was kept secret from the “neostrovityan” – a form of organization of those persons who play an important role in the political, socio-economic and spiritual life of great Britain. The ideology of the island lies the original wore a Patriotic, nationally oriented in character, rests on the age-old English tradition, following the principle of “right or wrong, my country”. At the same time locus operandi island lodges – the whole world and especially Europe, where there was another type of lodges – continental, but heading from the island – ie from the UK.

The installation of continental lodges was diametrically opposed to that of the island States – cosmopolitanism, which undermined the statehood, traditions and religion (primarily Catholicism) of the continental States in the interests of great Britain; in some cases it was the installation of “self-determination of Nations”, in others – “unification of Nations” (for example, Germany and Italy under the control of lodges). “From the depths of these lodges, which over time covered all the States of the world with their branches, – Baron de Rennes once wrote, – the so-called liberal doctrines”, intended especially for export, came out: continental “brothers” led on the way, directly opposite to that, to which there were “island”: “destroying traditions in other lands, England protects them at itself as an Apple of an eye, for this its main spiritual wealth made as synthesis from centuries-old experience […] Ridiculing external forms of traditional life of other backgammon, England with emotion holds on the forms, for the customs and for the ceremonies as the factors separating it from the others races and peoples, and in this she should footsteps another people, which is due to the same reasons, carried through the millennia their nationality and preserved its vitality to the present day”.

While both types of lodges were organizational weapons, it should be added that the continental lodges, in turn, were the first truly large-scale island weapons – the pan-European scale and global consequences – the experience of design action was the French revolution of 1789-1799. Using the real problems that have accumulated in France for a hundred years and riding mass processes, the British establishment, continental lodges and Swiss bankers toppled the monarchy in France, permanently eliminated a competitor to the UK and conducted a very important social experiment, the results of which were actively used for more than a century. Of course, they used the real problems and difficulties of France, which to a large extent created themselves (financial and information impact). These actions were decisive, as in the XVI, XVII century and the first half of the XVIII century the socio-economic situation was worse (sometimes much worse than in the reign of Louis XVI), but the revolution did not happen. As noted by I. Ten, when Louis XIV and XV more were starving, but then userewrite riots were being made. In 1789, the subjective factor was added to the system factor (not to be confused with the subjective one). In fact, the French revolution became the weapon of supranational financial and political conspiracies and the UK in their struggle against France, the French monarchy. These supranational forces in Europe became the main winners of the Napoleonic wars, the main beneficiaries of the British accumulation cycle and British hegemony.

The French revolution opened the “era of revolutions” (1789-1848). “Era of revolutions” and the “long fifties” (1848-1867/73), when at the Masonic patterns and under the supervision of the UK created the whole of the state, became the period of the arrival of the masons to power and, as a consequence, the partial nationalization of Freemasonry, i.e., the triumph of supra-national structures of coordination and control. However, there were also problems. The parish in various European countries in the mid-nineteenth century in one form or another to power elite classic lodges left in the political offside, a considerable part of the members of these lodges. In addition, not all participants of the revolutionary movement was satisfied with the results of the French revolution of 1830 and to an even greater extent the European revolutions of 1848-1849, In the face of the state they are now often resisted “the power of the masons”, and it created a conflict inside of Freemasonry in the world of cancerstricken. The result: dissatisfied with steel to create a “wild box”, which is caught takes the place of the monarchy of the classical lie the banner of “world revolution”, and in addition imparted a class character – the anti-bourgeois and anti-state at the same time. This was very much in line with the struggle of the “dangerous classes”, which gradually turned into “working classes”, and the emerging struggle of the proletariat. It is no accident that those who moved to the “wild lodges” and just in the revolutionary conspiracy, began to call themselves “Carbonari”, ie coal miners.

At the same time, supranational structures are beginning to emerge with a claim to control the struggle of workers on a global scale – I international led by Marx. This is not the place to analyze the links of the I international with the masons, Carbonari, large financial capital and British intelligence. I will limit myself to pointing out that the principle of supranational governance began to work not only on the class “horizontal”, but also on the “vertical”, penetrating society from top to bottom.

In the last third of the XIX century under the influence of the financiers, the revolutionaries and secret service begins to rapidly emerge as a dual system of world governance, government agencies, and open externally, which is an achievement and the embodiment of “democracy and progress” political forms (parties, parliaments) national level in a significant (sometimes very significant) extent a function of the closed structures of the world level.

THE SECOND CIRCUIT AUTHORITY IN THE WEST AND CAPITALISM

During this period it also becomes clear that in the complicated political and economic situation (economic depression of 1873-1896; decline of the hegemony of great Britain; the split within the masonry into the British and German sectors; the rise of the USA and Germany; the beginning of the struggle of the West for Russian resources; the aggravation of the class struggle and much more) masonry as a form of supranational governance ceases to be adequate to the era. There is a need for fundamentally new forms, new structures, which, first, must unite the Anglo-Saxons (British and Americans) in the struggle against Germany and for Russian resources; secondly, to become a truly world – Freemasonry bore the imprint of the European world-system XVII – the first half of the XIX century.

New structures (subjects) of world governance are societies created by S. Rhodes, A. Milner and others in the UK. After the end of the First world war, this line of development continued interpenetration of supranational and state (“national”) structures, i.e. interpenetration of the two circuits while maintaining the principle of double-circuit. Western States have increasingly become the function of the structures of world governance, based on the Finance and the informal but highly effective political control.

A similar process of formation of the two-loop system has developed since the 1920-ies in the USSR, in the area of system-capitalism, but in the opposite direction to the West: in the West, the state has become a function of “nadnatsionalnoj”, Fininterna, etc., the Soviet Union, the command of Stalin, turning the project “world revolution” and began the construction of the red Empire began to turn a personification of the world revolution and the third international (Comintern) in function of state of the USSR, essentially eliminating the bypass ratio. Having become the key to Soviet victories in the 1930s-1950s, later this elimination, not compensated by the Soviet elite, played a cruel joke with the socialist camp, the USSR and the CPSU[1].

Summing up the preliminary result, it is possible to distinguish evolutionary and revolutionary (crisis) periods in the history of supranational management. The first period (evolutionary) was almost the entire XVIII century. Then came the “era of revolutions” (1789-1848), which became the era of the crisis of supranational governance of the XVIII century., the crisis of its structures and the search for new forms. The stabilization of the 1850s and 1870s only temporarily froze this problem, breaking through the 75-year crisis of 1870-1945 and the emergence of fundamentally new – world – forms of supranational governance. This was followed, as in the XIX century., thirty years of stabilization, followed by a crisis (at first it was “softened” dashing 1990-due to the robbery of the former socialist camp). The crisis has created new structures of supranational governance – global. These latter – dialectics – gave rise to this crisis as much as they did. The paradox is that globalization is developing as the source of the crisis – the crisis of global governance. The current crisis of supranational governance (global), as well as the previous one – global – is closely connected with Russia, its historical destiny, which should be mentioned in particular.

The confrontation between Russia and the West began long ago – from the moment when Russia was liberated from the Horde took the place of the collapsed Roman Empire

From that moment to the confrontation of Orthodoxy split for political reasons from this very Orthodoxy Catholicism added confrontation at the geopolitical level. In the last third of the XVI century in the West there are two establishment of control over Russia Catholic (the Habsburgs, the Holy Roman Empire) and Protestant (England). Both plans (with modifications) went through the centuries and in the late twentieth century took the form of approaches of the Rothschilds and the Rockefellers to the weakening/destruction of the USSR.

In the early nineteenth century right after the Napoleonic wars began the confrontation between Russia and the Anglo-Saxons; if in the XIX – early XX century it was the British-Russian struggle for geopolitical basis, that almost the entire second half of the twentieth century is the Soviet-American standoff on the US side was not only their British “cousins”, but the West in General. In the twentieth century. to the geopolitical aspect of the confrontation with the Anglo-Saxons added a social system: the USSR acted in relation to the West, to the world capitalist system not just as a power, but as a systemic anti-capitalism and an alternative world system.

Through the struggle of both the British and Americans against Russia, i.e. through the entire struggle of the Anglo-Saxons against the Russians from the XIX century to the present day are two more “red lines”, closely associated with supranational/world/global governance. The first “started” in the 1820s, simultaneously with the beginning of the British-Russian struggle, the second – since the 1880s.

The first “red line” is connected with the desire of European bankers, especially the Rothschilds, to create something resembling a world government, having formalized/institutionalized supranational governance, which was already manifested in the 1820s. In the way of the aspirations were objectively Russia of Alexander I and then Nicholas I, what did Romanov enemies, not only the UK but also the European bankers, led by Rothschilds (later they will Finance and the Crimean war, and the revolutionary movement in Russia). The situation has not changed after the October revolution. Taking a course on the construction of “socialism in one country taken separately”, ie, the red Empire, the command of Stalin was objectively in the transformation of world governance to world government – Stalin thrice thwarted the plans of the globalists, both right and left, earning the hatred of the first and second.

The struggle of the Anglo-Saxons and the West as a whole against Russia was conducted not only and not so much on the state line, but through closed supranational structures of world coordination and management, the state was often only a means and facade of this struggle. You could even say that the evolution of forms of global governance in the twentieth century was largely determined by the logic and objectives of the struggle the tops of the West, the world capitalist class of Russia. To a large extent, this was facilitated by everything that was connected with the second “red line”, which started in the 1880s and is associated with the desire of the West to put Russian resources under control.

By the 1880s, the main resource zones of the world had already been put under Western control in the form of either colonies or semi-colonies. Capital required new resource zones (and at the same time markets and a source of cheap labor), this requirement was intensified by the negative economic situation – the world depression of 1873-1896, which hit primarily the UK.

In 1884, a conference was held in Berlin, at which it was decided that the countries possessing natural resources, but not able to master them, should open up to the “international community”, i.e. the West. And those who do not want to open by force. Officially, it was claimed that we are talking about Africa, but this, of course, was not true: about Africa in this context, no such decisions would not take – just come and take force, as it was done at the end of the XIX century. in relation to Africa, not only black, but also white – Boer. In fact, the Berlin conference sent a warning – the “black mark” – to Russia, testing the strength of its young Emperor. Alexander III nerves were strong, and his Russia was strong enough, not a couple of the Empire of his son-a loser, was not yet entangled in debt, but because the “black mark” has not reached its goal. Goals and objectives of 1884 they were decided by means of the First world war and the February revolution of 1917, which was to knock Russia out of the category of great powers (the minimum program) or lead to its dismemberment with the establishment of not only economic but also political control (the maximum program).

In Russian revolution in the early 1920s, the international socialist phase and the Civil war created a situation very close to that of the transnational oligarchies; it seemed that Russian resources were about to be under Western control. However, Stalin’s team swatted the NEP together with the project “world revolution” and only a dozen years after the expulsion of Trotsky from the USSR created a powerful military-industrial complex and provided industrial autarky from the capitalist world (two of the five world industrial “nodes” of that time were on the territory of the USSR).

The West’s attempt (primarily the UK) to put Russian resources under control with the help of Hitler failed and, contrary to American calculations, the USSR recovered not in 20, but in 10 years, already in the early 1950s becoming a superpower. And Russian resources were no longer up to the West in the 1950s and 1980s- the struggle was with a systemic and geopolitical enemy, but during and especially after the destruction of the Soviet Union, the question of Russian resources was again on the West’s agenda, especially given the importance of oil and gas for the current economy. To Russian resources today is added another “prize” – Russian (North Eurasian) space. The fact that almost all experts agree that the looming threat of climatic disaster (attenuation Gulf stream, restructuring the planetary occurring every 11,5–12,5 thousand years, and got XX – the beginning of the XXII century with the active phase in 1990-2030 years) the only stable and resourced area will be Northern Eurasia, i.e. Russia, especially the TRANS-Ural part. This is what makes establishing control over Russia imperative for Western tops, representatives of which did not hesitate to say that the Russian can’t develop Siberia and the far East, but because they have to go under the control of the international community, i.e. transnational corporations and global governance structures and institutions (the repetition of the situation in 1884); that the Russian too much, and in General they need is a 15 or a maximum of 50 million, as to serve the “pipe” (this is according to the scheme of the West historical destiny of the Russian) is no longer necessary.

Well, their “fifth column” in Russia actively sings along with the hosts. The destruction of the USSR as a form of historical Russia had to solve a number of problems for the West and open the “gate” of globalization. That is, to achieve one of the main results for which the First world war was started, for the sake of which (her) conspirators and arsonists worked for several decades. It was in this war that the twentieth century was born. In fact, it was the beginning of the Great war of the twentieth century, the “hot” world phase which lasted 31 years (1914-1945 gg.), and the “cold” global – 45 years (1944-1989 gg.). Understand the “short twentieth century” (1914-1991) and the two “watersheds” (1871-1929 and 1986–? the world and global governance of this era is first of all to understand the mechanism of the organization of the war of 1914-1918, the goals and motives of its organizers-arsonists.

It is a complete picture of the era that started the Franco-Prussian war (1870-1871) and the economic depression (1873-1896) and ended with the destruction of the USSR (1991), and not some counterattacks against the USSR in the wine of the Second world war, it seems an adequate response to the psychohistorical enemy; not a counterattack, but a counterattack along the entire front line. As albert Schweitzer noted, the winner of the dispute is the one who undermines the foundations of the views and positions of the opponent. And, I add, offers a broader picture of the world and cause-effect relationships than he does. I Russian not to mention that from the beginning of the First world war and the decades preceding it, a straight line is drawn through 1939-1945. in our days, in the “watershed”, something reminiscent of both the 1900s and 1930s at the same time pre-war era, fraught with a new explosion – even the destruction of the USSR in 1991, the Russian question, the problem of Russia was not solved by the West to the end; the battle for Russian resources, and taking into account the threat of a geoclimatic catastrophe and for Russian space as a reserve territory is still ahead. It is necessary to learn the lessons of History and use their science against the main enemy – “Go, poisoned steel, on purpose” (“hamlet” Shakespeare in Pasternak translation). And if we want (must!) replay the results of the Cold war as the USSR once outplayed the results for Russia of the First world war, the lessons of history need not only to know and learn, they need to be used as an organizational weapon in the information, psychohistorical war.

With the end of the Napoleonic wars, Russia became Britain’s No. 1 opponent on the continent, and the British began to prepare to eliminate this competitor

In the 1820s was launched psychohistorical (information) program “Russophobia”, which was morally and ideologically prepare all Western Europeans to participate in the British struggle against Russia, the culmination of which in the XIX century. was the Crimean war – the first all-Western war against Russia. Its result was a reduction of Russia’s influence in Europe and some strengthening of France’s position of Napoleon III, but at the same time Russia has retained the status of one of the five great European powers and continued to resist the UK in Central Asia. To change this situation, the British took care to create a continental counterweight to Russia, which at the same time could cut and Napoleon III, who showed increasing independence. Such a counterweight was to be United around Prussia Germany.

In 1870-1871, Prussia defeated France. The rapid victory of the Germans even then caused some surprise among his contemporaries – they were not so much stronger than the French militarily. Over time, the situation became clear: the defeat was largely the result of betrayal. The latter was due to the fact that the “brothers” from the Masonic lodges of great Britain, France and Germany agreed – and the fate of the Third Empire was decided. The British were able to triumph. And here the Germans gave them an extremely unpleasant surprise, the consequences of which largely determined the course of European and world history for almost eight decades.

Having finished with the French, the Germans United their (continental) Masonic lodges, which had previously been in a separate form to some extent under the control of the British (island) lodges, in one major superlog – “Geheime Deutschland” (“secret Germany”) and thus not only got out of their control, but made an application for an independent game in the world processes. For the first time (and, incidentally, the only time in history), Anglo-Saxon supranational structures of world governance and coordination were challenged on a national basis. The power of this challenge was reinforced by the national political position of the German ruling class and the growing economic power of the Second Reich, while Britain in the 1870s the peak of its political and economic hegemony in the world has passed.

British public opinion, not knowing about the Masonic background of the Franco-Prussian war, the victory of the Germans and so frightened to such an extent that in 1871 saw the light of the story of Colonel J. Chesney, “the Battle of Dorking”. The plot is simple: the Germans landed in England and start a war. Even for 10-15 years before such a Briton and could not come to mind, but life changed.

So, the Second Reich created a two-circuit system of power in one, a single country – before that, only the British had a two-circuit structure of power. Although the “treacherous Albion” threat realized immediately, in the 1870s, the British were not up to Germany: the situation in the middle East, the Russian-Turkish war and the Big game did not allow them to address the German issue. Meanwhile, Germany was building up its power, the Russian-German Union was forming, and the economic situation in the UK was not improving.

In the 1880s, the British elite faced two closely related issues – German and Russian. The growth of Germany, the “German spirit” had to be stopped at all costs, but the Russian resources had to be put under control. And, of course, it was impossible to allow the realization of the nightmare of the British – continental Russian-German Union. Moreover, the British could only stop the Germans with the help of Russia by using it (and then, by using it, bring it to its knees, as they tried to do in 1917-1918). As noted by the remarkable Russian geo-politician E. A. Edrikhin-Vandam, the British solution of the German question “may not a single combat of England and Germany in the North sea and the pan-European war with participation of Russia and under the condition that if the latter would assume, at least three-quarters of the total burden of war on land.” Note a critical detail: at the end of the XIX century, the very existence of the British Empire and its leadership has largely become dependent on the destruction of Germany and Russia, but a means of destruction could only be conflict between them. Tied tight knot Russian-German question became the Central question of the existence of the British, and from a certain point in the American elite in their globalist aspirations. The globalist and Imperial principles of the organization of space are incompatible, especially when the Imperial principle is embodied by the white, Christian, but not Protestant-Catholic, and Orthodox and besides non-capitalist in fact civilization – Russia.

The solution of the German question by the British rested on the European war, which had to be somehow caused, and the need to create an Alliance with Russia. Given the half-century Anglo-Russian confrontation, even the Treaty of 1887 on Afghanistan, concluded after the panjdeh Incident (1885), which almost led to war, was not enough for the Foundation of the new Union. In addition, the British sought to clamp the Germans in ticks, and this needed France as an ally of great Britain and Russia. But the fact of the matter is that France at that time had strained relations with Russia and even more strained – with the UK. And the British found a strong move: to come to an Alliance with Russia through an Alliance with France, which previously will enter into an Alliance with Russia. This scheme was divided into several moves.

Apparently, the final decision on the defeat of Germany, the British took no later than 1888 (economic problems propped up), and the work began to boil; looking ahead, I note that at this time the Rothschild man Cecil Rhodes began to create a closed management organization of a new type. First, we had to work on the Franco-Russian Union. The Pope had to convince the French to move towards Russia. He hardly willingly took up the case, but at that time the Vatican is pretty indebted to the Rothschilds, had to work. The Russian-French rapprochement was also facilitated by the post-Bismarck deterioration of German-Russian relations – partly objective, partly the result of the actions of the British Agency of influence in Russia, closely associated with British bankers. In 1892-1893 the result – the Franco-Russian Union – was obvious. Well, the situation of great Britain on the world stage was complicated so much that Rhodes spoke about the need to create a single Anglo-American establishment and engaged in the creation of fundamentally new closed supranational structures of world coordination and management, more adequate to the new era than Freemasonry, on the one hand, and the German superlage and other closed structures – on the other. One of these new structures has become a society under the discreet name “We” (“We”), or “Group” (“The group” – there is still); it was followed by others, such as the Milner society (“Round table”), which grew out of the “Group” and became at some point its core. The new structure is actively involved in the salvation of great Britain by the destruction of Germany, with its two circuits of power (by the way, the Germans were also on alert, creating neorganika structures and corporations are a new type) and the destruction of Russia.

The next step in Britain’s long-term strategy was to push France into an Alliance with Albion. To do this, it was necessary to demonstrate to the French that the Russians are not so strong and should not rely too much on them in the confrontation with Germany. And for this, in turn, it was necessary to really weaken Russia, but not in the European zone – there it will still be useful, and, so to speak, “on the distant shores.” For example, in the far East. This Russian-Japanese war (1904-1905) preceded the conclusion of the Anglo-Japanese Treaty (1902), which played a significant role in determining the outcome of the Japanese-Russian war, in which the British actively helped the Japanese. Similarly, “played” and the Americans, acting against Russia. It is significant that the favorite target for shooting at the shooting range of President T. Roosevelt, which in us policy begins a turn to a new relationship with Britain, was a portrait of the Russian Emperor Nicholas II.

EVERYTHING YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT THE BRITISH ELITE

The British achieved their goal: after the Japanese-Russian war, the frightened French went to an Alliance with Britain. Russian British agents of influence, which disrupted the Russian-German rapprochement after Björk, also pushed for an Alliance with the British, which after the war with Japan and in the presence of Russian-French and Franco-English unions seemed logical. In 1907, the Russian-English Union was issued what went down in history as “Entente” – “Entente”, or “Heartfelt consent”. To heart there is was very far, especially since Britain in fact did not take on any commitments, leaving France and Russia one-on-one with Germany, and it was undisputed success of British diplomacy, or rather, those forces that are behind the scenes directed its development, preparing large-scale war, new ReDeal History. And it makes sense to say a little more about these forces and look at what is said above, on the other hand, and from a different angle, and then we will return to 1907-1908.

In the 1870s and 1880s, it became clear that Freemasonry as the dominant organizational form of closed supranational forms of coordination and management did not work, not adequately to the modern world.

Moreover, it split into two opposing camps, one of which – German – was:

– first, nationally oriented and illiberal, which clearly violated the liberal-cosmopolitan principles of Freemasonry (the so-called “Prussian capitalism”, which has some “PRA-communitarian” features – approx. ed.);

– second, was clearly opposed by the UK and its lodges, as an island, and continental. Before the British ruling class, which for almost two centuries somehow controlled all or almost all the Masonic lodges of Europe, the task of creating a fundamentally new form of organization of closed supranational structures of coordination and management, supported by British power, was acute.

But that was just the problem: for those tasks which had to deal with a new closed (“secret”) structure (or structures) of a single British power wasn’t enough, Albion’s “designers” need turned in the only direction in which they could be deployed in the United States. They saw the way out in strengthening the Anglo-American (Anglo-Saxon) unity – financial,economic and political, up to the formation of the Anglo-American establishment, of course, mainly secret.

Only such a subject could solve the “pentagonal” (“pentagram”) problem:

– to put under control the us finances, thus creating a single Anglo-Saxon financial system; – to crush Germany (and other European and Eurasian empires);
– to appropriate Russian resources, weakening, and even better completely destroying Russia;
– to unleash the Eurasian, and even better world war and thus eliminating competitors;
– to establish world domination of the Anglo-Saxons as a special (high) race under the auspices of the world created by them (supranational) government.

The initiator of the creation of a new subject of the world game, the subject is not just a supranational European, and already world governance made Cecil Rhodes, which stood for the Rothschilds. “On a winter day in February 1891, three people had a Frank conversation in London. The consequences of this conversation were of great importance to the British Empire and the world at large.” So begins an interesting study of the “Anglo-American establishment” brilliant historian Carol Quigley. The three men in question are three staunch British imperialists: Cecil Rhodes, journalist and scout William stead (steed) and Reginald Balliol Brett (later Lord Asher, confidant first to Queen Victoria and then to Edward VII and George V). The Troika met to discuss the creation of a secret organization that should take over the real leadership of the foreign (and in many ways domestic) policy of the UK, to strengthen the British Empire in the new conditions (the German challenge), connecting to the process of strengthening the United States and creating something like a single Anglo-American establishment that dominates the world. It was meant simultaneously domination of “Anglo-Saxon race” (the doctrine of racism was in detail developed in the second half of XIX – the beginning of XX century). it is in the UK, not in Germany, which later implemented the British developments in practice) and the dominance of the British ruling class with its socio-political and ideological and intellectual traditions.

The idea of a secret Anglo-American organization was formulated by Rhodes in 1877 in his first will (wills were seven, because the ultracolonizer was quite flimsy health), and the conspiracy is mentioned in five of them. Rhodes formulated the purpose of the organization as follows: “the Spread of British rule in the world, improving the system of emigration from the United Kingdom and the colonization by British subjects of all lands where livelihoods can be acquired by energy, labor and enterprise… ultimately the return of the United States of America as an integral part of the British Empire, the consolidation of the entire Empire, the introduction of a system of colonial representation in the Imperial Parliament, which can contribute to the cohesion of the divided members of the Empire, and, finally, the Foundation of such a great power, which will make war impossible and will promote the best interests of humanity.”

Rhodes chose the Jesuits as a model for the organization and functioning of the secret society. In his last two wills, the society is not mentioned: being already very famous, Rhodes did not want to draw attention to him. The members of the group (called the “Group”), which was divided into two circles – internal (“Society of the elected”) and external (“Association of assistants”), were active in the fields of politics, journalism, science and education.

The Group and Milner paid special attention to the media. Thus, they established control over a large part of the British press. “Group” approved the fact that Alfred Harmsworth (“their man”) became in 1908 the owner of the most important of the British Newspapers – “times”, which immediately gained unprecedented access to the Affairs of the ministries of defense, foreign Affairs, colonies. In addition to the “times” under the control of Harmsworth (and hence the Milner – Rhodes organization died of a heart attack in 1902) a lot of “mass” press. It is not surprising that the “Group” helped Harmsworth become Lord Northcliffe. The times has become the mouthpiece of a “Group” but from 1910 began publishing the quarterly “The Round Table”. The magazine had to influence those who form public opinion, to determine the agenda. In addition, the “Group” had a substantial impact on the journals, “Quarterly Review”, “The Economist” and “Spectator”.

Closer to the beginning of the world war, the “Group”, relying on generals and officers, many of whom served in South Africa, significantly strengthened its positions in the military sphere.

The strategy of the society (group) was simple: first, to win over people with abilities and position and bind them to the bloc through either marriage bonds or a sense of gratitude for promotion and titles; second, influence through those involved in public policy, mainly by holding high positions by members of the group, which are as protected from the influence of the public as possible, and sometimes are simply hidden from it.

The creation of the Rhodes – Milner organization Quigley considered “one of the most important facts of the history of the twentieth century.” Its members skillfully concealed its existence, because being prominent representatives of the old privileged class, they understood perfectly well: the real, i.e. secret power is much more important and effective than the external form. The ideological and intellectual center of the organization and – in the future – the center of training of political and intellectual elite of the Anglo-Saxon race of masters became Oxford.

Rhodes managed to lay a strong Foundation for the structure, which was to become an organizational weapon of world governance of a narrow group of British-American elite, and appointed five Trustees who were to further develop the cause of life – his and the Rothschilds. These were Lord Nathaniel Rothschild, Lord rosbury, Earl grey, Alfred Bight, Leander Star Jameson (Rhodes’s lover) and Alfred Milner, who were destined to play a huge, largely decisive role in the development of supranational structures of coordination and management. As noted by George. Doherty and j, McGregor, together with the five leaders of the secret society, whose goal was to create a secret elite of the world-Rhodes, sted, Escher, Rothschild and Milner – was a fundamentally new force in British politics, born in the 1880s-1890s, but they actively cooperated with representatives of traditional aristocratic families, dominated in Westminster and often closely associated with the monarchy. For example, Robert Gascoigne-Cecil, the third Marquis of Salisbury, who controlled the Conservative party or Archibald primrose, the fifth Earl rosbury – almost complete owner of the Liberal party. Doherty and McGregor emphasize that British political life was controlled by half a dozen families, often married, but the era forced them to “recruit” new blood – mainly from Oxford Balliol and new College.

Thus, the secret organization led by the “five” (but not Cambridge, and abruptly) became the shock part of the old British class and at the same time the core of the new world Anglo-American elite, various segments of which are also firmly linked Jewish capital. Once again, the resumption of ties with the United States and its global strengthening was the Central point of the Rhodes program – without this, the dominance of the Anglo-Saxon race and the British model in the world of the twentieth century.

In the early 1890s, badly battered by the recession of 1873-1896, great Britain needed funds. The Group was even more in need of an independent financial source, and its members turned to South Africa. In 1889, on the model of the East India company was created by the British South African company, whose task was to provoke a war with the Boers and capture the gold mines in the Transvaal. However, an attempt to organize in 1895 the revolt of the British (“Outlander”) against the Boers and start a war failed, causing reputational damage to the Rhodes, and then took over the case appointed a Commissioner of the Cape colony, Milner. His goal, as previously “sweet couple” Rhodes and jameson, was provoke war. The “group” neutralized the influence of the Minister of colonies Joseph Chamberlain, who did not want a war with the Boers, started a war and brought it to a victorious end. However, the reputation of the Milner was pretty spoiled by his role in the organization of concentration camps for civilians, which killed 32 thousand Boer women and children.

In any case, however, the “Group” broke the jackpot, which sought and could begin to implement for a decade hatched plan of war with Germany, a war that could not be won without continental allies – France and Russia. After signing in 1904 the Anglo-French Alliance “Group” began to actively support the revanchist-minded groups in France, joining with them in close contact. Immediately after the end of the Russian-Japanese war, unleashed by the Japanese with the active participation and assistance of the British, began processing Russia. Understanding the geopolitical need of Russia in a real naval port in the unfrozen sea and depriving it of the opportunity to create such a port in the far East, the British began to seduce the Russian elite with Constantinople and the Straits, explaining that the only means of gaining control over them is the war with Germany, i.e., inciting the Russian-German conflict, naturally in Alliance with Britain and France. The Anglo-Russian Convention (formally) on Persia removed the last obstacle to the formation of the anti – German Union, and closely associated with the “Group” (in fact – its high – ranking agent in Russia), Alexander Izvolsky helped the “Group” and Edward VII to disrupt the björk agreement of the king and the Kaiser-for this “Group” will contribute to the appointment of his Minister of foreign Affairs of the Russian Empire (1906-1910), and when it is needed-will transfer to France as a Russian Ambassador (1910-1916); at the same time, Albion “group” began to actively move Churchill and Lloyd George.

Izvolsky, who received from the “Group” not only career support, but also money, did everything for the indignation of the Balkan States, especially Serbia and Bosnia, against Germany and Austria-Hungary. In Russia, he was sharply criticized and even ridiculed for it, but the support of a loyal ally of the “Group” Edward VII always saved him. It should be emphasized that in the deadly game started by the “Group” Izvolsky played on the side not of Russia, but of the “Group”, i.e. of a certain segment of the British elite, representing the Russian cell in the network woven by them.

Izvolsky was not the only European politician, “tightened” to the outer circle of the “Group” – selection was conducted in other countries, especially in France (for example, Delcasse and many other members of the government), not to mention the vastness of the British Empire and the UK itself. In this widely used weaknesses and vices. So, Lloyd George got into the network because of his love of “beautiful life” and insatiable sexual appetite.

And, of course, great attention was paid to the United States, Back in 1902 in the UK was created “Society of pilgrims” (“Pilgrim society”), whose main goal was to develop friendly relations with the United States. “Rhodes scholarship”, most of which received and receive Americans, prepared not very large in number, but very influential Pro-British-minded segment of the American elite. A small, but again very influential, was the British-oriented segment of us financiers. Economic power in America in the early twentieth century. it belonged to several family dynasties concentrated in new York, primarily the Morgans and Rockefellers. The Rothschilds were closely associated with the Morgans, as well as with the banking families of kun, Leeb, Schiff, Paul (Paul) Warburg, through them influencing the financial and political situation in the United States and, of course, faced with the Rockefellers.

Another area of serious influence of the Rothschilds was Russia

By 1914, 80% of Russian debts belonged to French banks, and these banks, like the Bank of France, were controlled by a very small group, the main ones being the Rothschilds. London and Paris Rothschilds provided loans to Russia, at the same time sponsoring through third and fourth companies of revolutionaries and liberals, working to weaken and – in the future – the destruction of the Russian state. It must be said that the Rothschilds, as a rule, preferred to act, using as a screen other companies or even chains of companies – this is their family handwriting; therefore, few people know what and how really control the Rothschilds, and some even naively believe that this family has long been in the background.

To destroy the US Rothschilds and their Anglo-American partners were not going to: the US – not Germany and not Russia. Here was involved a different scheme: the establishment of control over the us finances, and therefore over America as a state, i.e. partial deprivation of US sovereignty. To this Anglo-American bankers were several decades, physically destroying those presidents who resisted it – Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley. To achieve the establishment of private banks ‘ control over the money supply, in 1907 the bankers provoked a financial crisis in the United States, but it did not solve the problem, and the bankers, retreating (“who will jump the furthest, will be able to jump again” – Confucius), began a more thorough preparation, which required the appearance in the presidential chair of the near puppet, all obliged benefactors-financiers.

In 1907-1908, the “masters of the world game”, the players and their immediate entourage completed preliminary preparations for war as a means of establishing world control, lined up to attack, like deadly torpedoes, placed “stones” on key points, like players in weizi/go.

The attack was to develop in several directions:

– completion of the operation to establish control over the us money supply through the creation of a fundamentally new financial organization, adequate to the new crypto-political structures of the Anglo-American establishment; it was the “innovative” financial organization that was necessary to Finance the Great war;

– intensification of inciting Russia to Germany and Austria-Hungary with the active use of the Balkans as a zone for the future of casus belli;

– provoking Germany to a military conflict – so that later all the blame could be blamed on the Germans, paying them for the “treachery” of the early 1870s (out of control of the British lodges);

– creating the impression of the Germans about the complete neutrality of the UK in the event of a military conflict “flank” (Russia, France) powers with the “Central” (Germany, Austria-Hungary), ie luring Germany into the British trap;

– at the same time, active work in the Balkans to create a trap there for all continental powers, especially for the Russian and two German empires, i.e. work on the implementation of Bismarck’s prediction that if a new war breaks out in Europe, it will happen because of some stupidity in the Balkans; it was thus about the preparation of this stupidity, and in such a way that it looked stupid, accident, which could accuse anyone, but not the British.

Solving all these problems, the “Group” has expanded its network in Europe, actively including in it the Russian diplomats – who became an Ambassador in France, Izvolsky, the Ambassador in Serbia N. Hartwig; contacts were established with the new Minister of foreign Affairs of the Russian Empire Sergei Sazonov. It’s hard to tell until the end whether he understood all the details of the game, but the essence of the game and the fact that his “play”, he could not understand, but prefer not to enter into conflict with powerful players (especially since serious support from the king was not); however, to play along with the arsonists, he did not want and did not intend. Let me repeat: isvolsky and Hartwig worked in Russia, where war with Germany was not needed, and to a “Group” (as her “outer circle”, “figures”), which was needed for the war and who decided to impose it to the whole world, including the part of the British establishment and political class, which did not want war. In this regard, the First world war, its beginning is a triumph, the victory of a supranational Alien and Predator in one orgflacon over the States of Europe and America (USA); the winners benefited to the extent that they were either a “home port” or allies of the “Group” (this did not apply to Russia, it was originally a target, which was put on a mask with the inscription “ally”). But we got ahead of ourselves.

So, in 1907-1908, after almost 20 years of play, Britain and the “Group” gave themselves the trump cards, preparing the stage for the Russian-German war. Now it was only necessary to set fire to the fuse, rubbing his hands, like Gaidar’s bad Boy rejoice: “Something is now going to jerk.” The question, “where is rush?”, in fact, did not stand. Clear where – in the Balkans. It has already been mentioned above that at the turn of the 1870s and 1880s Bismarck warned: a new war in Europe will break out because of some nonsense in the Balkans. Especially, I will add, if “stupidity” is well prepared. And it began to prepare immediately after the Russian-Turkish war of 1877-1878, and after 1907 the process was sharply intensified on the basis that was created for two decades. And by the end of this period, some information could not be leaked. Thus, speaking at the beginning of 1914 at a meeting of the Geographical society in Paris, the future dictator of Poland, and then the socialist Y. Pilsudski said that soon a war would break out in Europe between the blocs, in which Austria-Hungary, Germany and Russia would be defeated (Pilsudski made a mistake only in the order).

The war in Yugoslavia the mid 1990-ies the writer O. Markeev called “model” in the sense that it tested certain models of action in emergency situations, possible future actions against the multi-ethnic and multi-religious (and Yugoslavia), Russia, was the recruitment and the elimination of others, laid the scout and sparsity for future operations. Most of all, Americans, British, Germans, and – to a lesser extent – representatives of middle Eastern and middle Eastern countries were quick. Russian-Turkish war of 1877-1878 and “afterword” to her, too, were a time of laying the nets for future operations. The pawners were mainly the British, for the exploration of which the Balkans were a traditional zone of activity – this is very well written by W. steed (sted) in a two-volume “Parliamentarian for Russia”, published in the late XIX century. the British (in some competition with the Russian and Austro-Hungarian intelligence) created in the South of the Balkans, its network of secret organizations, including Serbian terrorist, which they used “in the dark” (or “half-dark”).

By 1912, the secret Anglo-American elite twice unsuccessfully tried to provoke Germany into war; these failures forced the “Group” to finally concentrate on the Balkans as a place of future explosion, and more precisely – on Serbia. Why Serbia?

First, because of its ties with Russia – manipulation “team Izvolsky” on this line could cause the Russian-German conflict.

Secondly, Serbia was literally Packed with British agents.

Third, among the Balkan countries, Serbia was the most dependent on foreign capital, and therefore there was a place to roam the Europeans in General and the British in particular. Here’s what they write about it. Doherty and George. McGregor: “…the Balkan countries had neither the infrastructure nor the investment capital to develop their natural resources. Romania and Serbia were particularly dependent on international bankers, resulting in real wealth floating away to London, Paris and Vienna. Before doing anything for the development of local industry, European financiers sucked everything they could from the Serbian national economy. Banks used local agents, influential politicians, representatives of the legislative and Executive authorities as intermediaries between the European exchange and Serbia. Lev Trotsky, then correspondent of the Kiev thought in the Balkans, wrote: “the Same door (in Serbia. – AF) leads to the Ministry and the Directorate of the Bank. […] Serbia was carefully prepared for a very special role. It was ideally located as the epicenter of the seismic explosion, which was to destroy the old order.” It was here that the representatives of the “Group” – British and Russian-were operating. Nicholas Hartwig, Ambassador to Serbia, who in fact controlled the Pashic government, was closely associated with Colonel D. Dmitrievich (APIs) – the head of the semi-Masonic-semi-terrorist organization of Serbian nationalists “Black hand”, a participant in the murder of king Alexander in 1903 and (according to the official version) one of the organizers of the murder of Franz Ferdinand in 1914.

It is Izvolsky and Hartwig in the company of Bushier created the Balkan League, uniting the Balkan countries in an Alliance objectively directed against the allies of Germany – Turkey and Austria-Hungary. The results were not slow to wait – the First Balkan war against Turkey and the Second Balkan war against Bulgaria, the traditional then (and today, after the destruction of the USSR) ally of the Germans. However, in both cases, neither in 1912 nor in 1913, the Kaiser did not succumb to provocation, preferring diplomacy. In addition, he believed in the possibility to negotiate with the British about neutrality (in 1941). in a similar trap, apparently, Hitler will fall – history repeats itself), especially since the British did everything to convince him of this. In February 1912, Haldane went on a visit to Germany, during which he convinced (in fact deceived) the Kaiser that the Second Reich may well conclude a Treaty of neutrality with the UK – as they say, “I see no obstacles.” At least, so thought Wilhelm, processed Haldane.

In the same 1912, American bankers, many of whom were active members Of the society of pilgrims managed to push their puppet Wilson into the White house, who in the first year of his presidency (1913) signed a decree on the creation of the Federal reserve system (fed) – the money supply became the property and under the control of a limited number of private banks. Now it was possible to start a world war – it was already a question of technology: a shot in Sarajevo ordered? Get. And Franz Ferdinand, by the way, the enemy of the war with the Slavs, killed along with his wife. Kills a member of the black hand. For some reason they forget that two days later in Paris they kill another enemy of the war – a politician of the European level, a socialist Zhores. And a month earlier, Rasputin received a severe (planned – fatal) wound from a knife strike. Later he will say that if he was not in the hospital, and at court, “dad” (so he called Nicholas II) would not fight – he Rasputin, would be able to convince him (I think, really, would be able).

Gavrila Princip’s attempt to commit suicide immediately after the Archduke’s murder failed: potassium cyanide failed. This was as it should be: the killer-Serb was necessary for testimony, for the investigation, for the court, i.e. to foment the conflict. Well, after the moor did his job, you can die – the Principle died in 1918 from tuberculosis in prison. Hartwig died suddenly in 1914 at the Austrian Embassy in Belgrade (sic!); APIs was shot in 1917; in 1917 the same year mysteriously disappeared correspondence Hartwig with Sazonov. Well, in 1919, as soon as he began his memoirs, Izvolsky suddenly died. The dead are silent (however, not always).

Immediately after the shot in Sarajevo, representatives of the “Group” began a manipulative game in Vienna and St. Petersburg. British politicians and the press – attention – clearly spoke on the side of Austria-Hungary, supported her claims to Serbia and condemned the Serbs. The Austro-Hungarians had the impression that European public opinion or, as they say now, “the opinion of the international community” was on their side. Moreover, the British press described the murder as an act of aggression by Serbia, to which Austria-Hungary is simply obliged to respond. The center of the most important political decisions for Europe became in this situation St. Petersburg, more precisely, the British skillfully moved it there.

The task of the group’s agents – Izvolsky and poincaré, who were actively assisted by the French Ambassador to Russia Palaeologus and British Ambassador Buchanan, was to ensure a tough position of St. Petersburg towards Vienna. Sazonova all attempts to mitigate the situation – he knew that Russia does not need war, moreover, it is dangerous for her – crossed this “team”. And the king was acting sluggish, as if surrendering to the will of the rock. The role of “rock” performed “Group” and its agents.

To provoke Russia needed in order to provoke aggressive actions of Germany: “Group”, gray, Buchanan and Co. were aware that in the UK few people want war and war sentiment will not arise as long as Germany does not show the aggressiveness of Russia and France. In turn, this manifestation depended on the position of the UK. If she had declared her solidarity with the “flank” powers, the Kaiser would not have risked any war, and the long-term efforts of the arsonists and conspirators would have gone to waste. Therefore, the “Group”, Edward VII and foreign Minister grey has done everything to convince William of the British neutrality; grey constantly talked about the possibility of the conflict as a “conflict of four”, thus eliminating Britain from among its members; British journalists and parliamentarians wrote and spoke (many of them honestly) about Germany and Austria-Hungary in a calm tone, thereby lulling the Germans.

The “group” managed to misinform many British parliamentarians on the question of how the situation in Europe is really developing and how explosive it is. Meanwhile, by July 25, 1914, gray already knew that Russia was ready for war, because the actions of Austria-Hungary and their skillful interpretation of the directed agents of the “Group” did their job: July 26, responding to the partial mobilization of Austria-Hungary (in response to Serbian mobilization), the king gave the order for partial mobilization of the Russian army. Despite this, lulled by the British (how, they will remain neutral!) Kaiser was confident that the conflict between Austria-Hungary and Serbia will not go beyond the local framework and will not become serious. But the mess was quite serious, and Wilhelm was already trapped, and he did not even know to what extent.

In the “Group” knew that in case of war with France the Germans move through Belgium, thereby violating its neutrality and providing a casus belli against yourself. But they understood that the Germans understand this and can try to play differently. In this case, the “Group” had a “plan number 2”, which did not leave Germany a single chance to avoid the war and be accused of unleashing it.

For some time prior to the outbreak of the First world war, the group’s agents purchased weapons and ammunition from Germany and transported them to Ireland, where they armed both Ulster Protestants and Catholics in the South of the country, preparing an “armed uprising of the Irish against Britain and Protestants.” In the organization of the uprising would have blamed Germany (whose weapon?) – and this would be a reason for war. However, the “plan № 2” was not needed, everything happened differently, and the decisive role at the last stage, in the opening of the lid of the “storehouse of the abyss”, in fueling the European conflict, which eventually turned into a world, was played by the British foreign Minister Edward gray, and helped him another person “Group” – Lloyd George.

The majority of the members of the Cabinet of Ministers of great Britain were against the war, and the “Group” was supposed to circumvent, to beat them. Not only have permission, but do not put the Cabinet on notice, Churchill began the mobilization of the Navy; Prime Minister Asquith sent Haldane to the war office for the mobilization of the army, Field grey assured Cambon that Britain will protect France against aggression. On August 3, 1914, gray gave a completely false speech in the House of Commons that the Ministry of foreign Affairs had done everything to keep the peace. Despite their support for gray’s bellicose statements, members of the House of Commons still declared the need for debate, but they were abruptly stopped by Asquith. Nevertheless, it was decided that a debate on gray’s speech was necessary. After the break, gray immediately left Parliament and sent a tough ultimatum to Germany, knowing what the parliamentarians did not know – that the German invasion of Belgium in response to the actions of France has already begun.

When the House met to debate against supporters of the world was made by a member of a “Group” by A. Balfour. He said that there was not enough quorum for the debate, and they would make a bad impression on the public. The question of war was resolved, and on August 4 George V at Buckingham Palace declared war on Germany. It was a surprise and a blow to Wilhelm, a kind of “black mark”: “It’s done, Willie.” Now he could stomp his feet as much as he wanted, spit out curses at the “dastardly tradesmen” – the trap slammed shut, Germany was at war on two fronts with three leading European powers.

English historian N. Ferguson clumsily tries to explain the emergence of the First world mistakes of great Britain and its diplomats. No, my friend, this is not a mistake, but the implementation of a clear plan, bringing to the end of the line, conceived in the 1880s. It is clear that N. Ferguson, who previously wrote a panegyric biography of the Rothschild family, is trying to shield the UK, you can only sympathize – hard man earns his bread, it is difficult to prove the unprovable. Who is not blind, he sees: it is Britain, the international Union of Anglo-American bankers, organized in clubs and lodges to the brim filled the bowl, drop the last, overflowing drop in which he was able to force simpleton Wilhelm. I must say that the Anglo-Saxons in the early twentieth century was very lucky: the head of the States of the targets they had two narrow-minded, inadequate modern world rulers, Wilhelm II and Nicholas II. And if about Wilhelm is almost forgotten, with Nicholas II otherwise – there are still historians who are trying to “sing” this incompetent ruler as a major statesman.

Already August 1914 (not to mention the war in General) proved the correctness of EA Edrikhin-Vandam, who predicted the success of Britain in the fight against Germany only if the British side will be Russia, which will drag three-quarters of the military burden. In August 1914, the offensive in East Prussia, conducted before the mobilization, Russia saved Paris and France. If this had not happened, the war – with the defeat of France – would have ended differently, perhaps not with the victory of Germany, but not with its defeat.

True to the plan of the organization of mutual destruction of Germany and Russia during the war, from the end of 1916, when it became clear that the war was won and Germany would be defeated, the British turned to the solution of the Russian question. They supported the conspiracy against Nicholas II (revealing that killing Rasputin was sent the killer is from London); without this support the conspiracy hardly would take place – if the British could simply destroy it. But in the event of the overthrow of the monarchy in Russia, they received a grateful Pro-British government, which not only would not dare to demand what was promised to Nicholas II (Constantinople and the Straits), but became an obedient tool in the hands of the “Group” and would completely turn Russia into a raw material appendage of the West. In 1918, the Russian, German and Austro-Hungarian empires no longer existed. The Versailles system, created by the political servants of the Rothschilds, Rockefellers and other banking families seemed a complete triumph of the plans of the Anglo-American establishment, Anglo-American clubs, lodges, closed societies. But Hegel is not accidental, wrote about “the cunning of history.”

The first world war contributed to the strengthening of closed groups of world coordination and management of the Anglo-Saxon elite and the strengthening of Anglo-American relations on the closed line with the growth of contradictions on the open line – between Britain and the United States as States. In 1916 Milner’s team, his grown-up “kindergarten” finally became the core of the “Group”. Arnold Joseph Toynbee, Jr., a historian and scout, played an increasingly active role in it. It was from the ideas of Toynbee Milner learned the installation, according to which the expansion of the Empire and the integration of English-speaking elites are necessary in order to continue to exist British way of life, the way of life of the British ruling class as revealing the best and highest abilities of mankind.

After the war, the institutionalization of the Anglo-American elite continued. First, the Royal Institute of international relations was established in London. The true founder of the Institute was Curzon, and was founded at a joint conference of British and American experts at the hotel “majestic” in 1919. the Staff of the Institute was a Council with the Chairman and two honorary secretaries and a small group of employees. Among the latter, the most significant figure was Arnold J. Toynbee, the nephew of Milner’s friend at the College of Belliol (Oxford University), in the future – the author of the famous 12-volume “A Study of History”and many other works, as well as coordinator of the British intelligence during the Second world war.

KIMO organized discussions and research groups, sponsored studies and published their results. The Institute published a “History of the peace conference” and published a “Journal” with records of the discussions, as well as an annual “Overview of international Affairs” compiled by its employees (primarily Toynbee) or members of the Milner group. Another Yearbook was the review of British Commonwealth relations, funded by a grant from the new York Carnegie Corporation. The Institute established branches in the dominions and even extended its influence to countries outside the Commonwealth – through the League of Nations Intellectual cooperation organization. From the time of the Czechoslovak crisis of September 1938, the RIIA became an informal adviser of the Ministry of foreign Affairs, and with the beginning of the Second world war officially turned in his research Department.

In 1924, the American equivalent of KIMO – the Council on foreign relations (CMR) was established in Washington. In addition to the RIIA and the CFR both in the UK and the USA, formed a club structure or otherwise associated with a “Group”. A good characteristic of the clubs of the Anglo-American elite was given by G. J. The drug, which defined them as “entrenched and self-replicating brotherhoods that ruled the Anglo-Saxon States: they were (and are) formed by a conglomerate of dynasties originating from the banking houses, the diplomatic corps, the officer caste and the ruling aristocracy. This conglomerate is still firmly woven into the fabric of modern “democracies”. Such “clubs” operate, manage, educate and think as a compact, closely-knit oligarchy, attracting the middle class to cooperate, which it uses as a filter between itself and cannon fodder – commoners. Indeed, in the so-called democratic choice, which is now the most ingenious model of oligarchic rule, the electorate still has no influence, and political ability is nothing but the name of the persuasive force needed to build “consensus” around vital decisions that are not made by the electorate.”

In the 1920s, the Anglo-American elite paid special attention to two countries – Russia and Germany

It follows, first, from makingeasy logic environment of a Eurasian array and prevent it from consolidating in a single or allied unit. Secondly, from the fact that Russia (USSR) and Germany at that time were two test sites, two experimental fields of development of two different brutal new forms of creating a new world order and technologies (primarily mass-manipulative) of its establishment. In Russia, the “Group” and its American “colleagues” established contact with the Bolsheviks, the international socialists; in Germany, she actively supported the policy, which will eventually become the national socialists. During the Civil war in Russia, the Bolsheviks of the international socialists arranged Anglo-Saxons more than the whites set to restore the Empire. The policy of world revolution was quite happy Finintern, because it was broken, undermined, weakened the national state, eliminating the obstacles in the path of commodity and financial circuits and providing conditions for the creation of Venice the size of Europe or even the world. It is clear that the revolutionaries and the bourgeoisie, the left and right globalists – the enemies, but in its own way the world revolution, destroying the state and erasing the state and political borders, brought into line the political organization of the capitalist system with the economic (world market without borders). Of course, the revolutionaries had their own goals, and the world elite – their own: the world-revolutionaries sought to organize a systemic crisis of capitalism and create a new system led by the world Communist government, and the supercapitalists used revolutionaries (as if looking into the future and looking “Matrix-2”) to deepen the crisis of the old structure and create a new structure of the former capitalist system, but without States, and led by the world government.

Describing today’s cooperation of radical globalists and radical Islamists, S. A. Goryainov writes: “In history, there are quite short periods when future opponents are forced to work together, solely for the sake of creating strong long-term foundations of a global conflict that will determine the world balance.” The situation of the 1920s with the opposition of radical globalists “left” and “right” was similar. And if the globalists and Islamists 2000-ies the enemy – the state in General, the left and right globalists 1920-1930-ies the enemy was a specific state – Stalin’s USSR, which broke the plans of both. From this point of view, the Trotskyist-Bukharin, left-right anti-Stalin bloc is not fiction or logical nonsense, but a reality conditioned by the dialectic of the development of capitalism and systemic anti-capitalism.

The role of the shock force (and firewood) of the world revolution was planned Soviet Russia, where after the October revolution of 1917 in power were the international socialists Lenin and Trotsky. However, after the end of the Civil war, the introduction of NEP, the formation of the partapparat as a special subject of Russian history and with the beginning of the struggle for power in the Bolshevik elite, the situation changed: Stalin’s team, especially after the failure in 1923 of the revolution in Germany began to gradually curtail the course of the world revolution, moving to the construction of “socialism in one, a single country.” This course won in 1925-1927, the Imperial socialists were stronger than the international socialists, because they expressed the interests of the Big system “Russia”. A Large system of “Capitalist world” in its post-war state, torn by contradictions, could not impose the will of Soviet Russia – the USSR. So the team of Stalin and the USSR for the first time thwarted the plans of the globalists – left and right. Now the way to world control for the closed structures of the Anglo-Saxon elite lay in the way of implementation of the project “world revolution”, and the project “world war”, and the decisive role here was given to Germany, or rather its nationalists, who had to create a new Reich, to crush the Soviet Union and this crush themselves, ultimately working on the Anglo-Saxon clubs.

Nationalists of Germany, the Anglo-Saxons began to be interested in 1919, the British and American intelligence contacted with Hitler, but so to speak in a quiet mode, in the “active standby”, in reserve. Since the end of 1927 (suppression of the Trotskyist putsch on November 8, 1927 in Moscow) contacts intensified, and 1929 became a turning point. That year was one of the most important in the twentieth century. The expulsion of Trotsky from the USSR Stalin “explain” to the Comintern and Fininternu that return to the project “world revolution” will not only “Red Empire”, but we’ll see. In Russian, “right-wing globalists” began to prepare a new world war, for this purpose it was from 1929 to power in Germany led Hitler to Germany and the USSR, the Germans and the Russians once again clashed in a deadly battle, so that the German-Russian question, thus, received a final decision. In the same 1929 man who weighed on the scales of history, perhaps as much as Roosevelt, Churchill, Hitler and Mussolini combined – Director of the Central Bank of England Montague Norman began to close the British Empire from the outside world (the process ended in the summer of 1931), ie. first of all, from the US, from the Rockefellers, and they began to solve their problems, investing not only in the Third Reich, but also in the USSR.

Norman’s decision, dictated by a certain part of the Anglo-American bankers, paved the way to the great depression, and with it – to the war, during which the United States had to destroy not only the Third Reich, but the British Empire. However, first it was necessary that the war broke out in Europe, for this purpose, and began to rapidly create what GJ. The drug was called “Hitler, Incorporated.” That is the Third Reich. Not only the Anglo-American closed structures, but also the German and French bankers and Industrialists and, of course, historically closely connected with London “Swiss gnomes”were vitally interested in the creation of this structure.

One of the tasks (of course, not the only one) of the world economic crisis of 1929-1933 was to create conditions for Hitler’s coming to power in Germany. “No one will ever be able to find the key to understanding how Hitler rose and came to power, – G. J. said. Drug – if you do not understand the functioning of the traditional banking system and the nature of money. It is the lack of such understanding that leads to the fact that the most decisive events that led to the rise and coming to power of Nazism are blamed on the unfortunate coincidence of random circumstances in a crisis situation. But there are no such things as chance in history – good or bad – and the crisis never belongs to the number of natural disasters, but always reflects the lowest point of the economic situation in the cyclical processes caused by the relatively simple dynamics of money circulation.”

About the connection of sophisticated financial games of the 1920s, interesting and important in themselves, but are not the subject of this work, says a simple fact, which drew the attention of the same G. J. Preparation’s. Three months after Hitler was sworn in as Reich Chancellor on January 30, 1933, the Nazis called on the nicknamed “American” (behind him was a large Anglo-American business) Yalmar Schacht to lead the Reichsbank, and exactly 6 months later Montague Norman without explanation and apology publicly announced the sale of Nazi debt in the London markets.

From 1933 to 1938, Germany carried out the modernization of the economy and, naturally, the rearmament of the army. Corporations of the Third Reich – IG Farben and others prospered, but in most cases they were backed by American capital. About how American corporations, especially Rockefeller, invested in the economy of the Third Reich, as collaborated with him not only in the 1930s, but also during the war, as much until 1944, written so much that here it is unnecessary to write about it. I note only that investing in Germany, thus solving their economic problems and at the same time preparing it for a fight with the Soviet Union, American capital, especially the Rockefellers continued their struggle with the Rothschilds, preparing to weaken and undermine their offspring – the British Empire. One of the main goals of the United States, the Rockefellers in world war II was the dismantling of the British Empire. This was said of the Rockefellers, the same Allen DULLES. And, I must say, “Rockefellers – USA” the task was solved: if the First world war they won against the Rothschilds with a small margin, in the Second world won completely. This once again shows that the world elite does not constitute a single world government (this is a dream, a project), but represents a set of several clusters that are part of various supranational structures and are in a complex and contradictory relationship of cooperation and rivalry – sometimes very tough, if not cruel.

The British had an interest in the rise of Hitler, mainly political – to incite him to the USSR, and eventually in June 1941 they succeeded, but it had to work for almost all 1930-ies. The purpose of this work was the destruction of the USSR with the help of Hitler, and then the defeat of Germany, ie repetition of the scheme implemented during the First world war, but, as it turned out, primarily due to Stalin’s maneuver, not to the end.

Since the days of Versailles, writes H. G. wells. The drug, the British elite divided into three currents:

1) anti-Bolshevik;
2) Milner’s Round table group (i.e. the whole cluster of the Group). – AF.);
3) pacifiers.

Milner’s group was the true core of the Imperial monolith; it was closely associated with E. Simon, J. Smuts, publisher of the times J. Lawson, two key players of the mid – Lord Lothian (F. ker; when Secretary of Lloyd George as a representative of the “Group” played a more important role than the Prime Minister); Lord Halifax (E. wood). The presence of three groups, chief among which was a “Group” – the three masks of the British ruling class allowed him depending on the situation it is easy to move from one strategy to another, simulating the fight (victory and defeat) groups. However, often simulation turned into a real fight, and this further confused the situation. By signing an Alliance with Poland on January 26, 1934, Hitler showed that his main enemy was the USSR and that he was preparing to fight it in Alliance with anti-Soviet Poland. He knew perfectly well that such a step would entail the help of great Britain in the rise of German military power. Since 1935, despite the protests of France, the UK (here at the forefront put forward pacifiers) began to support the rearmament of Germany. However, “the anti-Nazi faction led by Churchill, using the funds of wealthy Jewish circles, has become a more compact and highly secret group known as “Focus” (G. J. Drug), but its impact on the British establishment, and even more so on European Affairs was minimal. Again to quote H. G. wells. To the drug: “the Goal of the British ruling elite remained the same – to keep Hitler in suspense, then winking at him, then driving away like an annoying fly.”

I agree with those researchers who called the mission of Lord Halifax (“the Group”) to Germany on November 19, 1937 a turning point in the chain of events that directly led to the Second world war. It was there and then that the closed British structures pushed the Fuhrer to war (although they pushed him to war with the USSR, and it turned out differently, but this was already “production costs”, especially since in the end Germany, as it was intended, was destroyed, and the USSR again failed, had to wait until 1991). Representatives of the “Group” carefully read “Mein Kampf” and spoke to Hitler in his language – and plebeian Hitler bought as a quarter of a century before, in 1912. patrician Royal blood Wilhelm (however, there is reason to believe that “Mein Kamp” was created not without the whispers of agents of the “Round table”: the English political intelligence, which has had a huge impact on the psychopath “Adolf aloizovicha” through a host of psychics – quack Eric Jan Hanussen (Hartmann-Chaim Steinsnyder), to the Satanist Aleister Crowley (the latter, incidentally, financed and close to the Trotsky family, a clan of bankers Rafalovich who took an active part in the collapse of the Russian Empire) – approx.ed.) . Halifax explained to the Fuhrer that the United Kingdom considered the Third Reich as a Bastion against communism and therefore did not object to the accession of Austria and Czechoslovakia to the Reich, but it should happen peacefully. Hitler correctly realized that peaceful means with the help of Western plutokratiyami and above all a Wheeler – UK, the reaction of the seat of France could not care.

The British were well aware that in order to fight the Soviet Union, Hitler must significantly increase its gold reserves, increase its military-industrial potential (Hitler’s own with all the economic success was not enough) and go to the border with the USSR. Joining the Reich of Austria solved the first problem, Czechoslovakia – the second and third. On March 3, Reich troops entered Austria, and on April 21, Hitler instructed Keitel to develop a plan for the invasion of Czechoslovakia. Hitler would never have done this if he was not confident in British support – the Czechoslovak army (34 divisions, 1 million people under gun) at that time was at least not weaker than the German, especially since the Wehrmacht would have to attack in very difficult conditions. Hitler also knew that in the two weeks following the annexation of Austria, the British made every effort to weaken, intimidate and demoralize Czechoslovakia.

On March 24, Chamberlain said that Britain would not help either the Czechoslovaks in case of an attack on them or France, if it decided to take the side of Czechoslovakia. The British press began to brand Czechoslovakia not just as an artificial state, but as a disgusting, racist, whose ugly attitude to the German-speaking population of the civilized world and above all the UK can no longer tolerate.

After the end of may Hitler, following the British scheme, set the date for the attack on Czechoslovakia – 1 October, not privy to the game plan the German generals, who assumed that the attack will lead to disaster, made a conspiracy. It was headed by the chief of the General staff Ludwig Beck, who brought to the attention of the British information about the conspiracy and the readiness in case of an attack on Czechoslovakia to overthrow the Fuhrer or even kill him – the attempt was scheduled for September 28, 1938. The British, who started the “Czechoslovak mess”, of course, not only did not support the naive German generals, but also thwarted their plans – thwarted the Munich agreement, signed on September 28, 1938.

However, this agreement can be considered as a contract only formally. In fact, it was something else, much bigger and more serious than a Treaty whose international legal nature is highly questionable. In fact, it was a blatant international robbery. First, it was actually a formally legalized act of aggression by four European powers – great Britain, Germany, Italy and France-aimed at dismembering an artificial but sovereign state, a member of the League of Nations. This act was to be the beginning of a new Eastern war in Europe, a kind of second edition of the Eastern (Crimean) war, smoothly flowing into the Second world war. Hitler himself stressed that the war in the East, i.e. with an eye on the USSR should begin a sudden operation against Czechoslovakia, i.e. the beginning of the Eastern campaign, he considered the capture of Czechoslovakia.

Second, the act of aggression actually created in Europe’s aggressive anti-Soviet bloc, a kind of “protonate” shadow the owner of which was the United Kingdom, “clubs”, “Lodge”, the “group” of its ruling class, and the striking force of the Third Reich.

Thirdly, the Munich-38 was objectively means of solving the British some internal political problems in Germany, in particular the failure of the conspiracy of the generals seeking to overthrow Hitler – he was too need bankers and Industrialists of the West to crush the Soviet Union and the destruction of national States in Europe. The regime of Hitler’s power with its domestic and foreign policy, which took shape between September 29, 1938 and September 1, 1939. – the result of coordinated actions of the Western European leaders or, as Lenin would say, “international interweaving of the clique of financial capital”, their hired clerks in the form of formal heads of government in Munich.

Hated Hitler as a Jew and liberal Raymond Aron said that if Hitler had died in 1938 before Munich, before the aggression against Czechoslovakia, he would have entered the history of Germany as its greatest figure; after Munich, everything changed. But Munich as a geohistorical operation was carried out by Western European leaders, especially the British. Hence “negative Hitler”, his regime “Hitler” or “incorporated” in the form in which it started the war, and therefore, at least indirectly, the handiwork of British (and French and Italian). In the form in which Czechoslovakia existed in September 1938, Hitler could not capture it, the country had to be previously dismembered, which was provided in Munich, which in this regard should be considered the actual beginning of the Second world war, or rather, its European phase (in June 1941, the war will be Eurasian, and in December 1941 – world).

Accustomed to blame the sick head on a healthy Anglo-Saxons and their “fifth column” in Russia constantly write that the inevitable Second world war made the “Pact of Ribbentrop – Molotov” (as they call the Soviet-German Treaty), but because the USSR allegedly bears the same responsibility for the outbreak of world war II, as Hitler’s Germany. This interpretation, designed to divert attention from the main warmongers of Albion and to create as much fog as possible, is a double lie.

First, the Soviet-German Treaty, signed in August 1939, was the last in a series of treaties of major European powers in the Third Reich.

Second, the USSR was forced to conclude this Treaty in response to the Munich agreement. The Munich agreement, I repeat, was essentially the formalization of an aggressive anti-Soviet bloc, which Stalin destroyed by a Treaty with Germany in August 1939, deploying the Fuhrer against his anti-Soviet allies – this is what the anti-Soviets in the West and in Russia cannot forgive Stalin. But we got ahead of ourselves, back in 1938.

Immediately after the dismemberment of Czechoslovakia by Germany and the “European Jackal” Poland (signed with Germany “Hitler-Pilsudski Pact” and incited Germany and Japan to war against the USSR – approx. Hitler began to prepare for the seizure of the rest of the country, which was done in March 1939, after which Montague Norman handed over to the Reichsbank the gold reserve of Czechoslovakia (6 million pounds) stored in the UK – nothing is sorry for the Fuhrer’s war against the Russians, especially since now the Third Reich was to border the USSR. And here the British puppeteers came bobble. In 1939, Hitler did not want to fight the Soviet Union, was not ready for war. He jumped (or rather, tried to jump) from the British hook, turning one part of the country – the Czech Republic – into a protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia, but the other part, the border with the USSR – Slovakia, he declared an independent state, and the independence of Slovakia Hitler guaranteed personally. Thus the Fuhrer showed that in the near future to fight the Soviet Union is not going to, which is clearly contrary to the British plans to involve Germany in the war with the USSR (and, incidentally, the American plans to involve the British Empire in the European war began).

The indignant British decided to drive the Fuhrer into a stall with the help of Poland, which was ordered to demand from Hitler Slovakia as a protectorate. But Hitler was not afraid, he put Poland counter-claims on Danzig and we can not say that they were unfounded. Poland, confident in British support, behaved brazenly, and the Fuhrer decided to eliminate this annoying obstacle in relations with the West: the Jackal interfered in his relations with the tiger. But removing it was impossible without an agreement with the Soviet Union, which was signed in August 1939 After Hitler attacked Poland. In doing so, he was confident that neither Britain nor France would intervene in the event of an attack on Poland – he was used to dealing with pacifiers. The British ruling class all 1930-ies taught the Fuhrer to strike from the left. And necessary suddenly hit to the right. However, until the middle of 1940, both sides – both British and German – fought sluggishly, if this strange war can be called a war.

The situation began to change in the summer of 1940, and largely under pressure from the United States. Hitler did not want to fight the British, believing that he could negotiate with them, and the potential for world war III Reich was not. Historically, Russia was a much greater enemy to him than Albion, and he was ready to demonstrate this by turning strategically to the East. Tactically this suited the British, but it seemed unacceptable even tactically the United States, which were ready to take the side of Germany only in one case: if the Soviet Union will attack the Third Reich or will provoke (statement of the us Congress of April 17, 1941).

This nexus was severed in June 1941, and a huge role was played by the British. His terrible blow to Germany and Russia Albion struck, when in the first half of June during the ultra-secret (documents are classified until the middle of the XXI century.) negotiations Hess with representatives of the British elite Hitler, apparently, received from the British certain guarantees (at least neutrality), without this he would never have dared to start in the second decade of June 1941, the transfer of troops from the Western front to the Soviet border to attack the USSR. Treacherous Albion, of course, deceived – he is insidious, and the arch-enemy of Russia, Churchill immediately started talking about joint struggle against Hitler. The führer got involved – the same as Wilhelm, but with even more severe consequences for Germany than in 1918-1919, the British managed once again to pit Germany and Russia, again to provoke a world war – this time with dire consequences for their Empire and their enclosed structures consequences. Right was Hegel – history of the crafty, of the Albion there is no monopoly on deceit.

The above clearly demonstrates the fact that the real subject of the history of the West since the second half of the XVIII century and the history of the world since the second half of the nineteenth century were a supra-national structure of coordination and management. Supranational governance itself goes through several stages in its history: European, global, global.

The main forms of governance at the world stage (1880s-1980s) were world wars and closely related large-scale revolutions. In fact, the solution of these problems and formed these closed structures (overwhelming numbers of British and later British-American), which replaced the Masonic as shock troops, orgeta the top of the world capitalist class (without canceling the masonry).

Analysis of the preparation and organization of the two world wars clearly shows the methods and forms of activity of the “masters of the world game”, allowing you to learn some lessons for today. Some may doubt: the report refers to the period 1871-1939/45, the period of the Cold war and the last 20 years is not covered. That’s right. But we must remember that, first, the Great war of the twentieth century, which began in 1914, in fact ended only in 1991, and a number of tasks set before 1914, was not solved in 1991.; it has not been resolved to this day and there is no doubt that the historical (existential) enemy of Russia will try to solve them. In this regard, the experience of the “watershed era” (1871-1929/33) and the 1930s is extremely important. I’m not talking about the fact that we also live in a “watershed era” that our days are very similar to the beginning of the twentieth century, and the current Russian Federation is much more like the pre-war Russian Empire than the pre-war Soviet Union. Secondly, I am convinced that the analysis of the preparation of the First world war to a greater extent than the Second (it was a kind of repetition) clearly demonstrates the methods and forms of activity of supranational governance structures created on a powerful British basis, based on the rich talents, ability to work and the breadth of the strategic vision of the British ruling political and intellectual class.

In the early twentieth century., in the midst of training based in London supranational structures of world war II wonderful Russian geopolitician A. E. Edrikhin-Vandam wrote: “…for the world conquerors and our life rivals Anglo-Saxons one undeniable quality – never in anything our vaunted instinct does not play the role of virtuous Antigone. Carefully observing the life of humanity as a whole and evaluating each event in terms of impact of it on their own business, they are tireless brain develop ability to a great distance in time and space to see and almost feel what people with lazy minds and weak imagination seems empty fantasy. In the art of fighting for life, i.e. politics, this ability gives them all the advantages of a brilliant chess player over a mediocre player. The surface of the earth, strewn with oceans, continents and Islands, is for them a kind of chessboard, and the peoples, carefully studied in their basic properties and in the spiritual qualities of their rulers, are living figures and pawns, which they move in such a way that their opponent, who sees in each pawn of an independent enemy standing in front of him, is finally lost in perplexity, how and when they made the fatal move that led to the loss of the party? This is the kind of art we will see now in the actions of the Americans and the British against ourselves.”

So it happened: we saw these actions at the turn of 1910-1920, 1930-1940, 1980-1990-ies. We see them now. What were the weaknesses of Russia, the Russian ruling class in the early twentieth century, the weaknesses that doomed it to defeat and to which we are today because of the similarity, almost niche equivalence of eras and systems need to pay attention?

First, corruption, rottenness of the top and domination of clan interests over the state, and private-family – over the clan.

Secondly, the inadequacy of the modern world, manifested in the absence of the state and the ruling class and the real picture of what is happening, and not just an independent strategy of historical development, but in General any strategy.

Third, the top of the ruling class directly or indirectly, i.e. through its own or foreign capitalists was closely linked with Western capital, often depended on it, hence – one step to becoming an agent of influence or simply an agent of Strangers and Predators (we saw this on the example of Izvolsky, Hartwig – this public is enough in the Russian Federation); the background, contributing to all this was the raw material specialization of the country, i.e. not the best position in the international division of labor, and financial dependence on foreign capital, because of which the Russian man had to die for British interest and die to save Paris.

Once again propianate elite ruling class of the Russian Empire in the early twentieth century, foreign agents of influence and just. With such a density, it was difficult to pursue a nationally oriented policy and it was easy to get into other people’s networks, to become a figure, or even just a pawn in someone else’s game. The Soviet ruling class of the late 1930s was consolidated, the “fifth column” was effectively destroyed, the country had a clear strategy and program of historical development, and the country itself was a powerful military-industrial complex, independent from the West. Hence another result of the world war – Victory. Unfortunately, the late Soviet ruling class reproduced many features of the late-power and therefore many of its representatives were on the side of the main historical enemy, and the USSR collapsed. The current ruling stratum in the mass represents a product of decomposition of the late Soviet. To whom he more like postmenopauzalny or pre-war Soviet – a rhetorical question.

In conclusion, I will give a metaphor of O. Markeev, a quote from the novel which I used as an epigraph. On Yeltsin’s inner layer (is it only about him?) through the mouth of one of his heroes O. Markeev put it this way: “the New inhabitants of the building from the hustlers of the presidential administration seemed to Maximov ridiculous penguins, foolishly climbed to the top of the iceberg. They could poop on it, make their own idea of the world in which they live, set their own laws for the other inhabitants of the bird market, even consider that they are plotting an iceberg. But he carried them, in obedience to the unseen deep currents. His world was an Ocean that could not be grasped by a bird’s mind.”

The metaphor of penguins on an iceberg believing that they are guiding its movement without representing either the underwater mass of the iceberg (6/7) or the currents that carry it is good. The late-power ruling class are also penguins mired in overconsumption and entertainment, not knowing that the closed structures have already caught them in the sight of their “geohistorical hyperboloids”, that the signs have already appeared on the wall: mene, tekel, parsin.

History shows: “penguins” bad end, they and their societies – easy prey for Predators and Strangers, and do not count on admission to the bourgeoisie: the bourgeoisie at all is not enough, and besides Rome traitors (and fools) does not pay. Bad Candidates should always remember what happened to Ostap Bender on the Romanian border. And learn from the British their main military secret: right or wrong, this is my country – “right or wrong, but this is my country.”

_______________

[1] the Postwar thirtieth anniversary, which became a period of unprecedented prosperity for the West, for some time postponed the need to create new forms and structures of world governance. However, by the end of the 1960s, there were serious signs of an impending crisis. The proactive reaction of the top of the world capitalist class was the creation of structures of world coordination and management of a new type – the club of Rome (1968) and the Trilateral Commission (1973). And since the striking force behind their creation was the corporatocracy – a young and predatory faction of the world bourgeoisie, which entered the arena of history immediately after the war and was no longer just a world, but a global in potential and orientation, then these structures were already structures of global governance. Their task was to give a start to globalization as an organizational weapon of the upper segments of the capitalist class in the fight against the external (USSR) and internal (working class, most of the middle classes) class enemy. The destruction of the Soviet Union for some time pushed back a new crisis era – pushed back due to the robbery of the former socialist camp by the West and the possibility of international robbery, which in the absence of the Soviet Union had no one to resist. However, at the end of the 1990s, a new crisis broke out, and we have been living for a decade and a half in a global crisis that manifests itself, among other things, as a crisis of global governance.

The post PSYCHOHISTORICAL WAR OF THE WEST AGAINST RUSSIA first appeared on Global Policy.

Throughout the modern history of Ukraine, carrying the most weight have been the clans of Ukrainian oligarchs, such as Rinat Akhmetov, Victor Pinchuk, Dmytro Firtash and PrivatBank represented by Ihor Kolomoyskyi and Hennadiy Boholiubov, each acting for rival City bankers or originally U.S. transnational elite groups. With external factors and litigations taking a toll, triggered by U.S. agents of influence , there are tectonic shifts in power relations and the division of influence between Ukrainian clans which, in the inertial scenario, threaten to destroy Ukrainian national elites.

Victor Pinchuk is at the core of Ukraine’s ruling American center-left interest group associated with the Clintons, Pritzkers, Dragon Capital, George Soros’ philanthropic network, arms lobby and The BlackRock Foundation. Funded by JP Morgan Bank, BlackRock Financial Market Advisory (BlackRock FMA) became the country’s main pledge-holders through the mediation of The Ukraine Development Fund (UDF) established by Volodymyr Zelenskyy. In the event of default, creditors will receive key industrial assets and lands. The nationalization of oligarch-owned assets is along the lines of collateral expansion amid exponential growth in the national debt. Penny Pritzker will build a top-down colonial operation by reforming the Ukrainian government, including “deoligarchization.”

Locked in confrontation with Pinchuk, the PrivatBank clan run by Ihor Kolomoyskyi and Hennadiy Boholiubov is integrated into the power system of the Chabad-Lubavitch Orthodox Jewish Hasidic movement and systemically linked to GOPers and the Lauders. Privat was behind a probe into the corruption scandal around Burisma Holdings, responsible for discrediting the Bidens and the Atlantic Council. As outspoken opponents to Soros, oligarchs faced numerous lawsuits. Additionally the majority of their assets were seized. They have pushed Zelenskyy since the start of his campaign but lost political control along with their financial influence.

The structure of Dmytro Firtash’s connections reveals the influence of non-formalized elite groups of the British aristocracy tightly linked to the City and their subordinate British intelligence services who are very close to the Conservative Party. The British sought to gain shadow political influence in the resource-based and energy sectors. Although hailed from professional intel officers, the role of the Asquith family is not fully in line with that of agents of British influence. They, however, are strategic intermediaries for British elite groups throughout the country. With British influence within the country at its peak, Dmytro Firtash and Rinat Akhmetov teamed up to place Viktor Yanukovych in power. The growing British influence in Ukraine went downhill along with the Maidan in 2014. Austrian right-wing political groups associated with Raiffeisen are now covering up for Firtash whose assets have largely been nationalized in his U.S. extradition case. The lawsuits were filed in the State of Illinois, a zone influenced by the Chicago-based Pritzker family and home to Boeing eyeing the oligarch’s titanium deposits.

Rinat Akhmetov’s position in elite connections does not appear to be well defined. With the outbreak of war with Russia and as a result losing most of his assets, the oligarch made a U-turn to support the U.S. left-wing radicals. Previously close to the City as well as to Scottish and Dutch elites, he now seeks greater public rapprochement with those U.S. transnational democrats behind Pinchuk who showed aggressive interest in his assets, DTEK and Metinvest. The oligarch’s assets are run from the Netherlands, a zone influenced by the Danish aristocracy, the Wallenbergs (among the major BlackRock shareholders) and Sachses. ING Bank, Akhmetov’s long-standing partner and creditor, is part of the banking cartel Inter­Alpha Group established by Jacob Rothschild, a member of the renowned family’s British branch. It appears that a contact within the political institutions of BlackRock’s influence led to a consensus, as all attempts to have Akhmetov’s assets nationalized were put on hold.

The above facts indicate, albeit with a non-negligible assumption given the transnational nature of globalist foundations, that we are seeing a struggle in Ukraine between the U.S. neoconservative and British influence (which is more powerful in Brussels) with the consolidated United States clearly gaining the upper hand. Oligarchs who refuse or fail to navigate as dictated by the U.S. neoconservative groups are eliminated by means of unsavory information and lawsuits, lose capitals and have restrictions of rights based on legal grounds. If events continue unfolding, the influence of Ukrainian oligarchs as self-sufficient participants in the political process will soon be over. Success in the fight for influence will be directly proportional to the extent of financial support that Ukraine maintains and the influential strength of each minion group. At this time, the project of U.S. influence in the region is getting stronger.

RINAT LEONIDOVYCH AKHMETOV

Born on 21 September 1966, Donetsk, Ukrainian SSR.

RINAT LEONIDOVYCH AKHMETOV

Top-1 Forbes Ukraine with a capital of $ 5.7 billion.¹

Known for his long-standing ties to criminal groups. Despite considerable asset losses since the beginning of the invasion of Ukraine, his position as the country’s top oligarch remains unchanged.

Family:

His spouse, Liliya Akhmetova (nee Smyrnova; born in 1965), was a chairperson of the auditing commission at JSC SCM until reorganization of Akhmetov’s assets in 2017. In the meantime, Nyakiya Akhmetova (most Likely, his mother) lost her position as chairperson of the supervisory board at her son’s company.

His son, Damir Akhmetov (born in 1988), graduated from Bayes Business School (formerly known as Sir John Cass Business School), an elite London institution. In 2015, he married Diana Kostic, daughter of the Serbian “sugar king” Miodrag Kostic, CEO of agricultural holding company MK Group. They studied together at Le Rosey boarding school in Switzerland.

Son Almir Akhmetov (born in 1997)

Assets:

Rinat Akhmetov is still Ukraine’s richest businessman. His fortune is estimated at $6.9 billion. He runs his business empire from the Netherlands.

These assets are amassed in System Capital Management (SCM) holding company, the most important of them being Metinvest (Ukraine’s largest iron ore and steel producer) and DTEK (dominating the national heat power industry and deemed an important renewable energy producer). SCM companies employ about 300,000 people.

SCM’s main investment company is Cyprus-based SCM Holdings Limited. It has consolidated investments in the steel and mining industries (Metinvest B.V. (Netherlands)); energy (DTEK B.V. (Netherlands)), minerals, banking, and finance (FUIB); mass media; telecommunications (Ukrtelecom); retail (TSUM Kyiv), agriculture (HarvEast), transportation and logistics (Lemtrans and Portinvest).

Despite huge losses due to the war in Ukraine, DTEK holds a monopoly on the Ukrainian heat power industry. Among subsidiaries also located in the Netherlands are: DTEK ENERGY B.V. (coal extraction and processing, heat generation, mining equipment production), DTEK RENEWABLES B.V. (wind and solar power generation), DTEK OIL&GAS HOLDING B.V. (gas production), DTEK GRIDS B.V. (electric power distribution and power grid operation), D.TRADING B.V. (coal, electricity, gas and petroleum products sales), D.SOLUTIONS B.V. (power supply, photovoltaic power systems, power services and energy audit).

• SCM Ukraine Development (Rinat Akhmetov Foundation since 2018). Key focus areas include national health, family, targeted aid, culture, and education. Starting in March 2008, the foundation has been separated from the company and operates as Rinat Akhmetov’s personal charity, maintaining partnership with SCM. It is one of the most well-known charitable organizations in Ukraine.
• UMGInvestments investment holding company².
• ESTA Holding (real estate): Donbas Palace (Donetsk), Opera Boutique Hotel (Kyiv), Central Department Store (Kyiv), Trading chambers in Ukraine, Russia, Kazakhstan.
• United Minerals Group (UMG, clay mining): Druzhkivka Quarry (Druzhkivka Ore Administration), VESKO, Ogneupornerud (Fire Resistance Non-Ore), Portinvest (Marine transportation)³.
• Lemtrans transportation company.
• First Ukrainian International Bank (FUIB).
• HarvEast agribusiness holding company.
• Metinvest iron and steel company.
• Football Club Shakhtar Donetsk.
• Life National mobile operator.

Paul John Manafort

In the 2000s and 2010s, Akhmetov employed U.S. national Paul Manafort as his chief political scientist and campaign aide, whose fees totaled $12.7 million for 5 years from 2007 to 2021, according to secret ledgers of the Party of Regions. These figures were later revealed by Ukrainian politician and journalist Serhiy Leshchenko. In 2016, Manafort closed down his office in Ukraine and joined Trump’s election campaign.

Manafort was convicted by a U.S. court for being an unregistered agent of the Ukrainian government and President Viktor Yanukovych, his Party of Regions and later Opposition Bloc. A report drafted by Paul Manafort and Trump’s former aide Rick Gates along with Skadden Arps lobbying firm was intended to justify the imprisonment of Tymoshenko. This led to the retroactive registration of Skadden with FARA, and compensation of $4.6 million for the refusal to register with the Department of Justice as well as the indictment of former Obama White House counselor Greg Craig.⁴

James Kenneth Glassman

There is currently a connection between Akhmetov and high-ranking U.S. neoconservatives. GOP lobbyist Douglas Goodyear of DCI Group (IO, 05.05.21) signed a subcontractor agreement with SCM Consulting, while the latter, SCM Consulting, signed with Glassman.⁵

The papers that DCI Group submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice show large-scale action by Glassman Enterprises to disseminate information about Russia looting Ukrainian grain, steel, and minerals.

James Kenneth Glassman served as Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs in 2008-2009. In the U.S. political sphere, he is particularly close to the Bush family, as he is the founder of their family think tank in Washington. The George W. Bush Institute is focused on developing solutions in the best interests of the Democratic Party and provided support for Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.⁶

Glassman gained extensive influence in the U.S. media by traveling a long way from journalist and publisher to economic policy maker. He is considered a father of “journalistic lobbying” characterized by drops of promoted stories in the information space – “independent” op-eds confirming the necessary position in favor of lobbyists. As Chairperson of Glassman Enterprises, LLC, a Washington-based PR firm, he is particularly active in health and energy lobbying.

Qorvis

In May 2022, SCM Consulting contracted Qorvis, a Washington-based PR firm, to promote Akhmetov’s philanthropy.

According to the agreement, “Qorvis will specifically engage in earned media efforts, including but not limited to pitching to media, client-identified spokespeople, press releases, photos and video provided by client.” The important nature of such a collaboration is further evidenced by the fact that the company’s CEO and Executive VP, Matt Jay Lauer, leads Qorvis’ five-person team for SCM⁷:

• Lauer worked at the U.S. State Department under Colin L. Powell, America’s Promise, Envision EMI, LLC, South Carolina Democratic Party, under John Edwards in the United States Senate and the Democratic National Committee.⁸
• Brad Klapper, a head of Qorvis Washington office, was a reporter of the U.S. State Department under John Kerry and Hillary Clinton with a focus on the Middle East, nuclear nonproliferation, sanctions policy, U.S.-Russia tensions, and U.S.-China relations.⁹
• Kristina Baum served as a senior communications officer at the White House, both houses of Congress, a chief spokesperson for Chevron Phillips, and Qorvis VP. In previous positions, she dealt with national security matters and still holds Top Secret/SCI security clearance.¹⁰
• Nicolla Hewitt is the owner of a consulting firm maintaining media communications with first tier media giants, such as Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg, NBC, CNBC, Fox, ABC, Washington Post, Financial Times, The Daily Beast, The Guardian, and others.
• Anthony Carl Dykes is Qorvis Senior Advisor for Corporate Strategic Communications.

The FARA report highlights the maintenance of public relations and public policy strategy regarding SCM-related matters, preparation of press releases, newsletters, and analytical materials. Qorvis’ mission through Nicola Hewitt was to host interviews and engage media to participate in SCM events and projects in an attempt to influence American audiences and officials, and to that end, the firm has connections with major media outlets in the U.S. and Europe, such as Washington Post, Washington Life, Politico, and others.

For SCM, Qorvis arranged an interview with Yuriy Ryzhenkov about Mariupol events for the Akhmetov Foundation and Museum (ABC News/GMA, USA Today, CNN). In addition, the firm set up interviews with USA Today, LA Times (Laura King), and Business Insider (Sam Tabahriti) about Ukraine’s recovery and Rinat Akhmetov.

They also worked with representatives of political think tanks. Qorvis engaged Hudson Institute (Ann Marie Hauser) and Brookings Institution who were offered to meet the DTEK and Metinvest top management for “third-party outreach.”

Qorvis Communications acting on behalf of Akhmetov brokered cooperation with American strategic think tanks, such as CEIP, CSIS, Atlantic Council, Los Angeles World Affairs Council and Town Hall, World Affairs Council of Greater Houston, World Affairs Council of Atlanta, Council on Foreign Relations, Foreign Policy Research Institute, Aspen Institute, Baker Institute, and RAND Corporation in connection with a request for an event.

Akhmetov took the initiative in communicating with SigmaBleyzer/Daar through Qorvis to schedule a personal meeting with leadership, company interaction, acquaintance and exchange of information about possible cooperation. This looks pretty spectacular, as SigmaBleyzer is a long-standing member of the U.S.-Ukraine Business Council along with Akhmetov’s SCM and belong to the same financial industry group.

The Bleyzer family are Ukrainian-American immigrants from Kharkiv Oblast (which makes them close to the Akhmetov clan). DAAR, a U.S.-registered globalist non-profit charity focused on Ukraine, has been working for over twenty years.¹¹ Ustenko, Head of the Bleyzer Foundation, took part in various projects of the World Bank, OECD, governments of CIS member countries and leading universities, including Harvard University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

In 2019, the Bleyzers faced a wave of lawsuits launched by UkrGasVydobuvannya to seize their assets. Michael Bleyzer poses as a Ukrainian corruption fighter and advocates functional capitalism which is “a reliable defense against Russia.” He has been linked to pro-Trump Secretary of Energy, Rick Perry, who appointed Bleyzer to serve on the committee overseeing Texas Emerging Technology Fund. Bleyzer was first on the list of candidates to be offered a seat on the management board of Naftogaz of Ukraine. UGV, a Naftogaz company, was named plaintiff in the lawsuit against Ukrainian Energy LLC (Texas, USA) incorporated to tap into the Ukrainian oil and gas sector.

In 2018, Aspect Holdings, LLC and Sigma Bleyzer Investment Group, LLC established the International Fund for Ukrainian Energy (IFUEL) to invest in Ukraine’s energy sector (the first fund approved over $100 million).

Also, Akhmetov communicated with Worldbridge Group and the Royal Government of Cambodia regarding invitations to the DTEK event at WEF.

Qorvis is owned by Publicis Groupe, a company of French origin and transnational in terms of geographical presence. Top management of Publicis Groupe reveals the influence of those within the asset management circles of Edmond de Rothschild¹² such as Michel Cicurel and Gerard Worms, scions of SAS owned by the Wallenberg family. The company is open for cooperation with any American client regardless of political affiliation. In turn, Publicis Groupe is owned by Leo Burnett and London-headquartered Saatachi&Saatachi associated with British conservatives and linked to attacks on laborists.¹³

Qorvis has an extensive record of using questionable methods to deal with tainted reputation. Qorvis is perfect for reshaping the oligarch’s image in the eyes of Western audiences in order to avoid possible blows to reputation of forces willingly cooperating and providing support. The company is known for solving fairly complex opinion management problems, particularly formed by the propaganda of dictatorships ranging from Bahrain to Saudi Arabia. Qorvis has been repeatedly accused of manipulating Wikipedia data, as the team of sockpuppets sought to whitewash the pages of its clients by taking down embarrassing information.

Qorvis has an extensive record of using questionable methods to deal with tainted reputation. Qorvis is perfect for reshaping the oligarch’s image in the eyes of Western audiences in order to avoid possible blows to reputation of forces willingly cooperating and providing support. The company is known for solving fairly complex opinion management problems, particularly formed by the propaganda of dictatorships ranging from Bahrain to Saudi Arabia. Qorvis has been repeatedly accused of manipulating Wikipedia data, as the team of sockpuppets sought to whitewash the pages of its clients by taking down embarrassing information.¹⁴

Jock “Farquhar” Mendoza-Wilson

Mendoza-Wilson is a key figure for Akhmetov’s long-standing, strong lobbying ties. He is a British national of Irish descent, Chairperson of the United Nations Global Compact in Ukraine, Director of International and Investor Relations at System Capital Management. He oversees philanthropic initiatives of the Rinat Akhmetov Foundation; spoke about the expansion of aid to Donetsk Oblast as an element of influence on the region. He is in charge of organizing contacts with foreign institutions on behalf of Rinat Akhmetov.

He served as Regional Director at MMD, an Eastern European public affairs and communications consultancy previously deeply integrated into the extraction industry, including the Russian oil and gas sector, with offices in New York, Washington and Brussels, where he worked until 2005.

He also worked as Regional Director at Weber Shandwick PR, covering the Middle East and North Africa, on government-related projects. Based in Dubai, the company was included in public diplomacy initiatives of the U.S. Department of State.

Mendoza-Wilson is linked to key dialog venues for lobbying European and U.S. arms suppliers, energy companies, agriculture, and the international non-profit sector in Ukraine. He is a member of the Advisory Board of the EU-Ukraine Business Council with close ties to James Wilson, MMD Founder, from the time of his work at the consultancy. He also serves as Director of the British Ukrainian Chamber of Commerce and is a counselor to the President of the U.S.-Ukraine Business Council.¹⁵

EU-Ukraine Business Council. Akhmetov-owned SCM is a member of a group representing interests of the international financial sector and companies providing services in offshore jurisdictions in the Ukrainian market. The group includes both representatives of the World Bank, such as European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD), and sponsors of the International Finance Corporation, Visa and Mastercard, and boutique companies acting as mediators in shady deals and holding the oligarchs’ money.

The following indicates Akhmetov’s links to the British group of influence similar to the one that supervised and patronized Firtash. In addition to Jock Mendoza-Wilson, the Board of Directors of the British Ukrainian Chamber of Commerce includes Petr Baron, a British banker of Russian descent, a business angel and entrepreneur, who served as Director of VAB Bank previously owned by Oleh Bakhmatiuk. There was a high-profile embezzlement scandal, as Oleksandr Pisaruk, Chairperson of the Management Board of Raiffeisen Bank Aval, linked to Dmytro Firtash was suspected of misappropriation of UAH 1.2 billion in the case of VAB Bank.¹⁶

PHOTO FROM MENDOZA-WILSON’S FACEBOOK ACCOUNT, FROM LEFT TO RIGHT: CORY EGO, RICHARD BRADY, ANTHONY NICHOL, JOCK FARQUHAR MENDOZA-WILSON, RAYMOND DAVID MC ROBBIE, IGOR TKACZENKO

Among Mendoza-Wilson’s close associates are representatives of the European lobbying establishment with an accentuated British influence:

For example, Mendoza-Wilson’s close friend, Richard Brady (born in 1951), has strong ties with the City of London. He is reportedly expanding the circle of influence of the latter by means of Legal English classes, recruiting potential legal lobbyists for the City’s financial groups all over the world. Richard Brady’s biography had an abrupt turnabout when he decided to establish the British Legal Centre in order to teach Legal English and Law to foreign lawyers. This came following fast-tracked professional conversion from a City banker (formerly a prosecutor) into an English teacher. Initially, Richard’s educational activities were travel-related and centered in Eastern Europe, before expanding into MENA countries, similarly a high-priority region of influence for British financial circles. The organization also has offices in Brazil, Pakistan, UAE, Dublin, and Barbados.¹⁷

Mendoza-Wilson vigorously advocates Akhmetov’s interests by means of the EU-Ukraine Business Council in partnership with James Wilson. Wilson is a British communications expert with more than 25 years of experience in international business in Europe and Asia and in governmental relations. He is part of the Brussels-based pool of politicians, journalists and lobbyists and offers governments and businesses expert PR and strategic communications services.¹⁸ Over the past year, he has been active in fostering dialog around the extension of the grain deal and energy lobbying.

Wilson helped Gary Cartwright and Colin Stevens in promoted stories using resources of EU Reporter, EU Political Report, and EU Today. One of Cartwright’s partners was the Brussels Energy Club established by his personal friend Marat Teterev in which defended the leadership representing the corporate fossil fuel lobby.

Between 2015 and 2016, his political consultancy, MacMillan Public Affairs, along with a separate trading firm (which he founded), signed two contracts for an overall amount of €143,000 with Ukraine’s state-owned nuclear energy company Energoatom. These contracts were made to host public events and provide “strategic policy consultations,” according to the energy agency. He published one of the articles under a separate title as Director of the EU-Ukraine Business Council, a Ukrainian industry lobby group that was awarded one of Energoatom’s contracts.

Akhmetov-owned DTEK colluded with Energoatom (SE NNEGC Energoatom). Companies “sold air” in Ukraine’s spot electricity market. Energoatom intentionally set an inflated price for electricity in the day-ahead market. As a result, a part of its resources was not sold and went to the balancing market where such electricity was purchased by DTEK, an energy company owned by Rinat Akhmetov, at one kopiyka per megawatt hour. This was offered to consumers at around UAH 3,000 per megawatt hour. Consequently, Energoatom lost about a billion hryvnias which DTEK earned. Among the side effects of this scheme were high electricity prices even in a situation of surpluses.¹⁹

Wilson has been at the helm of FIPRA International since 2017 with a focus on country operations in Ukraine and was appointed partner of the agency along with Marcus Stober (representing Sweden’s interests and affiliated with the German Marshall Fund of the United States) and Ivan Poltavets directly linked to Akhmetov.²⁰

He is Director and Founder of the EU-Ukraine Business Council established in 2006, in Belgium, to facilitate trade and investment between the EU and Ukraine. He has been General Director of Kyiv Brussels Network since 2015. International Foundation for Better Governance, a non-profit organization established by Wilson, promotes aid for Ukraine in cooperation with the Akhmetov Foundation.²¹

As a founder of EU Political Report, he is known for his practice of blurring the lines between journalism and paid advocacy. Not long ago, he hosted grain deal lobbying events with a focus on the fertilizer problem in an attempt to alert EU authorities (European Commission, European Parliament), governments of EU member states, global media, and international organizations to the problems of production and export of Ukrainian agricultural products amid Russia’s military aggression against Ukraine in order to improve the current status quo of the Ukrainian agricultural industry.

FIPRA

FIPRA (Finsbury International Policy & Regulatory Advisers) is an extensive European network of public relations advisers specializing in policy and regulatory consulting and advice. According to FIPRA, they are the only consulting firm with Brussels public relations advisers in all EU and CIS member countries and China.

Founded by James Wilson, the Ukrainian FIPRA office is represented by Sweden- incorporated Stober, Poltavets & Associates AB (SP&A). According to official data, the office is headed by Karl Johan Marcus Stober and a former Ukrainian employee of Akhmetov’s think tank Ivan Poltavets.²² As part of their activities in partnership with FIPRA, he managed numerous public relations projects serving multinational corporations. He monitored, analyzed and advised on economic policy at the Bureau for Economic and Social Technologies established by System Capital Management.²³ In 2023, Poltavets was appointed Senior Strategy Manager of Regulatory Affairs at Canada-based TELUS Communications.²⁴

Akhmetov has been creating his own think tank, though, little is known to the general public regarding its activities. Judging by the data available, however, it becomes clear that the SCM Bureau for Economic and Social Technologies (BEST) was established to build stable connections in Brussels for the promotion of European integration and liberalization of trade with Ukraine²⁵. Former BEST employees are currently representatives of the largest lobbying networks. These networks have a tangible influence on the course of trade cooperation²⁶ and the development of the EU-Ukraine comprehensive support policy²⁷. For example, SP&A partner Ihor Poltavtsev is a former BEST adviser. Svitlana Taran (a former BEST researcher) and Amanda Paul (Senior Eurasia Adviser for Stober, Poltavets & Associates, Turkey and Ukraine Expert) are expert team members at the European Policy Center (EPC) providing information research for decision-making in the European Parliament. EPC is financed by the King Baudoin Foundation which, in turn, is under the financial patronage of Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, and Morgan Stanley.

According to Marcus Stober²⁸, Managing Partner at SP&A facilitating Sweden-Switzerland- Ukraine cooperation, Ukrainian companies should be more active in Brussels for efficient lobbying. Stober is also the head of Switzerland-based division of Alpine Global Counsel and Non-Executive Director of Belgium’s OpenForum Europe. Stober was previously a Brussels lobbyist and for more than a decade has managed international outreach programs. His areas of expertise include open source and cybersecurity, digital supply chains and public policy in international digital governance.

SP&A Senior Eurasia Adviser Amanda Paul also works as a Senior Policy Analyst in the “Europe in the World Program” at the European Policy Center (EPC).²⁹ EPC is one of the largest think tanks and lobbying organizations in Europe. It is operated by high-ranking representatives of EU institutions, whose members are top managers of multinational corporations and banking elites who finance EPC through the King Baudouin Foundation³⁰. Amanda Paul has well-established expertise on matters related to Turkey, Ukraine, security and conflict resolution in the Black Sea region, Russian foreign policy in former Soviet regions, and EU enlargement. At the EPC, Amanda leads the Ukraine’s European Future and Global Turkiye projects, Security and Conflict Resolution in the South Caucasus. She also serves as Senior Associate Research Fellow at the International Center for Policy Studies in Kyiv.

Connections of the parent company in FIPRA’s Belgium location indicate a dominant British influence and are of some interest from the viewpoint of financial flows of the lobbying conglomerate. The Fipra International parent company has several related entities:

• Fipra International B.V. under control of British national Laura Beatrice Sinclair Batchelor who is in responsible for health and biotech communications and overall governance.
• UK-based Fipra International Holdings Ltd. was previously 75% owned by its Brussels­based parent company. Officially, the related defunct company was managed and owned by Rory Bryan Duncan Chisholm, an offspring of the Hennessy of Windlesham family³¹, who bought back shares in Fipra International Holdings Ltd. in 2016 and became its beneficiary owner. His brother, Alexander James Chisholm, was appointed Knight Commander of the Order of the Bath (KCB).
• Rory was one of the FIPRA founders in 2000. Until 2016, he was a partner in both FIPRA and Finsbury, a strategic and financial communications consultancy. From 1988 to 2000, he worked as a political consultant at GJW Government Relations Ltd in London.
• He gained extensive NATO contacts under the leadership of Peter Tulkens: The Polit Bureau BVBA (now Politics Matters (BV) with assets estimated at €800,000 as of 2022.32

Trident Trust

Trident Trust is an offshore registrar offering asset management services around the world. According to Panama Papers, the trust was a long-standing intermediary for Akhmetov.

The record shows Akhmetov as a “well-known client” for international registrars and often commissions their services, for example, taking out a loan from an international bank to buy a luxurious jet. Another case, in a letter to Trident Trust, as of 29 October 2014, Akhmetov’s representatives insisted that two new offshore companies, Inglen Investments Limited and Pluscom Holdings Limited, should be registered as soon as possible. They refused to provide any further information, “as the parent companies and beneficiary owner are all well-known to the agent.” The providers accepted the order with no further questions asked. Lawyers, filing incorporation papers, stated “jet ownership” as the object of new companies, the investigation says. Two months later, on 16 December 2014, one of these shell companies obtained a loan from Credit Suisse to purchase a Falcon 7X executive jet with the tail number P4-SCM. The market value of this jet easily surpasses $50 million.³³ Journalists also revealed that Trident Trust had been cooperating with Akhmetov up until 2018 at least.³⁴

RINAT AKHMETOV’S PERMANENT GROUP OF LOBBYISTS

Dutch Financial Network

In 2022, an investigation led by Investico, based on annual reports, Leaked papers and interviews with former FBI agents, revealed that Akhmetov had a Long-standing relationship with the Dutch banking sector, especially ING Group, cemented by large-scale financial schemes. By using the Dutch financial sector, he borrowed whopping amounts and conducted sensitive offshore transactions unchecked.

On 21 May 2001, Akhmetov established his first Dutch company, Metinvest B. V. 16 incorporated by the law firm and notary public Houthoff Buruma to consolidate his steel and mining businesses. A few years later, he registered DTEK with the Chamber of Commerce and Industry which became the 17th energy division of his rapidly expanding empire. Additionally, he worked with Dutch banks, ABN Amro and ING, which granted him multibillion-dollar loans, as well as with the Amsterdam branch of Deutsche Bank.

Foreign banks, Barclays in particular, began distancing themselves from Akhmetov around 2015 after he was repeatedly linked to money laundering and corruption schemes. These reports and circumstances, however, did not require the oligarch to leave the Netherlands. According to the FinCEN files, ING also received numerous payments. In May 2014, Akhmetov, over a course of five days, transferred $145.5 million from a personal BVI company to ING Bank. Despite these suspicious transfers, ING Bank did not question Akhmetov regarding the origin of funds.

Fully aware of the high risks, ING Bank granted Metinvest steel and mining company 1.5 billion dollars in 2018, only three years after Barclays blocked the company’s bank accounts. In the same year, ING, Deutsche Bank Amsterdam, and a few other banks provided Metinvest with a loan for over $2.2 billion for restructuring its outstanding debt. Until recently, at least five Dutch pension scheme providers, including retail, POSTNL, and KLM, had outstanding loans extended to Akhmetov’s companies.

Though not at all surprising, ING had a reputation for participating in corrupt money laundering schemes in Eastern Europe. Reports exist of a high-profile money laundering case involving the questionable earnings of Russian oligarchs, amounting to hundreds of millions of euros, being siphoned off through the bank’s Russian subsidiary as part of the laundromat organized by Troika Dialog.³⁵

Commercial companies owned by Akhmetov and his business partner Vadym Novynskyi are registered in the Netherlands. In 2019, ITPS, a trust office which managed several companies, obtained the so-called “aanwijzing” from De Nederlandsche Bank (DNB) over failed customer audits and, according to one of the owners, has since been dissolved. Since last year, Akhmetov’s Dutch companies have been run by several former trust office employees meaning that these companies are effectively out of any DNB control.³⁶

Atlantic Council

The leadership of the Atlantic Council includes an extensive list of former U.S. military commanders and government officials. The Atlantic Council is an analytical center funded by NATO, the defense industry and Gulf monarchies.

One of Akhmetov’s major assets, System Capital Management, makes an annual donation to the center in an amount ranging from $500,000 to $999,000.37 Anders Aslund, an influential member of the Atlantic Council, changed his stance from fierce criticism of Akhmetov to active cooperation due to the influence of Jock Mendoza-Wilson. The financial support of the Council and countering Russia contributed to the development of a joint strategic line with Akhmetov’s official representatives well received within its close circle of associates.

The controversial role of the Atlantic Council in relation to interests in the region and the corrupt nature of its actions is insightful for understanding the style and philosophy of working with Ukrainian oligarch clans. From 2017 to 2019, the organization was engaged to whitewash Burisma’s tarnished reputation for the benefit of the U.S. Democratic Party after a bribery probe into the firm and owner, Mykola Zlochevskyi. During these few years, Burisma offered the Atlantic Council an annual $100,000. As part of their partnership, the Atlantic Council and Burisma held several events in Washington, New York, and Kyiv. Zlochevskyi, a Burisma owner, served in the Yanukovych administration and left Ukraine following the revolution, and thus, losing any effective control of the company.

Hunter Biden joined the board of Burisma Holdings in May 2014 despite his lack of experience in the Ukrainian gas industry and was in charge of international orders. He also participated in the merger of Burisma with a U.S. consulting firm systemically linked to the Clinton Administration, Blue Star Strategies, established by two board members of the Atlantic Council. Joe Biden was a chief liaison between the Obama Administration and Ukraine. Burisma invited several high-ranking Europeans and Americans to join its board, including Aleksander Kwasniewski, former Polish President, and Cofer Black, former CIA top staffer. ³⁸

Representative Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick (D-FL)

A Florida-based consultancy, now dissolved, potentially served as Akhmetov’s principal intermediary in financing Representative Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick (D-FL), who won in Florida, hence, returning her party to the 222-seat majority it previously held following the November 2020 elections.

In 2021, the main source of the representative’s income was SCM Consulting Group LLC. Her income in consulting fees from SCM was listed as $5,745,793. This was “the reported amount of consulting fees and profit sharing fees received for work at Trinity Health Care Services Inc.,” as stated in papers. Links between SCM Consulting Group and Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick’s financial network⁵⁹

LINKS BETWEEN SCM CONSULTING GROUP AND SHEILA CHERFILUS-MCCORMICK’S FINANCIAL NETWORK

On March 12, SCM Consulting Group LLC filed as a business and health consulting firm and Cherfilus-McCormick was listed as a registered agent, according to state corporation records.⁴⁰

Representative Cherfilus-McCormick takes a very active stance in support of Ukraine, Advocating for the Ukraine Democracy Defense Lend-Lease Act, which reduces bureaucratic hurdles and expedites the delivery of military aid.⁴¹ Along with Congressman Ted W. Lieu, she presented the “Russia is a State Sponsor of Terrorism Act,” bipartisan legislation officially designating Russia as a state sponsor of terrorism. Based on the sanctions initially adopted by the Congress, the bill further isolates Russia and toughens economic repercussions for Putin’s regime.⁴²

VADIM VlLADYSLAVOVYCH NOVYNSKYI

VADIM VLADYSLAVOVYCH NOVYNSKYI

Vadym Novynskyi was seen as a major figure in the alliance with Rinat Akhmetov. Novynskyi-owned Smart Holding Group held a 24% interest in Metinvest mining company. Though previously having Russian citizenship, he made the decision to swap it for a Ukrainian passport. He was a member of the Ukrainian Parliament as a member of the Party of Regions. In the Last convocation of the Verkhovna Rada, he was elected as an Opposition Bloc candidate. Forbes estimated his fortune at $1.4 billion.⁴³

In February 2022, Novynskyi and Akhmetov visited Mariupol to only briefly return to Kyiv. A few hours before Russia’s invasion, however, he fled the country. He is currently believed to be residing in Estonia. He was placed on the sanctions lists and all his accounts with Ukrainian banks are blocked. The Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) arrested “hidden assets” of the former deputy Vadym Novynskyi worth UAH 10.5 billion which included 230 real estate properties allegedly owned through offshore companies. Among them a luxurious hotel in downtown Kyiv, Port Ochakiv, facilities of the agricultural holding company and shopping malls in several regions of Ukraine.

Smart Energy’s oil and gas division includes Ukrgazvydobutok gas producing company (Kharkiv Oblast) and UK-based Enwell Energy having listed assets in Poltava (a representative office of Regal Petroleum Corporation Limited and Arkona Gaz-Energia LLC) and Kharkiv Oblasts (Prom-Energo Produkt).

In January 2023, Smart Holding released a statement that as part of the company’s restructuring efforts Novynskyi decided to sell his shares in the company by assigning his interest to a trust. He signed respective agreements with Smart Trust and Step Trust in November 2022 which then were registered by the Cyprus Securities and Exchange Commission. Novynskyi does not have any beneficial interest in the Group, nor does he exercise any control over the Group’s activities or processes.⁴⁴

In 2011, Akhmetov and Novynskyi created an agricultural holding company from agricultural assets of Mariupol-based Illich Steel and Iron Works. In 2018, the company acquired Agro­Holding MS, specialized in crop farming in Kyiv and Zhytomyr Oblasts.

HarvEast Holding is owned by Rinat Akhmetov’s SCM and Vadym Novynskyi’s Smart Holding. The holding company lost almost all land due to the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

Ordained as a deacon of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate), Novynskyi has repeatedly criticized the Ukrainian authorities over their attitude towards the Ukrainian Orthodox Church.

Conclusions

Rinat Akhmetov looks like a consensus figure closer to the British-Dutch group. Strategic communications are currently shifted towards the more influential pro-American transnational elite. Akhmetov has effectively lost all domestic allied support. A heterogeneous confederation of the Donetsk-based clans around Akhmetov at feud with each other, yet united in the face of a threat, became a thing of the past as a result of Russia’s occupation of territories. These clans no longer act in any sort of coordinated fashion. Oligarch consigliere Novynskyi retired after having transferred his interest in Metinvest to a blind trust.

Akhmetov’s attempt to establish a liaison with the Bleyzers close to Trump who repelled a production site attack on their Naftogaz subsidiary could be considered a step to consolidate efforts to fend off a rising wave of privatizations and asset grabs. Similarly, it could be seen as a form of intermediary for a dialog with British stakeholders.

Financial circles of the U.S. Democratic Party, with strategic institutions with which Akhmetov is building bridges, seek to nationalize the oligarch’s assets that survived after Russia’s occupation of the Donbas region. Akhmetov continues to carry on a dialog with European partners, Brussels, through his personal “minister of foreign affairs,” Jock Mendoza-Wilson who has links to FIPRA, one of the largest British-born lobbying and intelligence networks in Europe. Multidimensional contacts maintained by the above­mentioned intermediary highlight his status, not as a mere partner for Akhmetov, but in an overseer’s role acting on behalf of the City of London seeking to influence energy and mining industries in the country as is the case with Raymond Asquith. Through FIPRA and James Wilson’s media and intelligence circles, Akhmetov has access to dialog with Brussels. Previously, Akhmetov had active contacts with European think tanks through the aforementioned FIPRA to promote a free trade zone in the EU in the best interest of his business. Mendoza-Wilson is also part of the leadership of large lobbying entities, such as, the British Ukrainian Chamber of Commerce, EU-Ukraine Business Council, U.S.-Ukraine Business Council.

Firtash’s and Akhmetov’s connections in the City meet thanks to an existing chain: Mendoza- Wilson – British Ukrainian Chamber of Commerce – Petr Baron – VAB Bank – Raiffeisen. Previously, Akhmetov had impressive leverage in the Ukrainian government, while Firtash dominated the Yanukovych-Lyovochkin presidential administration and was one of the main sponsors for the Party of Regions, also linking him to Poroshenko.

The Russian aggression is defining lines of communications with international organizations, strategic centers and political lobbyists and is obviously aligned with the public line of the arms lobby. Actions taken by Akhmetov and representatives of the Democratic Party are all about coordinating efforts, financing of joint initiatives and their advocacy against the Russian aggression in public space. They are, however, far from being designated as a fully functional alliance. Besides, Akhmetov actively sponsors the Armed Forces of Ukraine. He also promotes the condemnation of Russia’s war crime and terrorism and placement on the FATF list, including with the help of congressmen. It is most likely that Akhmetov’s most active emissary promoting similar initiatives in the Congress is Representative Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick (D-FL) whose electoral campaign was generously sponsored by SCM Consulting. Influential Americans advocate confiscation of currently frozen Russian assets and the oligarch uses these sentiments as a great opportunity to regain influence.

The goal of rapprochement has been achieved, since Akhmetov is in no immediate jeopardy of facing “deoligarchization,” as an administrative tool to contain figures deemed to be a threat to the establishment of the U.S. control over Ukrainian assets. Despite generally positive strategic relations with the U.S. elite of real power in Ukraine, Akhmetov’s large assets can only mean that escalation against the BlackRock stakeholders is delayed for the time being. Akhmetov remains at the top of the Forbes Ukraine rankings and ambitiously demonstrates the desire to regain dominance of his political will in Kyiv despite unfathomable losses. The oligarch’s political influence is currently at its lowest in the last years of the decade, as he has no media or lawmakers.

DMYTRO VASYLOVYCH FIRTASH

Firtash’s empire consists of chemical, banking and media assets. He is considered to be one of the oligarchs closest to Viktor Yanukovych.

DMYTRO VASYLOVYCH FIRTASH

In 2021, Ukraine sanctioned him for alleged titanium shipments to Russian defense companies and his personal assets and bank accounts were frozen.

Oleh Arestarkhov, Head of Communications at Group DF, claimed that hearings regarding contested charges in enforcement of sanctions and

Ukrainian security services failed to provide any evidence on the decision.

Firtash previously controlled RosUkrEnergo, a joint venture formed in partnership with Raiffeisen Investment and Russia’s Gazprom, overseeing supplies of Russian gas to Europe across Ukraine, and Centragas which held the exclusive right to sell Turkmenian gas in Ukraine. Initially, RosUkrEnergo was established by Firtash, Rothschild, British entrepreneur Robert Shetler-Jones and Jewish businessman, linked to criminal activity, Semen Mohylevych. According to WikiLeaks files, Firtash told the U.S. ambassador that he had employed services offered by Semen Mohylevych to protect his business from competitors.

The most prominent group among Dmytro Firtash’s connections is British conservative elites seeking to slow down Brexit and retain control over the EU and Chinese financial operations. It is these forces behind Jeremy Hunt who replaced Boris Johnson as the UK Foreign Secretary. Formally, MI6 (SIS) reports to him. This group is closely linked to the Asquith family known for its many-sided partner relations with the oligarch. The Asquith family used Firtash to create an extensive network of influence in Ukraine. The role of transnational enforcer in one of the largest privately-owned oil and gas companies, operating in the post­Soviet space, allowed Asquith to ensure control over Ukrainian assets and political processes by using Firtash’s resources and influence.

The National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) eventually ousted the oligarch. Numerous lawsuits against Firtash followed the struggle for influence of the U.S. and UK globalist elites for control over gas, telecommunications and mining industries in Ukraine.

The U.S. defense industry (whose interests in Ukraine are promoted by Pinchuk) adopted a strategy to seize critical resources in Ukraine by opening criminal cases. The U.S. titanium imports have soared to 90% which is a vulnerability in supply chains. Titanium is used in modern airplanes and helicopters, tanks, submarines and ships, missiles and other munitions. Ukraine’s colossal titanium reserves are estimated at 184 million tons, worth over $300 billion, and making up 20% of the world’s supply. Mezhyrichenskyi Mining and Beneficiation Plant, a Firtash’s Group DF company, is the owner of the Selyshchanskyi titanium deposits with an area of 1,857 hectares located in Zhytomyr Oblast.

On 12 March 2014, Firtash was arrested in Austria on a U.S. warrant issued by the State of Illinois, which could be considered a step taken by the Chicago alliance of Barack Obama and John Kerry⁴⁵. Prior to the arrest, discussions took place regarding titanium supplies to Boeing headquartered in Illinois. Firtash was charged with bribery for an overall amount of $18.5 million, as he sought permissions for titanium ore extraction in India for the further sale of finished products to the U.S.

The Austrian court resumed hearings on the case of Ukrainian businessman Firtash, having blocked his extradition to the U.S. His defense is led by former Austrian Minister of Justice Dieter Bohmdorfer representing the far-right Freedom Party of Austria (FPO). The interests of the oligarch were also represented by Lanny J. Davis & Associates. In 2021, Dmytro Firtash was appointed Adviser to the Permanent Mission of the Republic of Belarus to International Organizations in Vienna. As a result, he demands extradition to the U.S. be suspended due to his diplomatic immunity. Firtash was also an intermediary acting on behalf of Gazprom and the Kremlin in arranging the gas transit across Ukraine.⁴⁶

Over 70% of gas distributions in Ukraine is locked in at Dmytro Firtash owned Regional Gas Company. Every month, operators of gas distribution networks (Zakarpatgaz, Lvivgaz, Vinnytsiagaz, Dnipropetrovskgaz and Khmelnytskgaz) withdrew 120 to 150 million cubic meters of gas without pay which siphoned off about $550 million of liquidity from the GTS operator.

SBU conducted mass searches in 14 gas distribution companies of the businessman’s Regional Gas Company whose board includes former British spy Raymond Asquith. SBU did not make any official announcements but mass media mentioned searches claiming that law enforcers were investigating a scheme of illegal withdrawal of funds paid for consumed gas. The company issued a statement that searches “were carried out on preposterous charges of allegedly stealing public funds,” “RGC considers searches followed by blatant human rights violations to be coercion of employees of critical infrastructure enterprises. We believe that the criminal case which became the reason for the searches was opened only to put pressure on the enterprises which NJSC Naftogaz of Ukraine, represented by NJSC Chornomornaftogaz, is trying to grab.” As a result, Gas Distribution Networks of Ukraine, a Naftogaz Group company, took over Firtash-owned distribution networks in several Ukrainian regions.

The Ukrainian prosecutor’s office also investigated Firtash’s involvement in the infamous privatization of the monopolistic ISP Ukrtelecom carried out without competitive bidding and accompanied by financial fraud.

There were reports that the Tory party received nearly £200,000 from Firtash-linked associates and the Harlow Conservative Party received £40,000 from Shetler-Jones who had been the CEO of Firtash’s holding company Group DF. He had given in his own name and via a company called Scythian.⁴⁷

DMITRY FIRTASH’S PRIVATE FINANCIAL NETWORK

Asquith Family

The Asquith family opened all doors leading Firtash to the British elite, making sure he was welcome in the British elite circles. Raymond Benedict Bartholomew Michael Asquith, Lord Oxford, is an ally of Dmytro Firtash, peer of the realm, former spy, and post-Soviet elite expert. Asquith headed the MI6 resident agency in Moscow. He rose to prominence in the secret services in 1985 when he exfiltrated KGB double agent Oleg Gordievsky from the Soviet Union hidden in a car trunk. Asquith is the 3rd Earl of Oxford and Asquith and a member of the House of Lords. He is the great-grandson of former WWI British Prime Minister Herbert Asquith.

Following his diplomatic service, Asquith worked for Firtash-owned JKX Oil & Gas as Director of the largest British investor in Ukraine⁴⁸ from 10 November 1997 until his resignation on 28 January 2016. The company also had a large interest owned by Ihor Kolomoyskyi. According to some sources, Kyiv mayor Vitali Klitschko is Asquith’s protege.⁴⁹

In addition to his partnership with Firtash, Asquith pursued his own interests in the region, developing financial and biotech companies, such as Zander Corporation, Dessna, Asset Management⁵⁰. Asquith founded and headed The Ukrainian Catholic Foundation.⁵¹ He is also a member of the Council on Geostrategy. Curiously, the Council on Geostrategy is a member of the Development, Concepts and Doctrine Center’s “Global Strategic Partnership” run by RAND Europe. This consortium provides academic and analytical support to the UK Ministry of Defense. The Council on Geostrategy attended the Trilateral Commission’s Warsaw Dialog.⁵²

In 2005, Firtash invested $1 million in Asquith-run green company to get a 25% stake in the business. The next year, Shetler-Jones combined his Ukrainian business with the Firtash- owned company and became Deputy Chairperson of the Supervisory Council at Group DF. The picture of British connections would be incomplete without the fact that Prince Philip, the husband of then British Queen Elizabeth, honorary chancellor of Cambridge University, appointed Firtash as one of the university’s honorary patrons.⁵³

The assets of the oligarch have become a landmark target for globalist elites, by all accounts linked to the Asquith family both historically and currently. Raymond’s brother, Dominic Asquith, was a co-founder of Macro Advisory Partners, a firm with close ties to the intelligence circle in the Bilderberg Club – Jake Sullivan, John Sawers, and William Burns. The board of Macro Advisory Partners included Kofi Annan, who through his wife is linked to the Swedish Wallenberg family, and are also permanent members of the financial bloc of the Bilderberg Meeting.⁵⁴

Prior to his peerage as Lord Oxford, he ran a lobbying firm, Asquith & Granovsky (later Asquith & Granovski) Associates, for several years.

Isabel Asquith, Raymond’s daughter, has been a member of the Raedars board ever since. Its connections stem from cooperation with the Oak Foundation and Soros’ Open Society Foundation through Financial Investigations For Non-Profit Design (FIND) set up as a spin­off of Raedars.⁵⁵

British Ukrainian Society (BUS)

The mission of the British Ukrainian Society established by Anthony Fisher and Dmytro Firtash is to strengthen relations between politicians of the two countries and to represent Ukrainian business and culture in the UK. The society does not carry out any public activities, although it is quite active as a legal entity. It is logical to assume that the British Ukrainian Society is only a cover for MI6 agents of influence in the region – Robert Shetler-Jones, Lord Oxford and Lord Risby. Simply explained, BUS was set up in February 2007 as a privately- owned entity with two directors – Robert Shetler-Jones and Richard Spring. The latter was created a life peer as Lord and Baron Risby of Haverhill in the County of Suffolk. Since March 2015, he has also been mentioned as the founder of the Ukraine Modernization Agency.

Robert Shetler-Jones is one of the closest associates of Dmytro Firtash and deemed to be his financial consigliere. He was CEO of Group DF, a Firtash-owned parent company, from its inception in 2007 to August 2012 and he still runs the group through the intermediary company, GENTECH Holding GmbH. Currently, he is a Member of the Group Supervisory Council chaired by Firtash. BUS shares the same office building in Knightsbridge with Scythian Limited, a company run by Shetler-Jones (he is listed as its CEO in BUS constituent documents) and specializing in acquisition of Eastern European assets. One of Shetler- Jones’s top priorities is to build business relationships with Ukrainian contractors in the best interest of the City and British intelligence agencies.

According to the UK Electoral Commission, Scythian Limited financed conservative electoral campaigns. Among its contacts were such Conservative MPs, as Richard John Grenville Spring, Baron Risby, John Whittingdale and Robert Halfon.

Anthony Fisher is a strategic communications expert and CEO of several nonprofit organizations, such as BUS, Founding Director of the EU-Ukraine Business Council, Head of Bonita Trust, former CEO of Granovski Associates. Fisher is deeply integrated into intelligence proxy structures.

On 15 February 2008, Anthony Fisher, Alex Walsh and Jack Wakefield established a charity on behalf of Firtash, DF Foundation. Jack Wakefield, brother-in-law of⁵⁶ Dominic Mckenzie Cummings, is a political strategist who served as Chief Adviser to British Prime Minister Boris Johnson.

Fisher is a founder of Global Strategy Limited providing institutional and private clients with strategic and communications advice. He is also Director of Scythian Limited, a consultancy focused on structuring corporate acquisitions in former Soviet Union countries. He advised several governments, was posted to the Government of Gibraltar as its first Director for Development of the Financial Center and served as an advisor to the Maltese Government.

Elizabeth Smith, Baroness Smith of Gilmorehill, is a patron of the arts and a member of the BUS Advisory Council. In 1995, she was created a life peer as Baroness Smith of Gilmorehill. As an Advisory Council Member of the Russo-British Chamber of Commerce, she has a special interest in Russia and CIS member countries. She embarked upon a career at the Great Britain – USSR Association, which was later renamed the British East-West Center (BEWC),⁵⁷ maintaining dialog and contacts with countries of the then Soviet Union and funded mainly by the British Foreign Office. Working in close rapport with Sir Fitzroy Maclean, President of the GB-USSR Association, she realized the importance of defying stereotypes by bringing people together while sharing mutual experiences.⁵⁹

The baroness directed several major festivals of British culture and is currently President of the Scottish Opera and Trustee of the Mariinsky Theater Trust⁵⁸. In addition, she also serves on the boards of several organizations with interests in Ukraine and other countries of the former Soviet Union. She is a member of the management board of the Center for European Reform. Baroness Smith heads the John Smith Fellowship Trust funding young professionals from Ukraine and other countries to come to the UK to study the democracy and good governance. The program is sponsored by the British Foreign Office.

Terry Sandell is a founder of the British Council in the Soviet Union. Between 2005 and 2008, he opened and served as Director of the British Council Ukraine. Mr. Sandell was a trustee of several arts and cultural organizations and actively cooperated with the Council of Europe and the European Union, working on cultural policy, as well as on projects of cultural and capacity development in Ukraine and other former Soviet countries.

Ihor Mitiukov served as Managing Director of Morgan Stanley Ukraine when he joined BUS. Today, he is the Senior Adviser. He also holds a position on Ukrposhta’s Supervisory Council⁶⁰. His political and diplomatic career included posts of the Minister of Finance and Vice Prime Minister of Ukraine. From 2002 to 2005, he was the Ukrainian Ambassador in the United Kingdom. From 1995 to 1997, Mr. Mitiukov served as Ukraine’s Special Representative to the European Union in Brussels, with Vice Prime Ministerial status. From 1997 to 2001, he served as Minister of Finance of Ukraine. While in office, he ensured that Ukraine entered international capital markets in 1997.⁶¹ Until 2018, he was a permanent member of the Yalta European Strategy sponsored by the Pinchuk Foundation.⁶²

John Whittingdale was Minister of State for Media under Boris Johnson responsible for protecting Great Britain from misinformation and Secretary of State for Culture under David

Cameron. Previously, he served as Chair of the influential Culture, Media and Sport Committee of the House of Commons. In May 2023, he assumed office of the Minister of State for Media, Tourism and Creative Industries. Sir Whittingdale along with six other ministers voted against Brexit during the referendum. He is Head of the United Kingdom Delegation to the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly and was appointed by OSCE PA President Margareta Cederfelt Special Rapporteur mandated to report on war crimes perpetrated in Ukraine.⁶³ He is a member of the Conservative Friends of Ukraine group.⁶⁴

Richard Spring, Lord Risby, served as Merrill Lynch VP before he was elected to parliament. He is also former Vice Chairperson of the Conservative Party and Shadow Minister for the Treasury. Currently, he is Prime Ministerial Trade Envoy to Algeria and Lebanon and BUS Chair. He is President of the Association for Decentralized Energy and Deputy Chairperson of the Small Business Bureau. From 2015 to 2018, he was a member of the EU External Relations Committee in the House of Lords. From 2020 to 2022, he was a member of the International Agreements Committee. Risby is Co-Chairperson of the All Party Parliamentary Group for Ukraine.⁶⁵ In his capacity as the then Chairperson of the British Ukrainian Society, he co-chaired the Scenarios for the Ukraine program of the World Economic Forum in Davos organized by Pinchuk.⁶⁶

Raiffeisen

Austria was the headquarters of Centragas Holding GmbH, a company officially holding a 50 percent interest in RosUkrEnergo. Here, the oligarch established close contacts with Raiffeisen, local elites, politicians and bankers.

Dieter Bohmdorfer, Austrian Minister of Justice from 2000 to 2004, is a personal attorney for the oligarch and the team of lawyers under his leadership received a court ruling not to grant the U.S. extradition request against Firtash. Like former Minister of Justice Dieter Bohmdorfer, Daniel Kapp, an oligarch PR manager, has close ties to the far-right Freedom Party (FPO) via its leader Josef Proll who runs Leipnik-Lundenburger, an investment company owned by Raiffeisen Holding. Previously, Raiffeisen covered Firtash when he was still hiding his involvement in RosUkrEnergo.⁶⁷

Michael Spindelegger was Proll’s former colleague from the Austrian Government and former Chairperson of the Austrian People’s Party (OVP) and also served as Vice Chancellor of Austria and Minister of Finance. He was engaged in whitewashing the tarnished reputation of the Ukrainian oligarch as Chairperson of the Ukraine Modernization Agency at Palais Ferstel⁶⁸ in order to invest $300 billion in the Ukrainian economy and attract prominent politicians to join the initiative. The potential list included EU Commissioners Gunter Verheugen, Stefan Fule and Peter Mandelson, former German Minister of Finance and Chancellor Candidate of the Social Democratic Party (SPD) Peer Steinbruck and former French Minister of Foreign and European Affairs Bernard Kouchner. The campaign was a failure as no one was willing to offer support.⁶⁹

Raiffeisen’s interests in Ukraine continue to expand. Raiffeisen Bank International took its digital banking business out of the European jurisdiction by moving from Austria to Ukraine.⁷⁰

RAIFFEISEN’S INTERESTS IN UKRAINE

Conclusions

Until recently, Dmytro Firtash has been a top player in Ukrainian gas, chemical and titanium industries. BUS, a powerful geostrategic group mainly composed of elite representatives from the North of England advocating Brexit and funded by the oligarch, created opportunities for implementation of the Global England concept temporarily strengthening its presence in Eastern Europe.

Firtash was a key element in the intelligence network of influence set up by Lord Raymond Asquith of MI6 whose assistance made it possible for the oligarch to obtain the British patronage as an adviser and local agent of interest. The allies in the City of London stayed away from the “dirty schemes” in exchange for an opportunity to make use of Firtash’s mediation in their dealings with Gazprom for the purposes of resources and political expansion in Ukraine.

Prior to the ousting of Viktor Yanukovych, a minion of Dmytro Firtash and Rinat Akhmetov, in 2014, the British energy-linked interests enjoyed extraordinary power and influence in Ukraine, especially by one shady company, RosUkrEnergo. Firtash controlled about two thirds of the gas supply market in Ukraine through regional gas companies. He gained fame as an oligarch who earned capital at the expense of Russian gas and was a key mediator of UK-Ukraine-Russia interests.

Under U.S. pressure, Firtash lost his positions in the oil and gas sector – Naftogaz expropriated his gas distribution business. The interest of U.S. elites towards the oligarch’s assets is further stressed by the fact that the seizure request and the lawsuit filed to seize Firtash’s titanium deposits came from Chicago, as Chicago-based elite groups have ties to Penny Pritzker, a BlackRock representative in Ukraine.

Representatives of the Firtash clan served as Head of the Presidential Administration, Minister of Energy and Vice Prime Minister for European Integration of the country. The projection of British influence is gradually weakening giving way to U.S. hegemony. The efficiency of British support and the protection of their groups of influence in the region could have been largely affected by changes in the attitudes of British intelligence agencies over Brexit prompting a more global vision of cooperation and disposition to compromise at the elite level due to growing consolidation of the largest BlackRock and Vanguard assets.

VICTOR MYKHAILOVICH PINCHUK

Born on 14 December 1960, Jew.

VICTOR MYKHAILOVYCH PINCHUK

Victor Pinchuk’s fortune is estimated at $2.1.⁷¹ He began his business empire in Dnipropetrovsk (now Dnipro) with a pipeline company, Interpipe Group. Later, he moved into the banking industry (Kredyt Dnipro) and launched a diversified business in the media sector.

Pinchuk’s main foreign partners are George Soros and his International Renaissance Foundation.

Pinchuk has a sizable influence on business in the country by manipulating the system for personal gain and on the gas market acting through his partners. Victor Pinchuk-owned Interpipe Inc. colluded with the Ministry of Energy of Ukraine to introduce extra duties of 52% for Vorex pipes. Naftogaz already awarded significant contracts to U.S. firms for oil and gas equipment. One of these companies, Pennsylvania-based Vorex, has been supplying Naftogaz with drill pipe and casings since 2017 and is the largest overseas supplier of pipe and equipment to Ukraine.⁷² The oligarch’s financial rise is attributed to his marriage to Leonid Kuchma’s daughter.

Pinchuk funded the 2012 report on imprisonment of the former Ukrainian Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko. It was over this, which the former White House Counsel Greg Craig and Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom ended up in the crosshairs of Special Counsel for the U.S. Department of Justice Robert Mueller.⁷³

From 1998 to 2006, Pinchuk was a member of the parliament. In his 2005 book, “Virtual Politics: Faking Democracy in the Post-Soviet World,” Andrew Wilson of the University of London claims that in 2002, Pinchuk created a fake political party seeking to attract young people. Pinchuk’s TV stations aggressively promoted the party using it as a tool to steal opposition votes.

Pinchuk’s conflict with the Privat Group run by the duumvirate of Kolomoyskyi and Boholiubov was marked by accusations stating they paid $100 million to a foundation established by Kuchma for election campaigning and by their claims that Pinchuk eventually stole the money. Pinchuk refuted these statements, having accused the duo of seeking to exclude him from a deal to buy an iron ore mining company, KZhRK, one of the largest enterprises in Dnipropetrovsk Oblast.

On 4 March 2015, Ihor Kolomoyskyi, another Ukrainian oligarch, attending the hearings of the Special Control Commission on Privatization of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine accused Victor Pinchuk of accepting a bribe of $5 million per month for running Ukrnafta, a company in which state-owned Naftogaz of Ukraine had a 50 + 1% interest. According to Kolomoyskyi, the money was transferred to offshore companies, “whose ultimate owners have been identified” as Victor Pinchuk and Leonid Kuchma.⁷⁴

He is linked to Rinat Akhmetov through the establishment of the Investment Metallurgical Union, an industrial and financial consortium which acquired the Kryvorizhstal steel plant for $800 million. After the Orange Revolution, however, the Kyiv Commercial Court declared the sale of the plant illegal. In 2005, Kryvorizhstal was re-privatized and resold to UK-based Arcelor Mittal for 4.8 billion.

Pinchuk also gained a reputation as a philanthropist by having made his namesake foundation a discussion venue for Soros-linked organizations, NATO, IMF, Aspen Institute, Atlantic Council, and other influential political institutions. The boards and advisory councils of these organizations include BlackRock representatives carrying out a step-by-step takeover of the country. The largest foundations, BlackRock and The Vanguard Group, are owned by one another on a circular ownership basis. These foundations bring together the world’s richest families – Rockefeller, Rothschild, du Pont, Mellon⁷⁵, Wallenberg. Among BlackRock top managers are several retired CIA officers.⁷⁶

On 8 May, Zelenskyy and Fink signed a development agreement to establish the so-called Ukraine Development Fund (UDF) with BlackRock Financial Market Advisory (BlackRock FMA) funded by JP Morgan Bank. Under the program for privatization of the most profitable and liquid private, public and municipal assets, Black Rock planned to invest about $100 billion in UDF, which is more than two-thirds of Ukraine’s annual GDP.

According to the deal’s terms, BlackRock will manage Ukrainian assets, including the funds provided as part of “foreign aid.” Thus, Ukrainian strategic enterprises, including “nationalized” ones, will most likely end up under transnational control. This scheme will also be used to manage Ukraine’s foreign debt which, according to the Ministry of Finance, is approaching $150 billion, or 100% of the national GDP. Officially, the agreement is intended to attract investments in energy, infrastructure and agriculture, but due to the weak subsidized economy destroyed by the war, it leads to the seizure of Ukraine’s major assets on account of debt repayment – from ferti le black soi l to power grids.

Joe Biden appointed Penny Pritzker (a representative of Europe’s top-10 richest families from the Chicago group⁷⁷) as the United States Special Representative for Ukraine’s Economic Recovery at UDF, known for a failed initiative to create a single free trade area in the Pacific Ocean. Ms. Pritzker will build a top-down colonial operation by reforming the Ukrainian government “in the sphere of transparency and accountability of the country’s recovery, including total control of law enforcement, judicial system in the fight against corruption, management of state-owned enterprises.”

It should be emphasized that the Chicago-based Pritzker billionaire family are historically Jewish immigrants from Kyiv. The Pritzkers generously funded Obama and Biden. However, Penny Pritzker is in opposition to the Clintons who were supported by her brother⁷⁸ and allied with Pinchuk.

Pinchuk gained the trust of global philanthropists, and as an act of solidarity signed the Giving Pledge initiative backed by Bill Gates and Warren Buffett under which the ultra wealthy promise to give away at least half their assets by the time they die.

Family:

Victor’s parents worked in the science and steel-making industry. Among his ancestors are rabbis and melameds.

His spouse, Olena Pinchuk, is a daughter of the former Ukrainian president Leonid Kuchma, and a founder of the ANTIAIDS Foundation. For nine years, she served as Deputy Marketing Director at the mobile communications provider, Kyivstar. In 2009, she took over the supervisory board of StarLightMedia operating STB, ICTV, Novyi, QTV, M1, M2, TV channels and some other media companies.

His daughter, Maria Viktorivna Pinchuk, went to Oxford. She is a shareholder of Dime Firm, a ferrous and non-ferrous metals trader co-owned by her grandfather, Mykhaylo Aronovych Pinchuk.

Assets:

• London-based EastOne Group.
• A branch of EastOne Equities, former EastOne Capital, a U.S.-based company purchasing, developing, redeveloping and managing properties, and providing property bonds. Established in 2016, the company purchases hotel, industrial, multi-purpose, office, retail and apartment properties in the northeastern and southeastern parts of the United States with a major focus on New York, Massachusetts, Florida, and New Jersey.
• EastOne controls Nikopol Ferroalloy Plant in partnership with Privat, a rival informal group run by Ihor Kolomoyskyi and Hennadiy Boholiubov.
• Interpipe Group, a steel and pipe maker in Ukraine.
• Most of Pinchuk’s links with European and American NGOs and clubs are organized by means of his charity, Victor Pinchuk Foundation. The foundation hosts the annual Philanthropic Roundtable during the World Economic Forum in Davos and cooperates with the Aspen Institute.

Atlantic Council

The Victor Pinchuk Foundation is one of the largest sponsors of the aforementioned Atlantic Council with annual donations of $249,000 to $500,000.79

Amicus Europae Foundation

Amicus Europae is a foundation established by the former Polish President Aleksander Kwasniewski. Its mission includes promotion of the European integration, neighborhood policy, Polish products, strengthening democratic principles and Ukrainian-Polish relations with a special focus on energy transition and energy security.

Executive Director of the Amicus Europae Foundation Ireneusz Bil worked at the National Security Bureau and the Office of the President of Poland as Director of the Office of International Cooperation and at the Office of the President for European Integration. In this capacity, he took part in negotiations about Poland’s NATO and EU membership. He is a member of the International Association of Energy Economics, a participant of numerous study programs and fellowships, including the U.S. Department of State, Bertelsmann Foundation, Zeit Foundation, Koerber Foundation – Munich Security Conference, a permanent YES panelist.

The foundation is forging relations with European national elites operating as part of the sustainable development model which is closest to the U.S. democratic elites. Competition with pro-Trump conservatives in the Ukrainian energy sector is characterized by the fact that the Ukrainian government reversed its decision No. 79-r as of 5 February 2020 to appoint Ireneusz Bil to the supervisory council of Naftogaz and instead added Robert Bensh as the U.S. representative.⁸⁰ Thus, causing Rick Perry, U.S. Secretary of Energy under Trump, to gain control over Ukraine’s oil and gas industry and force Kyiv to launch an investigation into the son of former U.S. Vice President Joe Biden.

Best known to the public is GEM Managing Director for Europe Robert Bensh working in Ukraine since the 2000s. Furthermore, he is involved as a Pelicourt Managing Partner acting as a shareholder of one of the largest privately-owned Ukrainian gas producers, Cub Energy, and an interest holder of Donbasenergo.

In partnership with FMS, FJJ, Karl-Renner-Institut, Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung (FES) Ukraine, and Kalevi Sorsa Foundation, FEPS, Amicus Europae has launched the project, “Progressive Paths to Rebuild Ukraine.”

Amicus Europae joined the Prince Albert II of Monaco Foundation and Burisma known for its corruption scandal with the Biden family⁸¹ to establish The International Forum on Energy Security for the Future: New Sources, Responsibility, Sustainability (ESF) in 2016. The initiative is intended to promote alternative sources of energy in Europe and worldwide.

Among its founders are Mykola Zlochevskyi and Aleksander Kwasniewski. Vadym Pozharskyi of Burisma is the Head of the Organizing Committee of the Forum.

Brookings Institution

Victor Pinchuk sits on the International Advisory Council of the Brookings Institution. The Brookings Institution is one of the most influential analytical centers in the United States.

In 1948, the institution played a key role in developing the administrative plan for the European Recovery Program (the Marshall Plan) which distributed aid to the war-stricken economies in Europe.

The Brookings Institution conducts influential research on a wide range of public policy topics from domestic issues in the United States to foreign relations.

The organization is chiefly funded by families and foundations associated with the Rockefellers.⁸²

Peterson Institute for International Economics

Victor Pinchuk is a board member of the Peterson Institute for International Economics. The institute is associated with IMF.

In 2006, the Peterson Institute for International Economics, at the suggestion of the Victor Pinchuk Foundation, launched its Eastern European and Ukrainian program to raise awareness among international political, social and business elites of the economic challenges facing Ukraine.

Rothschild

At the time, Pinchuk owned Kredyt Dnipro Bank and placed on its board Dominique Strauss- Kahn, former head of the International Monetary Fund, Swedish economist of the Atlantic Council Anders Aslund (mentioned earlier over contacts with Akhmetov), and Jean-Pierre Saltiel, president of Rothschild Conseil International. The bank also appointed Alex Munteanu, Managing Director of Europe Virgin Fund, a regional $57-million private equity fund sponsored by Soros-linked Kyiv-based Dragon Capital.⁸³

The bank may well have been used for money laundering and questionable operations, as many initially interested buyers refused to make the purchase on the pretext of its poor condition.

Giovanni Salvetti⁸⁴ is a Managing Director at Rothschild & Cie in Central and Eastern Europe and currently serves as a member of the Supervisory Board of Kredyt Dnipro Bank. He also managed Petro Poroshenko-owned Roshen as part of the blind trust when the latter was elected president.

Giovanni Salvetti has been representing the interests of one of Europe’s oldest banking houses, Rothschild & Cie, in Ukraine for 12 years. He took part in the sale of Pravex Bank for $750 million, debt restructuring of Kredytprombank and Nadra Bank and carried out over 20 M&A transactions. Salvetti is a financial adviser to the Bondholders Committee of Mria agricultural holding company.

David Petraeus – Arms Lobby

David Petraeus, a partner of the investment fund, Kohlberg Kravis Roberts (KKR), board member of the Bilderberg Club, former Commander of United States Central Command who oversaw U.S. and NATO military efforts in Afghanistan and former Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, has repeatedly addressed the Yalta European Strategy (YES) meetings on military assistance to Ukraine since 2011.⁸⁵ Sir Roger Carr, Senior Adviser at KKR, was also the CEO of BAE Systems until March 2023. The company is the main beneficiary of the war in Ukraine – in 2022, its stock soared +41%, while sales rose 9.7% with MBDA subsidiary revving up missile production funded by the EU.⁸⁶ The KKR foundation has grown 25% over the past year and 196.2% over the past five. These facts, together with close interaction with Hogan Lovells and the Clinton family, show that VPF’s efforts are aimed at promoting public debate in the interests of the defense lobby in Brussels.

The Victor Pinchuk Foundation has been hosting roundtables on Ukraine’s national security since 2017. In 2022, on the sidelines of the Munich Security Conference, the Yalta European Strategy (YES) and the Victor Pinchuk Foundation hosted the Fifth Munich Ukrainian Lunch, titled “Europe’s Security is Decided in Ukraine.” The aim of the Munich Ukrainian Lunch is to promote support for Ukraine as a necessary factor of Europe’s global security and international order. The meeting participants justified the need for expanded arms supply support and David Petraeus outlined the key needs of the Ukrainian military to be met by the U.S. and EU assistance in line with Biden’s principle of “as much as it takes.”⁸⁷

Hillmont Partners

In 2016, James Hart, another Pinchuk adviser, established Hillmont Partners which would serve as the pillar for informal contacts between London-based stakeholders and Kyiv. Hart was an adviser to the former Prime Minister of Ukraine and former First Vice Prime Minister of Ukraine – Minister of Economic Development and Trade of Ukraine. He advised the Ukrainian government on reform, trade and investment matters. Hart also attended YES and was an active sponsor of Pinchuk’s Ukrainian platform in Davos.

Andriy Lysiuk, Head of Hillmont Partners in Ukraine, worked in senior positions in the SBU Main Department for Combating Corruption and Organized Crime in Kyiv, and was a member of the Servant of the People party, but eventually withdrew from a mandate. Among the clients of Hillmont Partners was Kvartal 95 Studio founded by Volodymyr Zelenskyy.88 Denys Monastyrskyi who fought the influence of his predecessor, Arsen Avakov, was a former adviser to Hillmont Partners.

James Hart was appointed adviser to Quintel Intelligence (QI) when the company received a new shareholder, an anonymous BVI foundation, Capital Compliance.⁸⁹ QI was founded by a former British SAS officer, John Holmes, specializing in litigation support.⁹⁰ Nicholas Connon, a former British military intelligence officer, is a Director and CEO of Quintel Intelligence. In addition to Hart, among Qi’s advisers is a retired UK Court of Appeal judge, Anthony Hooper, and James Ramsden, KC, a cybersecurity expert who was involved in disputes with Russian and Ukrainian oil and gas companies as Founder of Astraea Group and the lead Queen’s Counsel for Chambers UK and Chambers Global in commercial disputes and civil fraud.⁹¹

Not so long ago, QI had Matrix Chambers among its members⁹², a company overseeing British interests on the Ethics Council, a body that approved nominations of judges to the Anti-Corruption Court of Ukraine.

George Soros (Open Society Foundation)

Pinchuk has been cooperating with Soros’s organizations since 2006.

Just one year prior to the presidential campaign, which Zelenskyy won, and the parliamentary elections, Pinchuk and the Soros-linked Dragon Capital launched the New Leaders public media project⁹⁴. Dragon Capital also founded and brought into the parliament the Vakarchuk- led Holos (“Voice”) party⁹⁵ composed of graduates from Soros organizations. Their presence in the parliamentary mono-majority of Zelenskyy’s party severely undermined the monopoly of influence on Zelenskyy, which was enjoyed by the Privat Group who placed him into power.⁹⁶

The Soros and Victor Pinchuk foundations are partners in financing numerous NGOs and projects in Ukraine and abroad. Soros also attended Yalta European Strategy (YES) meetings held by Pinchuk. YES conferences and meetings were attended by current and former presidents, prime ministers, power brokers, bankers, corporate executives, and celebrities.

Chrystia Freeland, a trustee of the Aspen Institute in Kyiv, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance of Canada, is a key OSF figure. Chrystia Freeland joined the Victor Pinchuk Foundation and his partner George Soros to promote Ukraine’s own strategic interests. In 1992, she established the Ukrainian Legal Foundation (ULF) at the behest of Ukrainian and Western lawyers to facilitate the state building process in Ukraine which immediately received Soros funding. She is linked to IMF schemes designed to indirectly/covertly obtain billions of dollars from non-EU states.⁹⁷

One of the major projects funded by Soros and Pinchuk is the Ukrainian Crisis Media Center, a venue for cooperation of Ukrainian public relations corporation and journalists, which is headquartered at the Ukraine Hotel in Kyiv. Allegedly, it was established to counter the propaganda attack of Putin’s Russian media cartel. Most “independent news” we get from Ukraine is produced and marked by the propaganda brand approved by Pinchuk and Soros. This includes the approval or cover-up of the fact that the “new” government in Kyiv is just another rotation of the former staff with established corrupt patterns of interaction.⁹⁸

Interestingly, Ukrainska Pravda, a news outlet owned by Tomas Fiala and controlled by George Soros,⁹⁹ published the results of a poll in which President Zelenskyy was named as the main corrupt official.¹⁰⁰ This fact heralds the intentions of the Democratic Party to nominate another candidate in the coming elections.

Alex Soros, a son of George Soros, reached a deal with Zelenskyy’s team to develop the Ukrainian economy and confiscate frozen Russian assets.¹⁰¹ On the day of his visit to Ukraine, the United States House Committee on Foreign Affairs backed the bill to transfer Russian assets to Kyiv.

Soros-linked organizations created the National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU). This is a group which worked to help Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign and silenced the Biden- Burisma scandal after prosecutor Kostyantyn Kulyk, who opened the case, was dismissed. Later, Head of NABU Artem Sytnyk was involved in several corruption cases that were closed¹⁰², while his First Deputy Hizo Uhlava, acting through his assistant Polina Chyzh, provided information to the U.S. Embassy upon request.¹⁰³

Clintons

The Pinchuk Foundation was a large donor to Clinton-run non-profit organizations. Pinchuk is close to Doug E. Schoen, a representative of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), a longtime Clinton associate and political consultant whom, according to the New York Times, Victor Pinchuk hired as an adviser in 2000 for a monthly fee of $40,000. Pinchuk leads the Clintons’ trusted circle in the region as a sponsor of Bill and Hillary Clinton. Not only did he generously support the Clinton Global Initiative, but he also donated more than $13 million to the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation.

Pinchuk sits on the CFR Global Board of Advisors (GBA) which can be considered a non­partisan consensus group of American banking elites who are at the managerial core of the Federal Reserve System.

BILL CLINTON WITH VICTOR AND OLENA PINCHUK IN 2007 (SOURCE: VICTOR PINCHUK FOUNDATION)

The Center for European Policy Analysis (CEPA)

Founded in the U.S. in 2005, CEPA seeks to strengthen the transatlantic alliance. Among CEPA’s donors are corporations, foundations, organizations and governments, including the Victor Pinchuk Foundation, U.S. Department of State, Pentagon, Government of Estonia, Poses Family Foundation, Hirsch Family Foundation, Microsoft Corporation, National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and several defense contractors from NATO member countries, including FireEye, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, Bell Helicopters, and BAE Systems.¹⁰⁴

Hogan Lovells

Hogan Lovells supports the Soros projects. For example, the S.T.O.P. website1⁰⁵ which advocates privacy is funded by the Soros-owned Open Society Foundation and actively cooperates with Hogan Lovells, who is also listed among sponsors of the said NGO.¹⁰⁶

According to the FARA filings, former U.S. senator Norm Coleman, Senior Counsel with the law firm Hogan Lovells, is a lobbyist for the Pinchuk Foundation. Coleman is relatively indifferent to intra-clan relations of Ukrainian oligarchs and also known for working on a full-time basis for Akhmetov’s Metinvest. In addition to Coleman, Metinvest also engaged lobbyists, such as Charles Garrison, Nicholas Laneville, steel market expert Craig A Lewis¹⁰⁷, Senior Counsel at CSIS Kelly Ann Shaw¹⁰⁸ and Jared R Wessel, Assistant General Counsel at the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative.

Coleman’s work for Pinchuk included a successful attempt to force President Joe Biden to abolish steel duties in Ukraine after the war began. The project has already been given the green light by his former colleague, U.S. Senator of Minnesota, Amy Klobuchar and U.S.

Senator Chris Coons. The initiative was further backed by Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.)¹⁰⁹

Coleman, who has extensive experience as a foreign interest lobbyist via his longstanding role as an agent for Saudi Arabia, is already busy at work for Ukraine. Previously, Coleman also participated in raising and spending over $260 million in funds supporting Republican congressional candidates in the 2022 midterm elections.¹¹⁰

Coleman also cooperates with Urenco, a supplier of uranium for nuclear power plants. Urenco has uranium enrichment plants in Germany, Netherlands, UK, and U.S.

Ukrainian nuclear company Energoatom and Urenco Group reached an agreement on long­term enriched uranium supplies for Ukrainian nuclear power plants starting in 2026 to replace Russian supplies.¹¹¹ The company paid Hogan Lovells about $600,000 for services in 2023.

Hogan Lovells pursues the interests of its major clients and in cooperation with Pinchuk worked pro bono with members of Congress to help host an exhibition of the Pinchuk Foundation dedicated to the Russian aggression. This work included the organization of contact with Sen. (D-Minn.) Amy Klobuchar and an exchange of e-mails with chiefs of staff of GOP Sen. Lindsey Graham and Thom Tillis. Coleman asked for the event to be hosted at the Capitol “to give members of Congress a better understanding of the horrific loss of life and the tragic agony that the people of Ukraine have experienced over the course of the last year as a direct result of Russian war crimes” and to “do as much as possible to ensure continued, strong, bipartisan support for the truly heroic efforts that this administration and Congress have made to provide essential military and economic assistance to Ukraine.” This October, the Victor Pinchuk Foundation opened the Russian War Crimes exhibition at The Dodd Center for Human Rights at the University of Connecticut (USA).¹¹² Pinchuk addressed the Summit at The Dodd Center and spoke about strengthening air defense with F16 fighter jets (manufactured by Lockheed Martin).

With pro bono work for the Pinchuk Foundation, this benefited the company’s major clients interested in the conflict in Ukraine. Looking Glass Cyber Solutions¹¹³ and HawkEye 360¹¹⁴ are also Norm Coleman’s clients with extensive contracts with the U.S. Department of Defense.

Looking Glass, which paid Hogan Lovells $200,000 in 2022, holds a five-year contract with the Department of Defense “to provide tailored cyber threat intelligence data and enhance the mission effectiveness of US military cyber threat analysts and operators.” The company website describes the role of such threats in Russia’s military strategy.

HawkEye 360, which also paid $200,000 to Hogan Lovells in 2022, similarly is a defense department contractor specializing in detection and geolocation of radio signals. Their detection network conducted analysis in Ukraine and their website boasts the identification of GPS interference in Ukraine, appearing to be part of Moscow’s “integration of electronic warfare tactics into Russian military operation, meant to further degrade Ukraine’s ability for self-defense.”¹¹⁵

Coleman and Hogan Lovells working on the Saudi account engage in what he calls “specific advocacy assignments with regard to US Government officials, Members of Congress and their staffs, representatives of media organizations and/or other individuals involved in legislative, regulatory, public policy or public affairs matters, and/or in other activities of interest to the foreign principal.”¹¹⁶. The aforementioned Privat case describes the work of Hogan Lovells in terms of conflict of interest in relation to Ukrainian clients and confirms the company’s role as a channel for attracting attention and informing third parties among the U.S. policy makers.

In December 2016, interestingly, Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko gave the nod to seize PrivatBank from Ihor Kolomoyskyi under the pretext of nationalization and with the help of Hogan Lovells¹¹⁷. The company’s audit revealed coordinated, large-scale fraud at PrivatBank over a ten year period and found a “shady bank” formed from a network of offshore companies. The Kroll audit took place as part of Ukraine’s commitments to the IMF.¹¹⁸

Tracking Kolomoyskyi’s assets, Hogan Lovells hired the British private intelligence agency Diligence, founded by former MI5 officer Nick Day and his friends from the CIA¹¹⁹.

VIKTOR PINCHUK’S CONNECTIONS

The Aspen Institute

The Aspen Institute (USA) funded by the Pinchuk Foundation has been developing ideas and values of communities and civil society organizations since 2006. Partners have been holding seminars for the Aspen-Ukraine Alumni Association in Ukraine since 2008.

It is important to emphasize that the Aspen Institute is initially associated with the U.S. military and strategic vector. In terms of clans, Aspen is linked to the Pratt family who, in turn, have ties to Standard Oil and the Rockefellers. The Institute was established with the support of a Cold War strategist Paul Henry Nitze (his brother-in-law Walter Paepcke founded the Aspen Institute and Aspen Skiing Company). Mr. Nitze is a former Wall Street banker with Dillon, Read and Co. He was married to Phyllis Pratt¹²⁰. He is said to be part of the influence group of German arms companies in the U.S. defense industry in Colorado. Conclusions made by his intelligence think tank, Team B, regarding weapons capabilities and aggressive nuclear war strategies were exaggerated.¹²¹ Paul Nitze acted on behalf of the Baruchs, an influential American-German family at the core of the U.S. economy reorientation, to serve the defense industry beginning in the 1930s and the U.S. arms development.

Today, Aspen is publicly associated with the Clintons and defending Hunter Biden’s reputation in the Burisma corruption scandal. In the 2020 report of the Center for International Policy, the Aspen Institute ranked fifth on the list of U.S. think tanks receiving foreign funding. Among its major donors is Craig Newmark, Craigslist Founder and a private sponsor of Democratic candidates, as well as the parents of Amazon Founder, Jeff Bezos, Jacklyn and Miguel Bezos.¹²²

In 2021, the Aspen Institute established the Commission on Information Disorder to counter “malicious” actors “sowing distrust and discord in the civil society” by spreading false information.¹²³ The Commission was slammed for its left-wing political bias, censoring news critical of the Democratic Party and left-wing interests. Currently, AI technologies are developed by the Aspen Institute at the so-called censorship and industrial complex working in tandem with various tech giants and government agencies to attack free speech online, especially during election periods.

In Ukraine, the Aspen Institute has partnered with leaders promoting the social capitalism model, Luminate (Omidyar Network) and Impact Hub, the Klitschko Foundation and OSCE.¹²⁴

Conclusions

The real power in Ukraine has effectively been taken over by transnational banking groups. And with the U.S. represented by BlackRock Foundation dominating the landscape, the public policies of which are maintained by the Clinton and Biden families. The oligarch Victor Pinchuk is a local managing intermediary of this group of influence in Ukraine. For many years, he has been developing a narrow circle of high-level contacts with anti­corruption organizations, intelligence agencies, strategic global centers, and the non-profit shadow policy sector. These organizations make up the core for lobbying the U.S. defense industry and shaping strategic policies on the Western support for Ukraine.

Victor Pinchuk’s role is to serve the interests of large center-left political institutions associated with BlackRock. Zelenskyy’s team came up with an administrative “deoligarchization” tool at the behest of the White House to deter figures who pose a threat to the U.S. control of Ukrainian assets. This causes the hijacking of the political landscape, but will not affect Pinchuk who has connections and status to provide immunity. The anti­corruption political agenda is a stable strategic narrative advocated by the globalist elite, used as a way to get rid of opponents. If we take a broadside approach to such a phenomenon, it is more than just fighting criminal schemes and nationalizing assets. The anti-corruption system is well monetized.

This benefit is further demonstrated by the actions of Kangaroo Group, the largest network lobbying firm. In addition to members of the European Parliament, this organization brings together and maintains informal contacts with more than 50 corporate participants from different sectors that make up BlackRock’s portfolio, including Goldman Sachs, BP, Volkswagen and such defense contractors, as EADS, Thales, Saab, Boeing¹²⁵. The organizations provide the informal dialog with the Ukrainian establishment, that is necessary to promote its own interests in the region.¹²⁶

The President of Kangaroo Group is German politician Michael Gahler, a member of the European Parliament since 1999, the Christian Democratic Union of Germany, and the European People’s Party. He has considerable influence on the political landscape.

In July, Michael Gahler addressed parliamentary hearings and was backed on his report, Establishing the Ukraine Facility¹²⁷, according to which the Facility should provide €50 billion in EU financial aid to Ukraine based on current prices for the period from 2024 to 2027. The funds are intended to facilitate Ukraine’s future membership in the European Union. The paper places great emphasis on monitoring and anti-corruption functions which require Europe to provide greater assistance and more resources, without which reconstruction and direct funding of Ukrainian institutions would be vulnerable to embezzlement.

Based on the paper, these funds will benefit defense contractors, legal lobbyists, private intelligence organizations, developers of special software for investigations, cybersecurity and data collection, non-profit organizations, and civic groups associated with BlackRock and its satellites, represented by Soros-linked institutions and experts. Victor Pinchuk offers a discussion platform, funding for relevant NGOs and the agenda for Ukraine’s military funding. At the core of the lobbying is Hogan Lovells, the Aspen Institute, the Atlantic Council and David Petraeus whose ties are closely bound with the arms lobby and permanent members of the Bilderberg Club.

On 8 May, Zelenskyy and Fink signed a development agreement to establish the so-called Ukraine Development Fund (UDF) with BlackRock Financial Market Advisory (BlackRock FMA) funded by JP Morgan Bank. Under the program for privatization of the most profitable and liquid private, public and municipal assets, Black Rock planned to invest about $100 billion in UDF, which is more than two-thirds of Ukraine’s annual GDP.

BlackRock and The Vanguard Group are owned by one another on a circular ownership basis. These foundations bring together the world’s richest families – Rockefeller, Rothschild, du Pont, Mellon¹²⁸, Wallenberg. Among BlackRock top managers are several retired CIA officers.¹²⁹

According to the terms of the deal, BlackRock will manage Ukrainian assets, including the funds provided as part of “foreign aid.” Thus, Ukrainian strategic enterprises, including “nationalized” ones, will most likely end up under transnational control. This scheme will also be used to manage Ukraine’s foreign debt which, according to the Ministry of Finance, is approaching $150 billion, or 100% of the national GDP. Officially, the agreement is intended to attract investments in energy, infrastructure and agriculture, but due to the weak subsidized economy destroyed by the war, it leads to the seizure of Ukraine’s major assets on account of debt repayment – from ferti le black soi l to power grids.

BlackRock’s satellites have already gained control over Naftogaz, having Europe’s second largest gas reserves through the mediation of Lazard Investment (the Lazards are a family of bankers known for their competition with the Rothschilds in France) and Lazard Freres & Co., a SAS representative (owned by the Wallenberg family), who restructured Eurobonds. The foundation has launched large-scale seizures and buyups of Ukraine’s ample agricultural lands at discounted prices in connection with companies’ debts to the IMF. This is a major creditor of companies going bankrupt.

Joe Biden appointed Penny Pritzker (a representative of Europe’s top-10 richest families from the Chicago group¹³⁰) as the United States Special Representative for Ukraine’s Economic Recovery at UDF, known for a failed initiative to create a single free trade area in the Pacific Ocean. Ms. Pritzker will build a top-down colonial operation by reforming the Ukrainian government “in the sphere of transparency and accountability of the country’s recovery, including total control of law enforcement, judicial system in the fight against corruption, and management of state-owned enterprises.”

It should be emphasized that the Chicago-based Pritzker billionaire family are historically Jewish immigrants from Kyiv. The Pritzkers generously funded Obama and Biden. Penny Pritzker’s brother supported the Clintons¹³¹ who are allied with Pinchuk.

THE PRIVAT GROUP: KOLOMOYSKYI-BOHOLUBOV

Ihor Valeriyovych Kolomoyskyi

Nationality: Israel, Cyprus. In 2022, he was stripped of his Ukrainian citizenship.

IHOR VALERIYOVYCH KOLOMOYSKYI

In 2022, Kolomoyskyi’s fortune ranked him eleventh on the Forbes list. After the nationalization of oil assets last year, Ihor Kolomoyskyi lost $1 billion. He is now neither a billionaire nor on the list, as he was stripped of his Ukrainian citizenship. From 2014 to 2015, he was Governor of Dnipropetrovsk Oblast. He is also a defendant in several criminal cases in the United States and Ukraine.

Hennadiy Borysovych Boholiubov

Nationality: UK, Israel, Cyprus, Ukraine (he renounced his citizenship in 2017 but it was reinstated in 2021).

HENNADIY BORYSOVYCH BOHOLIUBOV

Starting 1999, Boholiubov has been President of the Dnipropetrovsk Jewish Community and traditionally accompanied Israeli top-level officials visiting Ukraine. He also regularly donated large amounts to synagogues in Israel.

In 2022, Boholiubov’s fortune ranked ninth on the Forbes top-20 list of the richest Ukrainians. Boholiubov is Chairman and Founder of the Jewish charity, Simha Foundation. He provides assistance to Jews all over the world and has donated more than $80 million to Chabad. On behalf of his foundation, Boholiubov funded the excavation near the Temple Mount conducted by the Anglo-Israel Archaeological Society¹³².

Privat is an informal umbrella name for Ukraine’s largest financial and industrial group. Its principal owners are two oligarchs: Hennadiy Boholiubov, who keeps a low profile, and Ihor Kolomoyskyi, who is politically and media active. Boholiubov deals with the banking side of the business, while Kolomoyskyi – the steel companies. The Privat Group, directly or indirectly, includes over 100 enterprises in Ukraine and worldwide.

Ihor Kolomoyskyi has made numerous scandalous connections and faced multiple charges. He is reportedly involved in contract killings and corporate intimidation in Ukraine. He also has a reputation as a dangerous man willing to resort to violence and is considered one of the first oligarchs to act as a warlord. In the past, Kolomoyskyi had been accused of contract killings and embezzlement.

Kolomoyskyi and his business partner Boholiubov are known regionally as “The Raiders,” and maintain a “quasi-military force,” or “army of thugs,” to “effect violent seizures of their opponents’ assets.” Kolomoyskyi and his partner Boholiubov used these forces, armed with various weapons, as a component of “strong-arm tactics” to advance their business interests and counter Russian influence in 2014.

Information about the FBI investigation into Kolomoyskyi is linked to possible financial crimes, including money laundering. This investigation was launched less than two weeks before the presidential elections in Ukraine. Kolomoyskyi was linked to a leading candidate in the election.

Just weeks before Zelenskyy’s accession to presidency, the FBI launched an investigation into Ihor Kolomoyskyi, suspecting him of money laundering. In this case, he is represented by the influential lobbying firm, Ashcroft Law Firm¹³³, closely affiliated with the Republican Party and the Bush Jr. administration. Mike Sullivan, an attorney handling the case for Kolomoyskyi, is the former U.S. Attorney for the District of Massachusetts and chiefly works for the GOPers.

Meanwhile, the oligarch stayed in Tel Aviv, as the influence of Chabad-linked Prime Minister, Netanyahu, gave Kolomoyskyi every reason to believe he would not be extradited to the U.S.

On behalf of Trump’s attorney, Rudy Giuliani, two Florida businessmen, Igor Fruman and Lev Parnas¹³⁴, flew to Israel to meet Ihor Kolomoyskyi to negotiate aid for Giuliani’s efforts to reopen the Burisma Holdings case. Their visit to Kolomoyskyi ended up in Giuliani meeting the Chief Rabbi of Ukraine and Chabad representative, Moshe Reuven Azman, in Paris¹³⁵.

Later, Igor Fruman and Lev Parnas were arrested on charges of campaign finance violations, specifically donating $325,000 to a political action committee supporting Trump’s re­election. It is also important to emphasize that Fruman and Parnas have ties to the Friends of Anatevka and could play a role in donating funds for the benefit of the said organization. As part of the same scandal, it transpired that Fruman and Parnas were linked to efforts to replace the United States Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch¹³⁶.

From 2017 to 2019, Ihor Kolomoyskyi financed Debbie Jessika Mucarsel-Powell’s campaign for the House of Representatives in Florida. In 2018 and 2020, he also financed the election campaign in the 26th Congressional District in Miami and donated about $10,000 through its employees and agents. Debbie Mucarsel-Powell is a member of the Democratic Party and volunteered for the presidential campaigns of John Kerry and Barack Obama.

Uriel Laber, who contributed $2,500 to Debbie Mucarsel-Powell’s campaign, and Mordechai Korf are American businessmen with stakes in some of the Privat companies who played an important role in connections with Ihor Kolomoyskyi and his financial operations. Laber is also named in PrivatBank’s civil suit and is implicated in not only Kolomoyskyi’s fraud and money laundering scheme, but in racketeering and civil conspiracy as well. Mordechai Korf and Uriel Laber are sponsors of various Jewish organizations and yeshivas. They are passionate philanthropists and support the Chabad movement. This religious group connection and charitable activities offer them a handful of dependable money laundering schemes using charities.

Chabad uses Privat’s financial resources to gain influence with both U.S. parties.

From 2017 to 2023, Soros-affiliated Hogan Lovells, one of the largest U.S. lobbying firms, represented Ukraine-based PrivatBank on behalf of Petro Poroshenko in his actions against the former owners, Ihor Kolomoyskyi and Hennadiy Boholi ubov. They also advocated Victor Pinchuk’s philanthropy on behalf of the arms lobby connected with Soros’s interests in Ukraine.¹³⁷

A long struggle for control over Ferrexpo and Poltava Mining between the Privat Group and another Ukrainian oligarch, Kostyantyn Zhevaho, had several stages, as a series of court hearings ended in favor of either one side or the other. Eventually, Zhevaho won the case in the court of last resort, upon which the Chairman of the Supreme Court, Kniaziev, was arrested on charges of bribery. Due to the seizure of all Zhevaho’s assets back in 2020, however, the ultimate beneficiary of the trial was the famous BlackRock Foundation, the second largest Ferrexpo shareholder, and Soros-linked Dragon Capital managing Ferrexpo.

The struggle for control of assets in Ukraine between the Chabad-associated Privat Group and Soros-linked organizations is the embodiment of a systemic confrontation reflected in other countries as part of the global trend:

• in Hungary, the Orban Government is at war with Soros-linked organizations all while building relationships with the local Chabad community;¹³⁸
• Trump and Netanyahu, who are also affiliated with the Lubavitch Hasidic Jews, are outspoken opponents of Soros;
• Soros’s support of HAMAS.¹³⁹

The aforementioned situations show signs of a systemic confrontation between two global groups of influence, pursuing their political and economic goals amid the global crisis. The conflict between the Privat Group (Chabad) and groups who can loosely be labeled Soros- linked groups in Ukraine is a specific manifestation of this trend and plays into the logic of confrontation between global projects.

Let’s take a closer look at the richest history of conflicts among Ukrainian oligarchs revolving around Kolomoyskyi and his assets in order to understand the strength of opponents and alliances.

PrivatBank. In 1992, Boholiubov and Ihor Kolomoyskyi established one of the largest banks in Ukraine. From 2003 to 2016, the bank accounted for about 25% of the country’s banking sector and held deposits worth over $6 billion which amount to around 33% of the total deposits in Ukraine. As a result of a massive fraud and theft, PrivatBank was nationalized in December 2016.

2016: Large-scale investigations launched by the National Bank of Ukraine (NBU) uncovered a scheme created by the bank owners to steal over $5 billion by issuing fraudulent loans. The National Bank of Ukraine declared PrivatBank insolvent. The Ukrainian Government backed the proposal to nationalize PrivatBank.

Weeks before nationalization, Boholiubov signed an agreement to sell Consolidated Minerals to China Tian Yuan Manganese Limited, a subsidiary of Ningxia Tianyuan Manganese Industry Co., Ltd. The nationalization of PrivatBank in 2017 was greeted by IMF, EBRD, UK and U.S. governments.

In April 2019, the Kyiv District Administrative Court satisfied Ihor Kolomoyskyi’s lawsuit on the grounds that the nationalization had been carried out in breach of the law. Interestingly, the ruling came days before the second round of presidential elections, when it was crystal clear that Zelenskyy had won. The National Bank of Ukraine announced plans to appeal the court ruling, considering it a threat to the national financial stability.

Erlan tried to prove collusion between PrivatBank and NBU. However, PrivatBank won the case in the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court. PJSC Erlan is linked to former PrivatBank owners. The company tried to oblige the bank to repay debts to NBU. The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court reaffirmed Kolomoyskyi’s defense points.

In 2019, former PrivatBank incorporators were sued in one of the U.S. courts over the largest ever alleged money laundering scheme of $470 billion, carried out between 2006 and 2016.¹⁴⁰

2020: Legal action filed with the Kyiv Commercial Court demanding the return of a 33.25% stake held by Hennadiy Boholiubov prior to the nationalization of PrivatBank.

2021: Satisfaction of PrivatBank’s petition and rejection of the legal action filed by the former shareholder of the bank, Hennadiy Boholiubov, for the return of a 33.25% stake in the financial institution. In 2021, Forbes estimated his fortune at $1.7 billion.

Ferroalloys. The Privat Group took an active part in the Ukrainian steel industry operating through mining, beneficiation and ferroalloy plants. In 2007, the group gained control over a 99.25% stake in Sukha Balka Mining and Beneficiation Plant. After the acquisition of the world’s largest manganese ore producers, Consolidated Minerals (Consmin), with major assets in Australia and Ghana in 2008, the group controls approximately 30% of the global ferroalloy market. Privat-Intertrading dominates the Ukrainian manganese ore market.

In 2009, the duo gained indirect control over a 3% stake in Ferrexpo (Switzerland) and Poltava Mining acting through Fayver Properties (Belize). Later, Boholiubov and Kolomoyskyi bought a 10% stake and attempted to get seats on Ferrexpo’s supervisory board. They, however, walked into significant opposition from the company owner Kostyantyn Zhevaho. With these attempts thwarted, Boholiubov and Kolomoyskyi had to sell their Ferrexpo stock. Thus, their new role in the situation was to attempt to gain influence over Ferrexpo’s management and their involvement in company stock transactions.

In 2021, Trimcroft Services, Gilson Investments, Calefort Developments, and Emsworth Assets, companies with links to Ihor Kolomoyskyi and Hennadiy Boholiubov, won a lawsuit against Zhevaho in the Kyiv Commercial Court which ruled that a 40.19% stake in the mining company must be transferred to plaintiffs.

In early 2023, the Pecherskyi District Court of Kyiv City seized the property of PJSC Ordzhonikidze Mining and Beneficiation Plant, PJSC Nikopol Ferroalloy Plant, PJSC Marhanets Mining and Beneficiation Plant in a case of the misappropriation of public funds by PrivatBank officials.

In September 2022, the Northern Commercial Court of Appeal annulled agreements for the purchase and sale of a 40.19% stake in Ferrexpo-owned Poltava Mining made 20 years before. In March 2023, the ruling of the commercial court of appeal was reversed. The aforementioned equity stake remained in Ferrexpo’s ownership. The final judgment of the Supreme Court finally foiled all attempts by Privat-linked offshore companies to seize the stake in Poltava Mining from Ferrexpo. The case was on everyone’s mind in business and mass media and was considered an attempt to raid a major industrial asset.

In May 2023, Chairman of the Supreme Court, Vsevolod Kniaziev, was arrested for a $3 million bribe from the oligarch, Kostyantyn Zhevaho, in the case of privatization of Poltava Mining.

A 50.3% stake in Ferrexpo plc. is owned by Luxembourg-based Fevamotinico Sarl incorporated by the Ukrainian oligarch Kostyantyn Zhevaho; the famous globalist foundation BlackRock, Inc. holds 6.0% of ordinary shares; Schroder Investment Management Limited has an interest of about 5.8% in the company. BlackRock is the company’s Largest shareholder second only to Zhevaho, who is currently under arrest in France over the case of JSC Finance and Credit Bank, where Zhevaho and top managers of the bank are accused of stealing $113 million. Zhevaho is under house arrest in France and the property of Zhevaho-affiliated companies was also seized. In October 2020, all seized assets were handed over to the Ukrainian asset recovery agency. Currently, Ferrexpo plc. is managed by Soros-linked Dragon Capital.¹⁴¹

Among the Cyprus-based offshore companies which started this case litigation 20 years ago are:

Trimcroft Services Limited, Emsworth Assets Limited, Gilson Investments Limited, Calefort Developments Limited.

Sofia Isidorou Siachinian is Director of the four aforementioned Cyprus-based companies and reportedly has ties to the Privat Group. In this case, we see that the Privat Group is feuding with George Soros affiliated companies in the steel industry and the facts around this conflict indicate that both opposing factions have and use influence on the Ukrainian government to advance their cause.

At Hogan Lovells, PrivatBank’s Lawsuits against Hennadiy Boholiubov and Ihor Kolomoyskyi were handled by Chris Hardman, Richard I. Lewis, Jenna Ralfe and Michael Davison, the latter of whom is Deputy Director of Hogan Lovells.

The same attorneys represent Victor Pinchuk,¹⁴² giving an extra context to the conflict between different financial and political interests, as Victor Pinchuk is a Ukrainian businessman and philanthropist, whose activities are linked to international foundations, including foundations linked to George Soros and hostile to Kolomoyskyi.

Like Kolomoyskyi, Pinchuk is regarded as a supporter of the Chabad religious movement. But unlike the Privat top figures, in business and politics, Pinchuk cooperates with another global sponsor competing with Chabad for influence.¹⁴³

1+1. In 2009-2010, CME held several transactions to transfer the ownership of 1+1 TV channel to its minority shareholder, Ihor Kolomoyskyi. The overall value of these transactions exceeded $400 million. The sale was eventually closed in April 2010.

Today, 1+1 Studio is controlled by more than ten offshore companies incorporated in Cyprus, Belize, and BVI. As of 31 December 2017, Ihor Kolomoyskyi has been the ultimate beneficial owner, while Ihor Surkis the owner of a substantial stake.

The TV channel waged an information campaign against Poroshenko. This conflict was part of Kolomoyskyi’s struggle for power and property after 2014. The release of “Servant of the People” TV series heralded the launch of an information campaign to nominate Zelenskyy and fanned the flames of hostility between Kolomoyskyi and Poroshenko’s chief of staff, Borys Lozhkin.

In October 2023, Kolomoyskyi assigned his corporate rights for 1+1 Media to incumbent General Director of the company, Yaroslav Pakholchuk, for a period of five years.

Ukrnafta is the largest oil and gas producer in Ukraine, producing approximately 62% of the country’s oil and 6% of the country’s natural gas in 2019. Ukrnafta-owned gas processing plants are the leading liquefied gas producers in Ukraine.

Until 2015, the majority stake in the state-owned company Ukrnafta was held by the government, but the actual management was carried out by Ihor Kolomoyskyi’s companies. Zelenskyy was unhappy with the situation, so in March 2015, regulation changes brought down the quorum for shareholders’ meetings from 60% to 50% + 1 share which allowed the government to gain control over the company.

This situation triggered litigation and a conflict over control of Ukrnafta. This is when the British seizure mechanism powered on. The London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA) ruled that disputable provisions of the shareholders’ agreement regarding the management of Ukrnafta were unenforceable. The government tried to shuffle Ukrnafta management which only led to a violent confrontation over control of the company. The situation escalated into a public confrontation with the president. Later, the conflict was resolved at a meeting between Kolomoyskyi and Poroshenko in the presence, and with the active participation, of the U.S. Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt. As a result, Kolomoyskyi was dismissed from his post as Governor of Dnipropetrovsk Oblast.

In 2016, the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine and Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office launched a probe into the appropriation of the property and funds of PJSC Ukrnafta for an overall amount of UAH 13.8 billion. In August 2021, charges were aligned, while the investigation came to an end in August 2023. As a result, law enforcers charged eight individuals, including the company’s former top management controlled by Kolomoyskyi. The law enforcement investigation revealed the violation of a government decree on full payment for oil supplies and that the funds spent were transferred abroad to the accounts of several offshore companies.

In November 2022, stakes in the largest companies of the Privat Group, including Ukrnafta and Ukrtatnafta, were transferred to the owners of state-owned companies which, for the time being, meant the loss of a significant part of the group’s assets due to martial law. Initially, Hennadiy Boholiubov and Ihor Kolomoyskyi were the owners of 60% of shares in these companies (with the rest of shares held by Naftogaz). Ukrtatnafta’s major asset was Kremenchuk Refinery which was damaged in Russian missile attacks in May. In 2015, the law enforcement investigation found that Ukrnafta shipped more than UAH 10.7 billion worth of raw materials to companies affiliated with Ihor Kolomoyskyi’s Privat Group before full payment was made. Currently, the investigation is complete; most of the funds have gone into offshore jurisdictions; NABU had the court annul 60 such agreements for almost UAH 3 billion.

DniproAzot. 2012: Acquisition of shares in DniproAzot, Ukraine’s sole liquid chlorine producer. Leveraging water treatment systems, Privat put pressure on water service companies and the government to gain preferences or other favorable terms for the plant. In early 2023, the Pecherskyi District Court of Kyiv City arrested PJSC DniproAzot as part of the case of appropriation of public funds by PrivatBank officials.

Ukraine International Airlines (UIA) was Ukraine’s largest airline prior to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Cyprus-based Ontobet Promotions Limited amassed 25.83% of UIA shares. In turn, Capital Investment Project owned by Ihor Kolomoyskyi increased its stake from 51.64% to 74.16%.

In 2014, Ihor Kolomoyskyi and Aron Mayberg fought for control of the aviation industry with the aviation service provider Swissport in Switzerland after they acquired a partner enterprise in 2011. This conflict ended with a change in the shareholding structure and although, on paper, Swissport obtained a 70% stake, the company was still controlled by the oligarchs. Litigation is ongoing even though such a long time has passed. Kolomoyskyi even said that he would suspend all his business affairs until he leaves political office. This situation tarnished Ukraine’s investment reputation.¹⁴⁴ Pavlo Ovcharenko, Ukrtatnafta CEO, is a shareholder of the company just as Mayberg and Kolomoyskyi.

In April 2023, Ihor Kolomoyskyi and Aron Mayberg retired from the list of founders of Ukraine International Airlines (UIA). As a result, Aron Mayberg was recalled from the UIA supervisory board by its shareholder, Capital Investment Project. Hanna Borysonnyk who earlier worked for Kolomoyskyi-linked companies was appointed the new UIA President. Aron Mayberg’s more than ten-year reign at UIA, beginning when the company was first privatized in 2011, came to an end. The Kyiv court declared UIA bankrupt upon request of the state-owned Ukreximbank.

Warren Steel Holdings is a U.S. based steel plant of Ihor Kolomoyskyi. The U.S. government accused him of creating a sophisticated scheme to launder money by acquiring real property and industrial assets in the Midwest. Warren Steel was one of these assets. According to the federal government, Kolomoyskyi and his companies invested borrowed funds into U.S. assets, including about $9 million, which was invested in Warren Steel. Later, Warren Steel used its plant as security to borrow mortgage loans of $110.7 million, a part of which was linked to Kolomoyskyi. However, after the plant temporarily reopened, it was shut down permanently in 2016 and the U.S. government confiscated several Kolomoyskyi-owned properties. Warren Steel left nearly $750,000 in property tax debt.¹⁴⁵

Asquith Family

This is the point where the Firtash-Asquith alliance collides with British interests in Kolomoyskyi’s assets. JKX Oil & Gas plc. is UK-based, listed on the London Stock Exchange while operating assets in Russia, Ukraine and six other countries. In 2011, VTB Capital plc., a VTB Bank company, increased its interest in JKX Oil & Gas to 6.4%, while Ihor Kolomoyskyi of the Privat Group became its largest shareholder with a 27.06% stake. In 2016, Ronald Asquith left the company under pressure from Kolomoyskyi and his partners.

JKX Oil & Gas is focused on projects in Ukraine and Russia producing most oil and gas outside state-owned companies. They have licenses for oil fields in Poltava Oblast and acquisition of Yuzhgazenergie with a license for the gas field in Koshekhablsky District in Southern Russia. Currently, the company’s board consists of Ukrainian managers from Ukrnafta.

Chabad-Lubavitch – Lauder Family

In May 2019, PrivatBank filed a lawsuit against Ihor Kolomoyskyi, Hennadiy Boholiubov and three American agents for Kolomoyskyi, Mordechai Korf, Chaim Schochet and Uriel Laber. The lawsuit was also filed against twenty companies owned by Kolomoyskyi and Boholiubov, located in the United States. According to PrivatBank’s lawsuit, Uriel Laber directly or indirectly owned Georgian American Alloys, Inc. and its subsidiaries, such as CC Metals and Alloys, LLC, Felman Production, LLC, and Felman Trading, Inc. All these companies were also linked to Ihor Kolomoyskyi. Uriel Laber also has ties to Optima Acquisitions, Inc., Optima Specialty Steel, Inc. and Niagara LaSalle Corp. Robert Powell, also linked to Kolomoyskyi, acted as the General Counsel or Chief General Counsel for all of these businesses.

Mordechai Korf and Uriel Laber acted as intermediaries for Ihor Kolomoyskyi by transferring around $4 billion of his tainted income to buy properties and companies in the United States. This information is based on three civil lawsuits filed by the U.S. Department of Justice.¹⁴⁶

Mordechai Korf and Uriel Laber are accused of laundering billions for the Ukrainian oligarch Ihor Kolomoyskyi, as they generously shelled out more than $11 million to nearly 70 yeshivas and religious charities in New York. Some of these organizations include: Colel Chabad (Chabad Lubavitch) receiving $466,647 and The Federation of Jewish Communities of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) receiving nearly $1 million.

These organizations include many charitable institutions, such as yeshivas and religious educational media in Brooklyn and across the state.¹⁴⁷

Until 2015, Korf and Laber held 7% of shares in PrivatBank’s foreign branch¹⁴⁸ and co-owned PrivatBank’s subsidiary in Latvia.

Uriel Laber is also seated on the supervisory board of Ukrnafta, a Ukrainian oil and gas company, in which the Privat Group (Kolomoyskyi and Boholiubov) holds a substantial stake.

Korf is a member of one of the most renowned families from the Chabad movement. His parents, Abraham and Rivka, arrived in Miami from Brooklyn in the early 1960s as emissaries of the Lubavitcher Rebbe, Menachem Mendel Schneerson.¹⁴⁹ Laber has served as a director for Jewish Educational Media, a non-profit organization that promotes the works and ideas of Grand Rebbe Menachem Mendel Schneerson, the founder of the movement. They have donated large amounts to this organization as well as the Federation of Jewish Communities of the CIS and one more charity, Colel Chabad.

From 2009 to 2010, Central European Media Enterprises sold 1+1 TV channel to its minority shareholder Kolomoyskyi.

Central European Media Enterprises was established by the billionaire Ronald Lauder, one of the owners of the Estee Lauder Companies incorporated in Bermuda. He is a member of the famous Lauder family. His mother, Estee Lauder, is the founder of the U.S.-based cosmetics company.

In 1984, Ronald became Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for European and NATO policy at the United States Department of Defense and served as the United States Ambassador to Austria.

Lauder is the President of the World Jewish Congress, a member of the U.S. Republican Party, a representative of the Israeli lobby, a vocal supporter of the Likud party, with long­standing ties to Benjamin Netanyahu and close ties to Chabad. In Austria, the Jewish educational institution, Lauder Chabad Campus owned by the Chabad movement, bears his family’s last name. Lauder is its permanent sponsor.

Lauder’s son-in-law, Kevin Warsh, was an FRS board member from 2006 to 2011. He was the youngest FRS board member, nominated by Bush Jr. , a former steering committee member of the Bilderberg Group. He is also a former executive director of Morgan Stanley and worked in New York to sort out details with Goldman.

U.S. Democratic Party

Debbie Mucarsel-Powell is an American politician and a member of the Democratic Party who served as a U.S. representative for Florida’s 26th congressional district from 2019 to 2021. In 2023, she announced she would be running in the 2024 United States Senate election in Florida against incumbent Republican Rick Scott. She volunteered for the presidential campaigns of John Kerry and Barack Obama and ran unsuccessfully for the Florida Senate in 2016.

Debbie Mucarsel-Powell received about $10,000 for her election campaign from the employees and agents of the Ukrainian oligarch Ihor Kolomoyskyi.

The known facts and contributions to Debbie Mucarsel-Powell’s campaign from the employees and agents working for Ihor Kolomoyskyi include: In September, 2017, Robert Powell contributed $2,700 to Debbie Mucarsel-Powell’s campaign, listing his employer as Georgian American Alloys, Inc.

• Between December 2017 and August 2018, Uriel Laber contributed $2,500 to Debbie Mucarsel-Powell’s campaign, and lists his employer as Felman Trading.
• In September 2017, Thad Florence, who listed his employer as Optima Specialty Steel, contributed $1,500 to Debbie Mucarsel-Powell.
• Daniela Rost, Georgian American Alloys Associate General Counsel, contributed $100.
• In both September 2017 and June 2019, Frank Rodriguez contributed $1,000 to Debbie Mucarsel-Powell’s campaign, for a total of $2,000.

The aforementioned Robert Powell is Debbie Mucarsel-Powell’s spouse, and, according to the information provided, had ties to companies affiliated with the Ukrainian oligarch Ihor Kolomoyskyi. Robert Powell acted as the General Counsel or Chief General Counsel for the businesses associated with Kolomoyskyi and financial shenanigans.

CONNECTIONS OF THE KOLOMOISKY – BOGOLYUBOV CLAN

Conclusions

Ihor Kolomoyskyi appeared to be one of the unsinkable figures among the Ukrainian business and political elites – he was a representative of the informal post-Soviet Dnipropetrovsk clan in the Ukrainian establishment, also including former President Leonid Kuchma and former Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko. The Privat Group is backed by the influential global Jewish orthodox movement, Chabad, whose members acted as intermediaries in laundering Kolomoyskyi’s money.

The PrivatBank Group is at war with the Soros-Pinchuk alliance. Until recently, Kolomoyskyi and Boholiubov have been among the most influential players in the finance, oil industry and ferroalloy market, and waves of lawsuits are rapidly stripping them of key assets. The group faced consolidated forces of Soros-linked anti-corruption individuals and organizations with the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine at the heart of this alliance. The Privat Group had many corruption schemes. They financed and protected Zelenskyy.

Kolomoyskyi’s media empire, 1+1 media, established by the Chabad member and U.S. conservative Ronald Lauder and his Central European Media Enterprises, became a powerful tool of influence in the campaign of the now incumbent president. The Lauder family are Chabad members and sponsors. Also, Kolomoyskyi was tied to Debbie Mucarsel-Powell, who volunteered for the presidential campaigns of John Kerry and Barack Obama, and her husband Robert Powell.

In March 2021, the U.S. sanctioned Kolomoyskyi and his associates. Zelenskyy openly supported Washington’s decision despite Kolomoyskyi’s help in the election campaign.

Stripping citizenship and lack of strategic alliances or protection of the British and U.S. structures, having influence in Ukraine, means seizing assets effectively blocks the Privat Group’s comeback to big politics in any of the alternative political scenarios in the foreseeable future.

Maksym Lytvyn and Oleksiy Shevchenko (Grammarly)

Max Lytvyn (Maksym Lytvyn) is a Ukrainian programmer and billionaire, a co-founder of Grammarly.

In addition to his work in the tech industry, Max Lytvyn is also passionate about social and environmental issues. He has been a supporter of several charitable organizations and non-profits, including the Ukrainian Catholic Education Foundation and the Nature Conservancy.

• The project was funded by Sax Capital. In 2021, Max Lytvyn was named Entrepreneur of the Year by Goldman Sachs for his exceptional work as the co-founder and CTO of Grammarly.
• In 2021, Max Lytvyn was named among the Top 40 under 40 by Silicon Valley Business Journal.

He was among the bidders to buy Chelsea FC.

Alex Shevchenko (Oleksiy Shevchenko)

In 2001, he received a bachelor’s degree from the Kyiv International University. It was during this time that Shevchenko met his future co-founder Max Lytvyn.

In addition to Grammarly, he also serves on the board of FarmTogether, a tech investment platform for farming lands, where he is a seed investor.

Lytvyn and Shevchenko met during their studies at the International Christian University (ICU).

A minority shareholder (1%), Dmytro Lider oversees Grammarly’s social initiatives in Ukraine.

Grammarly’s funding of philanthropic initiatives includes:

• United24 Foundation
• KOLO Foundation is a charity which has transferred 140 pieces of equipment to the Armed Forces of Ukraine and Territorial Defense, cooperates with and implements projects with companies and non-governmental organizations, including PLAST, Ukraine’s national scout organization. PLAST operates in nine countries across the world (including the USA, Argentina, Canada, Australia, Austria, UK, Germany, Poland, and Slovakia). Back in the day, many leaders and active members of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN) and the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA) were brought up by PLAST, including the nationalist Stepan Bandera and UPA general Roman Shukhevych.
• The Hospitallers (Hospitaliery) are a Ukrainian volunteer medical battalion, a unit of the nationalist Right Sector Ukrainian Volunteer Corps.
• Come Back Alive Foundation (romanized: Povernys’ zhyvym) is a foundation that provides all sorts of support to service members in the Armed Forces of Ukraine.
• The New Ukraine Foundation (Nova Ukraine) is a U.S.-based non-profit organization established in March 2014 as a successor of the Maidan San Francisco movement and incorporated in California to raise awareness of Ukraine in the United States and all over the world.
• The Razom Foundation is a Ukrainian-American non-profit advocacy group established in 2014 by the Euromaidan supporters. The organization is engaged in propaganda activities in other countries (chiefly, in the United States) to draw attention and provide comprehensive assistance to the existing Ukrainian regime. The foundation has raised about $71 million since the outbreak of war.
• The Your Support Foundation is one of Ukraine’s largest foundations established in 2014 providing humanitarian aid to the inhabitants of the country.
• Mason Wasz Foundation is a foundation helping sick children.
• Greater Manhattan Community Foundation is an organization dedicated to improving life in Greater Manhattan.

Grammarly is the most expensive company with Ukrainian roots. By the end of 2022, the overall capital of Grammarly founders exceeded Rinat Akhmetov’s fortune.

Grammarly, a startup whose software pinpoints problems arising when people write in its web application and other programs.

In 2011, Bradley Hoover, the company’s current CEO, joined Grammarly. Hoover helped the founders turn the program into a company that guided everything they did going forward. According to him, the company has been profitable practically “since its inception.” Grammarly also has offices in Vancouver, New York, and Germany. In 2022, Grammarly moved most of its staff from Kyiv to Berlin.

Grammarly raised funding from General Catalyst Partners, IVP and private investors. The company value is estimated at $13 billion after raising new funding of $200 million from Baillie Gifford, General Catalyst, foundations and accounts managed by BlackRock, Founders Circle Capital, and other investors.

Curiously, Grammarly CEO Brad Hoover is a former investor of the venture company General Catalyst Partners. There he worked with fast-growing consumer internet, SaaS and mobile communications companies as a management board member and an adviser. General

Catalyst is also a strategic investor of defense projects, such as Helsing AI for different military-grade equipment – tanks, submarines, warplanes in cooperation with Saab, a Sweden-based aircraft and defense company owned by the Wallenberg family.¹⁵³

Unaten24 – Richard Brandson – Omidyar Network

Since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Grammarly founders have become active participants in charity events in support of the Ukrainian government’s humanitarian and military mission. They have also called for rallies against the Russian aggression.

Among Ukrainian organizations and foundations to which Grammarly sent donations are the government foundation established by Zelenskyy, Unaten24, with which Grammarly has the closest ties. As noted above, it is Unaten24 that gained funds from proceeds received from Russia since 2014.

Also, Grammarly’s representatives attended charity events hosted by the foundation which also raised funds for the Ukrainian government.

The foundation has established an extensive international network of ambassadors consisting of public figures, celebrities and businessmen lobbying the interests of the Ukrainian government abroad.

The most active Unaten24 ambassador is Sir Richard Charles Nicholas Branson who is closely tied to Pierre Omidyar, the founder of Omidyar Network, a philanthropic network at the core of the capitalism “reset.¹⁵⁴” The Ukrainian branch of the Aspen Institute is funded by Luminate Omidyar.

Branson’s circle of acquaintances includes founders of the world’s largest busin ess empires and lobbyists. Among them is George Soros whom Branson, as he says, considers a friend. Branson supported the Euromaidan.¹⁵⁵

Branson also condemned the Hungarian government after they attempted to close the Central European University established by Soros in Hungary in 1991¹⁵⁶.

Conclusions

Grammarly founders whose wealth is comparable to Rinat Akhmetov’s capital are not directly involved in the Ukrainian political strife, nor are they oligarchs in the conventional sense. However, connections with globalist investment organizations, such as BlackRock and General Catalyst, recognition by Goldman, indirect ties to Omidyar Network, generous funding of Ukraine’s defense, including nationalist groups, may indicate possible protection and potential for political advancement into the field cleansed by anti-corruption activists.

About NSC

The New Strategic Concept (NSC) is an independent, non-partisan, and non-commercial expert initiative, functioning as a network-centric think tank.

The mission of the NSC is to craft an alternative perspective.

The aim of the NSC is to assist our partners in perceiving events from a different viewpoint.

We endeavor to introduce an alternative understanding into the discourse, providing our own assessment of the emerging threats and opportunities associated with these events. The methodologies employed by our experts grant us a substantial informational advantage, allowing us to view a single event from multiple persp

DOWNLOAD “CLANS OF UKRAINE“

The post KLANS OF UKRAINE first appeared on Global Policy.

Anticipating the accusations of the expert community in kitchen conspiracy, I suggest starting with the incredibly obvious. It is the liberal domestic and foreign community in the Ukrainian crisis that takes the side on which only a patient with a severe psychiatric diagnosis can catch the scent of freedom among the smoke of burning tires, napalm and gunpowder. In order not to be known as an urban lunatic who accuses at least a third of the globe of inappropriate behavior and perception of reality, I suggest looking for the logic of neo-Nazi sympathies of a liberal worldview outside the clip “news” context.

Liberalism as a teenage disease not (before) development

For example, in the field of psychiatry already mentioned in vain. One of the brilliant psychologists, theorist and practitioner of the highest level, Viktor Ponomarenko, took seriously my question about whether the inadequacy of liberal thinking is a reason for forced diagnosis.

Ponomarenko is the author of a unique theory of a non—questionnaire assessment of the personality profile “The Seven Radicals Methodology”. Once this theory was known to students of closed special service educational institutions, now it is actively used by those who take responsibility for choosing personnel and partners adequate to the task. For me, Viktor’s authority is reinforced by the fact that he was entrusted to lead an expert group of psychologists during the Nord-Ost tragedy.

Viktor Ponomarenko believes that in the case of the liberal worldview, we are dealing with a deep crisis of personality caused by the arrest of mental development at the adolescent level.

During puberty, a person enters the age of protest and risky experimental exploration of the possibilities of the surrounding world. He sharply rejects the usual ideas about parents as caring guarantors of existence. For him, “ancestors” become unbearable prohibitionists and mentors: “don’t hang out with bad company,” “don’t get into bad habits,” “don’t get involved in dangerous adventures,” “don’t be lazy.”

Youthful negativism in relation to all kinds of “not” is accompanied by the denial of all kinds of “adult” authorities and is characterized by an accentuated fixation on oneself. The egocentric picture of the world given to a teenager in sensations, and not in logic, is complemented by the illusion that the search for new sensations is the true purpose of existence. Remember, Zhvanetsky (it turns out, self-revealing): “The process is about life, the result is death”?

Viktor Ponomarenko believes that a liberal is not a (fully) developed personality in the psychological age of a teenager who experiences subconscious horror of any fixed result: such, for example, as a stable state with its conservative values. But most importantly, he subconsciously and, consequently, without any clear arguments rejects a leader with the charisma of a productive politician and a vision of a clear strategic scenario. For the result is… Well, then you know.

Tunnel thinking — looking and not seeing, listening and not hearing — at the age of decision-making and civic responsibility, like any mental inadequacy, is suicidal. This explains a lot in the liberals’ exalted sympathy for the “bad company” of activists and leaders of the Ukrainian coup and their own subversives of the foundations of the “bloody Putin regime.” Much, but not all.

Why exactly does neo-Nazism, as the most extremist and aggressive form of protest against dissent, arouse the organic sympathy of those living “according to Zhvanetsky”? Why did the ultra-Bolshevik Trotsky, with his permanent revolution, enthusiastically support Hitler in his intention to go to war against the USSR? The end of the revolution — death? Undoubtedly, as an unwanted pregnancy of an “experimental” girlfriend and the need to try on the role and logic of the social behavior of hated parents. After all, they are the bloody fascists who forbid Me to realize my idea of freedom up to blood and pogrom in my own house.

However, it’s time. It’s time to deal with the basic definitions in order to build an adequate system of logical coordinates without pubertal liberal emotions. And don’t miss the strategic perspective chart.

Nazism: terminology and essence

Until now, domestic political science operates with phantom connotations, considering the springs of the Ukrainian coup. The terminology base at the level of the “junta” and “Bandera” is good for news headlines and journalism, but is poorly effective as a tool for expert analysis and argumentation of top-level political decisions and actions. I believe that, albeit negative, but still romanticizing the image of the Maidan is a known stalemate in the discussion on the topic “is Bandera a fascist and what percentage of Bandera members are involved in the current bloodshed.” Which, alas, we are now observing. “Bandera” and “junta” do not work in the field of Western and domestic liberal Russophobia.

The domestic “civil society” continues to show vivid examples of mediocre dead-end initiatives that are based on emotional assessments of the subject. What is the desire of the former legislator, member of the Federation Council Boris Shpigel, to ban fascist symbols in the country! It is difficult to suspect the once powerful senator of wanting to make a splash on a bloody topic, but in fact, according to such a formulation of the law, it would have been necessary to demolish the fence of the Summer Garden in St. Petersburg, to destroy columns and knock down the stucco of countless historical buildings throughout Russia. Readers of the respected magazine “However” do not need to explain the difference between Italian fascism and German Nazism, as well as Roman fascia — bundles of brushwood with double—edged axes – and the German eagle with a swastika. But the creators of the legislation have an obvious gap in this. And not only them.

FASCISM IN THE SERVICE OF CORPORATIONS

I have heard more than once from people who define themselves as Russian nationalists, and even “Orthodox fascists” (?!) that the Nazi criminals Shkuro and Krasnov, convicted by Nuremberg, as well as the notorious General Vlasov, are not traitors, but freedom fighters against the Stalinist regime. In Russia, the holy place of the “new hero” of Ukrainian freedom — the executioner of Bandera — will not be empty. Just let go.

In order not to get bogged down in a deliberately inconclusive discussion, we need to figure out why modern nationalist extremism, even without a reverse swastika or SS runes — just in a balaclava or an expensive suit — is still the same cannibalistic Nazism that cost humanity tens of millions of lives and is fraught with a global relapse.

Nazism is chauvinism, which is the basis of state policy. Such a universal definition, cleared of theoretical political science husks, creates a semantic and legal basis that equates with Hitler’s Nazism the modern regimes in the countries of the former Soviet Baltic States, Moldova, Georgia, the policy of the United States and NATO towards Russia, Iran, China, Afghanistan, Iraq, Egypt, Libya and Syria.

The proposed definition ontologically connects Hitler’s swastika, trident and the abbreviation NATO in the Goebbels logic of hatred of Russia as a second-class state, in respect of which “civilized” norms of international law do not apply. And if we talk about symbols, then this definition gives a direct Nazi content to the white ribbon and the term “fifth column” as a symbol of the attitude towards one’s own people as subhumans. After all, only this justifies in their unconscious logic the application of so-called double standards to Russia.

CAPITALISM AS A REALITY – SOCIAL NATURE, THE MAIN STAGES OF DEVELOPMENT, THE MODERN WORLD CRISIS

Liberalism as a breeding ground and a political tool of Nazism

According to Viktor Ponomarenko’s psychiatric definition, liberals in any country are an ideal protest mass against state foundations as a fixed result. That is why modern Nazism chooses a liberal stratum to crack the statehood, which is not pleasing to its world order. Undoubtedly, on the one hand, in the psychological logic of puberty, this is seduction. But in real life and politics, we are not talking about children, but about adults who are able to wield a bat or operate with words or capital and at the same time egocentrically demanding serious attitude. And if so, then we should take seriously the roots of liberal thinking.

It is obvious that there is no direct sociological connection with social, property, age, educational, intellectual and other statuses. The conservative-liberal rift has now become obvious in any stratum. The attitude to the Ukrainian events destroys long-term friendly ties and even family relations. And if the underlying cause is outside the field of standard sociology, then where to look for it, if not in some personal archetype?

It seems interesting to me to dissect in this vein the archetype of the notorious music critic Artemy Troitsky, known for his white-ribbon activity and the corresponding “Maidan” thinking. It would seem that he is a successful well-known showman, a brand personality, as they say now. Is there something wrong with the anamnesis? Perhaps. How did it happen that a person who did not take a single note in his life turned out to be a guru imposing his idea of “beautiful” on the audience?

Trotsky’s star rose in the era of the barrier that the Soviet leadership built in front of Western mass culture. The barrier was purely speculative, especially for those who, valiantly defending the interests of the USSR in the international arena, turned into an elite at home on the basis of access to those very Western values. In their diplomatic baggage, foreign consumer goods catalogs and music magazines easily overcame the Iron Curtain. Those who had access to these objects of lust were no different from the banal fartsovschikov, and often were simply part of this illegal system. Most of them have placed themselves in a virtual matrix “looking at foreign stickers with affection and eating Russian bacon.”

Perhaps this illusion of “real life” became the block that stopped personal development at the level of a teenage game of “I’m kind of in the West.” But it was in this environment, which gave birth to the contemptuous term “scoop” and experiencing fanaticism towards everything domestic as inferior, Troitsky stood out in a special way. His scathing articles about foreign music in the youth periodicals were distinguished by the “non-linguistic style”, although they were politically correct. Only a few who had the opportunity to read Western periodicals were surprised to discover the suspicious similarity of his texts with foreign originals.

The era of lifting bans deprived a whole layer of Troitsky not only of the elite status of “access holders”, but also forced them to look into the impartial mirror of their own professional aptitude. And it is quite logical that such a pseudo-elite followed the path of Kitty Vorobyaninov: there is no reason, but arrogance remains. As a reflex, respectively, to treat a country that does not suit them. And make a life-saving psychological escape to an elite childhood, continuing the game “I’m kind of in the West.” But unlike the post-revolutionary hereditary aristocracy with frayed elbows, these philistines in the nobility quickly realized that the game can be safely and profitably made a profession. And to regain the material and moral confirmation of their exclusivity.

The new time is a new game of exclusivity, devoid of a real basis and, by definition, taking the participant beyond the field of adequacy. Office plankton declares itself a creative class, in fact, without creating anything, and considers itself a champion of freedom, being in a rigid totalitarian corporate hierarchy.

Both generations share not only a negative attitude towards the rest in “this country”, but also a specific liberal idea of freedom. Let me remind you of the sacramental: “my freedom ends where yours begins.” If you think about it, it really rhymes with the opinion of liberalism as a juvenile psychiatric complex. After all, the beginning of “your freedom” should be felt experimentally: you can try from the first minutes of acquaintance to start an unambiguous action against an individual of the opposite sex or throw a stone at a representative of the authorities. After all, the process is life.

And the totalitarian regime does not like this freedom. He invents his own draconian laws and demands their observance (“the ancestors got it”). Their norm is a result imposed from above, this is the lack of new options to get thrills. This is death. And whoever obeys is a redneck and a slave. A second-class person. And the fact that the liberal idea of freedom at the junction of the boundaries of personal ambitions, by definition, in a weak state is fraught with a war of all against all, the owners of an infantile idea of the world do not care. Is anyone against it? The older boys from the next doorway will help us!

And the regime is therefore “bloody” and “fascist” because it protects the defenders of its freedom. But that’s not the only reason. Both the over-aged liberal and the pimply one have not grown up as a flawed person, an external culprit is required to compensate for their own hidden or obvious complexes of personal insolvency.

And here, no matter how deplorable it may sound for liberal intellectuals, they should see their reflection in the average sports fan, a person of anti-sports beer behavior, who considers himself a specialist more competent than a football commentator, and acquires an elite status relative to the “rest” of subhumans in the virtual ideal. (Did I say something about Trinity? Or Makarevich? Probably escaped from the depths of the subconscious.)

And here we come to the main element of the cultural code of the liberal, which merges it with Nazism in a binary charge.

THE SECOND CIRCUIT OF POWER IN THE WEST AND CAPITALISM

I will start from afar, since 1968. It is known that the events of the Prague Spring began with the most active information aggression of the West. The CIA-controlled media in Germany and Austria, neighboring Czechoslovakia, conducted round-the-clock processing of the Czechoslovak population. But so far, little attention has been paid to their main target group — sports fans. The developers of the area protest technology have calculated them as an organized, structured, hierarchically controlled mass, accustomed to acting outside the law. And most importantly, used to seeing a sports rival and his fans as deadly enemies. And to use collective aggression, not caring that it does not affect the numbers of the scoreboard. The first swallows of the “democratic revolution” on Wenceslas Square in Prague were the fans of the Czechoslovak hockey team, “suddenly” outraged by the regular defeats of their idols from the Soviet team. In international matches, internal contradictions between fans of the home championship merged into a common hatred for the country of the offender.

Does it resemble the Kiev Maidan and the Odessa pogrom in any way? Both there and in other cities of Ukraine, fans unite with extremists, journalists, financiers and become a political tool of Nazism as a policy of state chauvinism.

A natural conversion to the opposite

FASCISM VERSUS COMMUNISM, OR HOW HISTORY WAS SUBSTITUTED FOR US

At the heart of this unity of liberals, extremists and leaders of the economic race is a clear division into themselves (the sector of the most right—wing, successful, exceptional individuals) and into “them” (a faceless second-rate mass, “people who grab”, “losers”, stupid disenfranchised slaves). “Russians who support Putin, “Donetsk”, who do not accept the ideals of the Maidan coup, are slaves,” the liberal public echoes Hitler, the current extremists and oligarchs. It is not by chance that the domestic liberals find themselves in their sympathies on the side of the Maidan coup. And it’s not just about the relevant targeted grants. I know that one popular figure of the domestic show business refused to participate in the sensational anti-Putin “peacemaking” PR campaign, despite a substantial fee, with the words: “The motherland is worth more.” On the other hand, it is difficult to classify those who went to it as those in dire need. The root cause is deeper than financial motivation — in the liberal cultural code.

Sorting people, social groups and ethnic groups into masters and slaves is at the heart of the political philosophy of liberal economics. For the engine of liberal development is her Majesty competition. The reverse side of the victory of one is the defeat of the other. By definition, a serving political system based on other principles cannot exist. And he condemns himself to self-destruction, because the liberal model “my freedom ends where yours begins” is in conflict with the ideal of unlimited freedom. It is possible to expand the boundaries of the kingdom of freedom only by infringing on the rights of those who will be appointed second-rate. For obvious reasons, the slave mass does not really put up with its second-rate. And then liberalism resorts to the standard means: it gives a group of “trembling creatures” the right to elect. The calculation is simple: to provide them with ideological and military weapons and point out the culprit in all the troubles. So, in fact, political liberalism is driving itself into a logical dead end in the name of the ideal of absolute freedom. In its name, the competitive principle of development will inevitably require the diametrically opposite — totalitarianism.

Such is the political impasse: what they ran from, they buried themselves in. Without noticing that one of the “slaves” otherwise realizes his freedom of choice.

The post NAZISM AS THE PINNACLE AND DEAD END OF LIBERALISM first appeared on Global Policy.

The American system is the oldest, largest and most developed. It is based on the unconditional technological leadership of the United States. The key goal of the American strategy in the technology sector is to maintain the initiative in the field of innovation, prolong its own dominance and prevent the emergence of comparable competitors in the global market. To do this, active personnel work is being carried out, preferential conditions are being created for the development of the startup ecosystem, and methods of competition that are far from economic are being used.

The market capacity and favorable internal conditions allowed the United States to bring to the market the largest technology and Internet giants whose intellectual property rights are legally protected. An indirect but significant factor of the American techno-economic system is the creation of numerous common goods. All this allows American companies to provide a trial version of their own products to the whole world, which gives the user the opportunity to access one of the most advanced technologies without excessive costs. The principles of openness and freedom in the digital sphere proposed by the United States are captivating. However, there is no doubt that at the moment when Americans doubt their own hegemony in the technological environment, these principles will be immediately revised. There will be insurmountable borders and barriers aimed at deterring competitors and protecting American leadership.

Even within the United States itself, the decisions of tech giants to block and delete more than 70 thousand accounts, including the pages of President Donald Trump, are similar to open attempts to seize management tools from the authorities. In this case, the companies played for the political establishment against the objectionable “spoiler” of the system. It is likely that in the coming years, a team of political, financial and technological globalists will continue to work together to counteract the national industrial agenda in America and other countries. At the same time, there are concerns from the camp of Democrats that, no matter how convenient the technologies offered by corporations, the strengthening of the influence of tech giants is dangerous both because of their accumulation of “unprecedented economic power” and because of the increase in “control over political communication and communications.” The dominance of tech giants in the dissemination of information and their ability to politically mobilize the masses already pose a threat to democratic governments.

The Chinese techno-economic platform is smaller than the American one, although even here the claims to technological leadership are obvious. A significant amount of financial and human resources allows the Chinese ecosystem to be self-contained and administratively redistribute resources to those areas of technological development that the CPC Politburo considers the most promising. The Chinese were the first in the world to experiment with the autonomization of a number of services and services, building the “Great Chinese Digital Wall” (The Great Firewall of China). And if the Americans provide the whole world with a trial version of their product, then the competitiveness of the Chinese model is based on the cheapness of their offer and participation in financing advanced developments in other countries. At the same time, China relies on waiting tactics and does not respond to US provocations. In China, America is rightly regarded as a more significant and strong player in this area. However, the growth rate of the Chinese technology industry allows Beijing to count on the fact that achieving a market position comparable to the United States is a matter of time. It is unlikely that the Americans will be able to stop this process. There is a demand for pragmatism in world politics. Responding to it, an increasing number of American allies (including Europeans) favorably perceive China’s proposals for cooperation in the digital sphere.

The growing awareness by European countries of the importance of digital sovereignty may be potentially interesting for Russia. Key European countries – Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands – are afraid of dependence on Americans and Chinese. The need to develop a national technology platform is particularly emphasized by the French. Europeans are afraid of losing their subjectivity in the global technological environment and eventually find themselves in a situation where their voice will not be taken into account.

Russia and the Europeans are united by fears of becoming dependent on leading players and losing their own autonomy. At the same time, Russia, like some other European countries, has the competence to form an independent pole of power in the digital sphere. Russian arguments about the development of a data compatibility standard are more likely to be heard in Europe than in China and the USA.

The latter two States themselves have a significant amount of data and are not ready to share it with third countries. However, Moscow’s political differences with the Europeans may become an insurmountable obstacle to full-fledged collaboration, which is an additional motivating factor for Russia in forming its own technological platform.

Global trends in the development of the digital environment

The global digital revolution has led to a radical transformation not only of technological and economic structures, but also of social relations, the very philosophy of human life. These changes have fully manifested themselves in the sphere of international relations. The current situation in the world is similar (albeit at a fundamentally new level) since the invention of nuclear weapons and the beginning of space exploration, when technological changes have significantly changed the international behavior of States. It is already possible to identify a number of trends launched by new technologies that will determine the directions of further evolution of the system of international relations.

The rapid development of science and technology has created prerequisites at the national and global levels for reducing socio-economic inequality. However, it also increased the vulnerability – and suspiciousness – of society in the face of new (or old, new-faced) challenges and threats. New channels and methods of communication have significantly increased the information connectivity of the world. But they also contributed to the atomization of states that seek to protect such channels from foreign interference. The explosive growth of technologies and ways to use them continues to blur the line between the virtual and real world, fact and fiction. This multiplies the uncertainty in international relations and strengthens their anarchic state.

This uncertainty is compounded by the growing gap between the dynamics of development and implementation of innovations and the speed of reflection of these changes in the regulatory fabric. Phenomena that are not regulated by international law become a challenge to the classical system of international relations. Thus, the absence of codified agreements to limit the use of artificial intelligence or supercomputers and cloud computing in the military field involves powers with such technologies in a vicious circle of a constant arms race, which diverts resources and attention from the development of their civilian applications. Despite the fact that in the new conditions it is the Internet that is becoming a key source of new dangers, world governments do not have unified approaches to defining the concept of “sovereignty in cyberspace”, work is not yet underway to develop international agreements similar to the outer space treaty, the Antarctic treaty or sovereignty in airspace.

The all-encompassing nature of digital transformation processes leads to the fact that they fall into the focus of attention of an increasing number of international organizations – both specialized (ITU) and non-core (UNESCO, UNCTAD, PACE). This disperses the international digital agenda and multiplies mutually exclusive approaches to its issues. The lack of a unified and clear conceptual and categorical apparatus in this area exacerbates contradictions and disputes.

On more technologically-oriented international platforms – governmental and non-governmental – the struggle is unfolding for universal recognition of technical standards created by states or large corporations. The most successful lobbyists from among governments and businesses receive a significant market advantage in the case of codification of their proposed standard: the whole world begins to consume their products, and they get the opportunity to significantly influence the further development of the chosen technology. Such a struggle for standards also has far-reaching international political consequences. Taking into account the continuing rapid penetration of “figures” into public life, the countries that supply digital technologies firmly “bind” the client states to themselves, “getting them hooked” on certain standards and types of solutions, increasing the dependence of such countries on their exports – by analogy with the export of weapons or energy resources.

The seriousness of this problem is vividly illustrated, for example, by the situation faced by the EAEU member states when implementing digital integration. The creation of a unified system of electronic exchange of legally significant documents has been greatly hampered by the fact that different EAEU states use different cryptographic standards, not all of which are recognized as secure. The lack of coordination in their implementation, albeit for objective reasons, has led to the emergence of a technical barrier to the development of integration processes, which at the same time has long-term political and economic consequences.

Global digitalization has significantly increased the international legal personality of non-State participants in international relations. Initially, the technical NGO “Corporation for the Management of Domain Names and IP Addresses”, created with the participation of the US government to regulate issues related to domain names, IP addresses and the functioning of the global network, has turned into a leading institute of “Internet governance”, where states do not have a dominant role.

Multinational giants – Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Huawei, TikTok, Alibaba, YouTube – are already talking on equal terms with national and foreign governments. It is impossible to ignore them as a factor of national security. On the one hand, the information accumulated by such ecosystems and the advanced solutions implemented by them are of great interest to the competent authorities. On the other hand, their ability as information resources to broadcast certain information messages to a huge audience, directly or indirectly – through controlled search results – becomes a factor in national political life. These properties of such corporations give them the “right to vote” in the international arena and at the same time make them objects of strict national regulation. The understandable desire of States to control their information activities and gain access to the data they have leads to the erosion of liberal values – freedom of speech, secrecy of correspondence, privacy – and raises the question of their applicability in the changed digital age.

A separate point in the confrontation between corporations and states remains the issue of their fair taxation, especially if their services operate in a foreign jurisdiction. It is important to avoid double taxation of such platforms in order to avoid deterioration of the situation of consumers and the products and services they receive.

Perhaps for the first time, ordinary citizens have gained the ability to directly influence international relations on such a scale as today. Social networks, instant messengers and Internet television have practically won the competition with traditional media, made each smartphone owner a potential journalist and endowed him with the ability to instantly make his “news” for millions of people. Such a seemingly gratifying manifestation of freedom to speak and be heard is overshadowed by the fact that in the era of “post-truth” verification of a fact is no longer a requirement for our trust in it. At best, unintentional subjectivism or a thirst for the attention of an “amateur reporter” who is not bound by professional journalistic ethics or the politics of the publication, and at worst, the dissemination of deliberately false information can have devastating consequences for society and the state.

At the same time, the example of deleting Trump’s Twitter account demonstrates another trend. During the four years of Trump’s presidency, Twitter has been an important resource of his power and the main tool for fighting political opponents. With his help, Trump set the information agenda, dictated the political will, appointed to positions and dismissed yesterday’s like-minded people in disgrace. For millions of supporters of the president, Twitter has become a mouthpiece of dissatisfaction with Washington. With his help, it was possible, while remaining misunderstood, to be at least heard by the elites. Therefore, the president’s tweets amused some, frightened others, and irritated others.

At the symbol level, the removal of Trump’s account – even after he backed down and called on his supporters to peaceful protest – is much more demonstrative and sudden his “liquidation” as president two weeks before the end of his term than through a court or impeachment. But more importantly, this “liquidation” mission was carried out not by Congress, not by the military and not by the Supreme Court, but by the head of the Twitter technology company.

This case, most likely, on the one hand, will raise the request of third countries for “digital sovereignty” from American tech giants, on the other hand, it will strengthen the intention of these states to protect themselves from the dominance of their own and foreign technology companies by stricter legislative regulation of their activities on their territories. In the long run, this may strengthen the political fragmentation of the world.

The further development of cognitive technologies, primarily deepfake, gives attackers unlimited opportunities to create toxic content, which by the strength of its impact can already be classified as weapons of mass destruction.

Thus, the growth of the freedom of society and the strengthening of the instruments of its realization paradoxically develops in parallel with the strengthening of the police power of the state, and this becomes the new norm of everyday life. The strengthening of the second trend is also happening for objective reasons: the desire of states to ensure the safety of citizens, including by restricting their access to the “darknet” and uncontrolled elements of the network, can hardly be called a dictatorial whim of governments. The degree of deanonymization of users in the network will continue to increase.

The absence of institutions of arbitration or investigation of cyber incidents and cybercrimes recognized by all players, as well as the still weak development of digital forensics tools makes it almost impossible to reliably determine the party responsible for the incident. Which, in turn, increases the level of distrust and conflict between countries. At the same time, in the context of the development of new technologies – primarily the Internet of Things and autonomous intelligent systems – it is enough for attackers to have a powerful enough household computer or even a smartphone to hack the security system of a critical infrastructure facility and cause a disaster or seize sensitive information, and a hacker does not necessarily turn out to be a saboteur or a terrorist, it may be technically gifted “a teenager.”

The attempt of countries to protect themselves from such penetration has a number of consequences. First of all, states seek to limit the vulnerability of the network by stimulating import substitution and deep localization – it is easier to trust “their” controlled manufacturer of equipment or solutions. This leads to the disintegration of international production chains and a certain erosion of the principles of the international division of labor. In an environment where everyone who can start producing their own critical equipment and “software” (servers, operating systems, antiviruses and security systems), economic specialization loses its appeal. In addition, the definition of authorized operators, the restriction of competition in the market inevitably leads to a slowdown in the development of technologies, forcing states to live in a dilemma: progress or security. Here, as in many other aspects of the global digital economy, there is a contradiction between information exchange as a global phenomenon and physical infrastructure that has a territorial binding, which means that it is under a certain sovereignty.

This contradiction is evident in the issue of storing, processing and moving information through Internet channels. Historically, there has been a serious imbalance in the geographical distribution of the basic infrastructure and the nationality of the main Internet players. More than 60 percent of the total number of domains are managed by American players (Verisign, Afilias), more than 50 percent of content delivery networks belong to American companies (Amazon, Akamai, CloudFlaire), all major first-tier providers are residents of the United States, and ten of the thirteen DNS servers are located in the United States. It is not surprising that with such an “Internet geography” and awareness of the US readiness to take unilateral sanctions to very extreme measures, states that are not direct allies of Washington seek to create an alternative protected contour of the “national, sovereign Internet” – and the number of such states is increasing. On the other hand, according to experts, satellite Internet can displace cable Internet no later than the middle of this century – and in a new round the struggle will move into space or the upper atmosphere, but its nature, consisting in the unwillingness of states to leave key infrastructure outside their sovereign control zone, will remain.

The desire for sovereign control of an increasing number of States is reflected in their attitude to the issue of storing personal data of citizens. Both the European GDPR and the Russian so-called “Spring package”, with all the nuances of each approach, postulate the need for all Internet market operators to store personal data on servers located in national jurisdiction. This approach is aggressively opposed primarily by the Anglo-Saxon states participating in the “five eyes system” (USA, Great Britain, Canada, New Zealand, Australia), pointing to this measure as excessive and suppressing rights and freedoms. Taking into account the imbalances described above in the Internet space, the position of the United States and its allies is understandable. Nevertheless, as the digitization of a person’s identity increases, the possibility of his digital identification, moving all his personal data to cloud storage, the price of an error in protecting such information increases many times. In case of violation of the information storage security circuit, the identity of a citizen can not just be taken over by attackers – it can be completely erased, and such a digital death will cut off the victims of the attack from the possibility of realizing basic social rights. That is why the increasing strictness of national data storage requirements is becoming the dominant requirement of the era.

Two major issues arise for nation States in the coming years

The first question is to what extent they are able to guarantee the viability of their critical information infrastructure in the face of cyber warfare and the growth of network piracy. Cyberattacks or system failures in networks can permanently shut down entire industries and cities with unpredictable consequences for the country and its population, but the relevance and magnitude of such threats are still far from being realized.

The second question is how well governments understand the principles and methods of ensuring the security of personal data and how the procedure for the turnover of depersonalized big data will be regulated. Mastering such data by another state will allow it to build a reliable picture of the development of the economy and industry, the vulnerabilities of agriculture, the epidemiological situation, consumption profiles and adjust its political, military or economic strategy accordingly. Obviously, the accelerated development of national legislation regulating the principles of the circulation of national big data and access to interstate negotiations on this issue is a matter of the near future.

States and the future digital world: Duopoly or oligopoly?

Even today, the presence of states in the top league of world politics is unimaginable without a development strategy in the global digital environment, the availability of resources, their own ideas and products in this area. The very category of “great power” in the XXI century implies the creation of its own technological platforms, and ideally – the formation of a techno-economic block. Mandatory attributes of such a block are a significant chunk of the world market controlled by it, its own currency zone with an emission center, its own development model, a set of resources, technologies and scientific competencies that allow the block to be independent from others, at least in such key areas as defense and critical infrastructure.

The attempt of each of the blocks to exclude the influence of competitors on its critical infrastructure inevitably leads to the politicization of technologies and technological wars. Digital technologies, being end-to-end for the entire modern economic and socio-political space, are becoming the main field of a new war. Cyberattacks on digital critical infrastructure can be no less destructive than nuclear or biological weapons.

Against the background of the dominance of a number of developed countries in digital technologies and the emergence of global monopolies controlling network infrastructure and data flows, there is a threat of digital inequality and digital colonialism. Digital technological sovereignty is becoming a necessary condition for the sovereignty of political and national independence.

The restructuring of the principles of functioning of international economic relations and the entire model of global geo-economics provides new opportunities to the leading techno-economic blocs, a kind of “digital neocolonialists” of our time. The gap, now digital, continues to widen between global digital technology providers and recipient countries, which are gradually becoming increasingly dependent on technologically advanced states.

At the current stage, the “digital neocolonialist” countries offer exclusively preferential conditions for the objects of economic development to create the infrastructure necessary for the transition to the digital future. Thus, they immediately ensure their binding to their own solutions – from payment systems to data storage systems and electronic document management. But most importantly, they provide themselves with unlimited and practically free access to big data, getting from this not only an immediate economic effect and an additional advantage in the development of their own artificial intelligence tools and neural networks, but also effective tools for controlling their digital colonies.

Digital colonialism will continue to strengthen, and it is impossible to exclude the revival of the UN Trusteeship Council – already with new, digital functions and powers. At the same time, the canonical borders of the countries of the first, second and third world have already undergone enormous changes and will continue to change. Former third world countries get the opportunity to conditionally jump “from feudalism to socialism, bypassing the stage of capitalism” – the creation of advanced infrastructure of a new generation without the need to maintain the functioning of the old infrastructure (in its absence).

In this sense, it is possible to foresee the digital breakthrough of the richer states of the Middle East and Africa and their entry into significant roles in the digital arena. Finally, international financial and labor relations are also changing – digital assets move to more comfortable jurisdictions even more easily than financial ones, and practically leave no traces of such movement. The emergence of cryptocurrencies deprives the monopoly states of another sovereign right – the right to issue. The concepts of “brain drain” and “labor emigration” are also changing: now national “digital proletarians” should not move abroad – it is enough for them, staying at home, to work for a foreign corporation, alienating all their intellectual property, and vice versa – talented hipsters can move to more comfortable climatic conditions, while continuing to at the same time to develop the national economy.

At the same time, digital technologies, which form both the daily life and the information space of each person, are beginning to have an increasingly noticeable impact on his psyche and decision-making practices. An individual not only becomes a slave to the digital platforms of global monopolies, but is also really placed in a framework where his entire existence is tied to devices – a mobile phone, tablet, smartwatch. Under the guise of providing amenities, they restrict a person’s choice in decision-making and manipulate his behavior, including by pushing him to follow a “certain route”. In these unequal relations, digital monopolies expropriate and uncontrollably exploit personal data and even creative content on pain of exclusion from the social environment.

The widespread introduction of digital technologies, including the digitalization of industry and government agencies, the introduction of 5G networks, forms an imperative to ensure the security and sustainability of the entire digital critical infrastructure. Without solving this problem, digitalization may turn out to be the construction of a “house on the sand”.

In order to eliminate the “barricades” and “minefields” on the path of the digital economy, the state must guarantee both the security of citizens and businesses, as well as clear legal relations in the digital environment. This is especially true for the ownership and use of personal and “depersonalized” data and created content.

The ownership and cost of data is just one of the problems that have accumulated in the digital environment that urgently need to be solved. No less urgent is the need to resolve the contradiction between the requirements of national or local data storage and global transparency of technological and corporate processes, where data on engine operation on an aircraft owned by an airline of one country and flying over another country is processed in real time in a third.

As techno-economic blocks are formed, the competition in the digital space takes the form of a war of platforms and standards. At the same time, a number of countries and regional associations that have neither control over a large part of the global digital market nor dominant platforms (for example, India, Brazil, Japan, Russia or the European Union) will be forced to look for common ways to preserve independence and competitiveness, including by creating common platforms based on an open architecture and open source.

Russia on the digital agenda: Opportunities and limitations

Russia is one of the few countries with technological reserves and human competencies to build its own technological ecosystem. The powerful engineering and mathematical school inherited by Russia from the Soviet Union remains a source of a key resource for digital development – qualified personnel. Russia has most of the features of a sovereign technology platform. A national search engine has been developed and continues to develop. Instagram Facebook and Vkontakte are still more popular than Russian social networks VKontakte and Odnoklassniki, not only in Russia, but also in most CIS countries. Own cloud technologies are developing, domestic processors are being created. Digital solutions of Russian companies have significant export potential – primarily cognitive and self-learning systems, solutions in the field of cybersecurity, secure electronic document management and platforms for providing services to the public. Launched two years ago, the national Digital Economy program will provide 97 percent of all national households and all social infrastructure facilities (schools, hospitals, police stations) with access to high-speed broadband Internet by 2024. This will radically change the opportunities for the development of entrepreneurship, telemedicine and distance education, and will allow Russia to overcome the “digital divide”. Russia is already among the top 10 countries in terms of the number of Internet users, and the website “Gosuslugi” with its two trillion annual transactions is the most popular website of public services in the world.

The share of the digital economy in the country’s GDP is growing. Despite the vagueness of the term itself, it is already about 4-5 percent of GDP, but it continues to grow rapidly at a pace comparable to the digital leaders. In addition, Russia has an impressive satellite and radio frequency resource, which is the key to the successful development of new generation networks.

The challenges that Russia faces in the field of digital development cannot be underestimated. Some of them are only a “digital” consequence of “analog” problems and threats. Others have a fundamentally new, original nature. In particular, Western sanctions not only restrict, among other things, access to foreign technologies, but also increase the risks of maintaining dependence on such technologies to an unacceptable level. The case related to the refusal of Siemens to supply turbines to the Crimea jeopardized plans to provide the peninsula with heat. If we extrapolate this incident to the digital sphere, a similar failure of SAP, Oracle, CISCO or Microsoft to ensure timely updating of their solutions operating in Russia can cause failures – even collapse – in the operation of critical systems, including public administration and the banking sector.

These and other trends in the development of world politics in the last few years have actualized for Russia the task of forming reliable protection of its own digital critical infrastructure. The fulfillment of this task depends both on the effectiveness of a phased and gradual transition from imported software and hardware complexes, and on the creation of an effective command vertical from the regulator to the executor throughout the country.

The decision of the Russian government to create registers of domestic software and electronic equipment is designed to reduce such risks. Without being included in these registers, companies cannot count on delivering their solutions to Russian state corporations and public authorities. Such measures have a long-term positive effect on the development of Russia as a sovereign technological power.

Building a counteraction in the field of information security is complicated by conceptual uncertainty – the fuzzy separation of two close, but different spheres related to information flows. Both the security of signals in a physical network carrying information and malicious ideological content in Russian practice are defined by the same concept of “information security”. In the practice of Russian competitors in digital leadership, the security of signals and networks is defined as cybersecurity. Countering threats in these two areas requires different competencies. While in Russia there is a sufficient understanding of how to deal with cyber threats, in the field of information content, the Russian strategy requires separate reflection and development.

Moscow’s accusations of cyber interference in the internal affairs of a number of states were used as a pretext to increase sanctions pressure and undoubtedly damaged Russia’s international image. However, this campaign had consequences for a number of large Russian enterprises and firms. They faced problems and discrimination in the markets of some Western countries. Perhaps even more significant than the reputational and even economic consequences are the risks that these accusations will be used by the United States and its allies as arguments for conducting “cyberstrikes of retaliation” or even “preventive cyberstrikes” against Russia.

In the information space, Russia’s vulnerabilities are obvious due to the dominance of American monopolies in the domestic segment – Google and Facebook. These monopolies exploit Russian data for free and are increasingly trying to influence the information field and the political situation in Russian domestic politics. Including through manipulation of content and restrictions on Russian users’ access to information and means of communication. Other non-Western countries face similar challenges. It makes sense to establish a more active dialogue with them about the principles of legislation of the digital age, especially in terms of data ownership rights, rules for their storage and use, joint fight against online piracy, general rules of conduct for states and businesses on the Internet. The fundamental challenge for Russian legislation in the digital sphere is to keep pace with the development of technologies and practices themselves as dynamically as possible, especially in such important areas for society as cybercrime and digital finance.

Another problem today is the low ability of Russian companies and the government to compete with global corporations for the best personnel. At the same time, formally, “brain drain” may not occur – Russian talents continue to remain in Russia, but give all the intellectual added value to foreign companies. Taking into account the disparity of the economic potentials of Russian and transnational business, the solution of this problem is possible only within the framework of the administrative or conceptual (but in any case state) plane of relations.

Also, Russia and Russian companies practically do not work on international platforms to introduce technological standards and regulations that are favorable for the functioning of Russian developments. This is partly due to Russia’s lack of a doctrinal document outlining its own international priorities in this area by analogy with the National Security Strategy or the Concept of Foreign Policy. In the future, this omission may cause technological isolation or actual coercion of Moscow to work with internationally recognized standards and protocols, in the development of which Russia actually did not take an active part.

The Roadmap of Russian Leadership in the digital Environment

DIGITAL TOTALITARIANISM: HOW IT IS DONE IN RUSSIA

The Russian digital agenda should reflect the position of our country as one of the main forces in the global system, as an exporter of security and stability. Russia’s global role in the digital world is the role of the leader of the “digital non-aligned movement” for those countries that would like to avoid the technological dictates of “digital neocolonialists”.

It is important that the development of the digital sector of the Russian economy, including electronics and information technology, is accompanied by expansion into global markets. Only in this case will Russia be able to recoup investments in breakthrough technologies, conquer key technological platforms of the next generation economy and build large, competitive businesses.

Spread over eleven time zones, Russia (even in a world where distances are dramatically reduced) continues to play the role of a safe link between Europe and Asia. This applies equally to the global energy infrastructure needed to support the highly energy-intensive digital economy of the future, and to the network of quantum communications necessary for secure data transmission. The cold climate of the northern regions of Russia, coupled with cheap electricity, gives our country a competitive advantage in the location of large data storage and processing centers.

One of the most important challenges for Russia today is the implementation of the EAEU digital integration program. It is necessary in a short time to provide an opportunity for government agencies and businesses of the member states of the Union to exchange legally significant documents through the integrated information system of the EAEU (AIS of the EAEU). This will increase the speed of transit of goods through the territory of the EAEU, increase the economic effects of this process and improve the quality of integration in the Union.

In addition, Russia, as the main “shareholder” of this process, should contribute to ensuring the interoperability of the EAEU AIS with the information systems of the CIS member states that tend to integrate, as well as states with which the EAEU has or is planning a free trade agreement. Digital integration here can and should outpace physical integration. Another important tool may be a special (for example, with the Eurasian Development Bank) program for the implementation of national e-government standards in interested partner countries.

The task of expanding the Russian economic and digital space acutely raises the question of finding strategic allies in the digital world and using existing political mechanisms for this purpose. In this regard, it is worth using the positive potential of our relations with the leading economies of the future – India, Indonesia, Brazil and others.

Equally important is the work on digital dialogue with the European Union. Firstly, digital transport corridors with seamless transit experience for businesses will become possible only if the EAEU AIS is interoperable with the information systems of Europe and China. Secondly, closer coordination is needed in the European direction regarding the use of the radio frequency spectrum – so far there are many contradictions with the EU border states on this issue. The solution to this problem is especially important if in the foreseeable future goods between countries will be moved by unmanned transport. In this case, both Russia and the EU will need a single standard for new generation networks and a single frequency range allocated to them. Thirdly, Russia and the European Union have adopted comparable (at least in terms of principles) regulatory requirements for the storage and transfer of personal data. It is important to harmonize these requirements for business convenience.

In addition, Russia and the EU are drawn closer by the desire to tax foreign digital giants, primarily American companies, with fair taxes. The formation of a consensus on the principles of such taxation will help Russia and the EU to act more effectively on multilateral platforms dealing with this issue. In the medium term, the issue of creating a single cross-border “pool” of big data, marked up in a unified way and accessible (including for a fee) to third parties, primarily American and Chinese companies, is also becoming important

Collaboration with the EU is important, if only because the Russian and European integration blocks are squeezed between two very self-sufficient information platforms – American and Chinese, each of which is already a “bigdata monster”. To become an additional center of gravity, Russia and the European Union, relatively small in terms of population and data generation, simply need to join forces.

At the same time, uniform rules and principles for the functioning of national data management systems, clearly establishing to whom and under what conditions this data may or may not be available, will ensure the national security of Russia and the EU. It is obvious that the entire volume of accumulated big data of a state or group of states is of exceptional intelligence, political, economic and military value, and ensuring their safety is one of the key tasks of national security. But there is also a more immediate political argument in favor of starting cooperation between Russia and the EU in the digital sphere. The progressive degradation of Russian-European relations has exhausted the bilateral agenda for substantive topics. The issues of developing the digital economy and jointly confronting common threats in the digital environment that really bring us closer together can provide fundamentally new areas for non-confrontational interaction.

A separate point for Russia is relations with the leading digital powers – China and the United States. Unlike the European and Eurasian tracks, joint economic projects with Moscow are extremely unlikely in both cases. Nevertheless, the political situation dictates different logics in relations with Washington and Beijing in this area.

With the PRC, it is necessary to continue to coordinate their positions on international platforms regarding issues of Internet regulation and data security. Our approaches are similar, although the Russian one seems to be more liberal and does not imply the creation of an analogue of the “Great Chinese Digital Wall” in our country. But there are two other sensitive issues that need to be discussed with Beijing, putting aside the awkwardness.

The first is China’s technological penetration into the EAEU states within the framework of the “digital Silk Road” doctrine. As in the case of Eurasian integration in general, it is important to interface, coordinate the actions of Chinese business and the state with the activities implemented within the framework of the EAEU – 2025 Digital Agenda.

The second is the development of rules of conduct for Chinese companies in the Russian market of highly qualified personnel and startups. Currently, Huawei is conducting large-scale work on the purchase of Russian technology companies and on attracting Russian specialists to its R&D units. At the same time, salaries in the company are significantly higher than the market, which leads to a flow of specialists from domestic companies. Obviously, in conditions of market rules and freedom of choice, this is a natural process, but it is also necessary to discuss compensatory actions for the national economy with the Chinese side. The Chinese side would never allow similar behavior of third-country companies in its market. The expansion of work with universities, localization of not only I&O departments, but also production, the transition to the creation of joint products, and not the “cannibalization” of startup solutions should become requirements for digital companies operating in our country.

Cooperation on political issues with the United States is even more relevant, despite the confrontational nature of bilateral relations. First of all, it is the development of confidence-building measures in cyberspace, the discussion of restrictions on the military use of digital technologies, the convergence of approaches to Internet regulation. Russia and the United States could initiate negotiations on the creation of new instruments for controlling new types of military technologies. It is also necessary to jointly understand the terminology: speaking of “Russian hackers”, Americans most often give examples of “social engineering”. It is necessary to make every effort to return pragmatism to Russian-American relations, even if Washington’s interest in this is not visible now. We are not talking about giving the United States a new credit of trust. Rather, it is about considering Washington’s every move carefully and assessing its possible consequences, without considering it as a priori hostile to Russian interests.

Russia needs a coordinated, clearly articulated and structured agenda to work in multilateral associations – the ITU, the Digital Twenty, the OECD. It is hardly reasonable to spend all the time pushing through exclusively Russian approaches and engage in fierce diplomatic battles with partners. Instead, at least two groups of “digital truths” should be recognized internally.

First. The location of DNS servers and the main Internet highways really did not work out in favor of Russia. Russia is not a first-level provider. In matters of shaping the digital agenda, Russia is a major regional power, not the second pole of this system. Individual digital corporations have become so powerful that they talk to states on an equal footing.

The second. The world tends much less towards “digital bipolarity” than it may seem. This is especially significant at the level of cyberspace regulation. Despite the proclaimed freedom of information movement, most countries seek to localize data storage in one form or another. In matters of digital regulation, all countries are authoritarian. There are areas that require strict regulation, even in more democratic countries. On the other hand, it is irrational to completely deny the concept of “multistakeholderism” – the plurality of those responsible – in the development of any decisions concerning regulation and further ways of developing new technologies. The regulator must inevitably conduct a dialogue with technology owners, and this is most often a business. Having realized these realities, Russia will be able to act as a conciliatory state in multilateral associations, determined to find a compromise.

Russia also has a chance to become an exponent of the interests of states that want to preserve their digital sovereignty and are not set up to be part of the Chinese or American digital empire, but do not have sufficient “subjectivity” for this. Both lines of behavior will expand our opportunities to realize our leadership potential, our “gravitational core”. This will make it possible to promote Russian candidates for leadership positions of such multilateral associations as, for example, ITU.

Another important step in the restructuring of Russian work in international organizations should be a more thorough selection of members of our delegations, ensuring their versatility. Today, the reality is that Russian diplomats are not always sufficiently aware of the technical aspects of the issues under consideration, while specialized technical specialists do not have enough knowledge of the art of negotiations. A separate role should be assigned to lobbyists – business representatives, who are, in fact, the ultimate beneficiary of most of the decisions taken. This kind of “digital realism”, instead of distractions to provocations and foreign policy “noises”, orients Russia to extremely pressing issues of ensuring the country’s digital interests in the world.

The recognition that in terms of creating 5G networks, Russia has completely lost the initiative or the ability to actively influence the agenda should push Moscow to focus on preparing our proposals for the 7G network standard (or is it 6G?), to step up work to neutralize the threat of isolation of Russia in matters of the radio frequency range allocated for the needs of a new generation of communications spectrum. On this issue, Russian views do not coincide with the overwhelming majority of countries in the world. The peculiarity of the regulatory regulation of the digital sphere is that the new laws will be written by those who write the codes, that is, the technical content of the innovation will largely determine its regulatory framework. Therefore, it is important to intensify the participation of Russian specialists in the development of standards and protocols for tomorrow’s technologies.

Conclusion

Against the background of the virtualization of all aspects of social life, the militarization of the information space is taking place. Taking advantage of the absence of borders in the digital space and generally recognized rules of conduct in it, states and organizations controlled by them distribute biased and disinformation content in order to promote their own interests and values. New technologies of virtual reality formation, such as deepfake, leave almost no chance for an ordinary person to separate lies from reality and are able to provoke religious and ethnic conflicts with impunity, destroy families, destroy the reputations of politicians and innocent people.

In the coming years, the question of the structure of regulation of the entire global Internet will inevitably arise. Under the pressure of block technological confrontation – mainly between the United States and China – and ideological and political struggle, it is already divided into digital “enclaves”. The basic value of the Internet as a worldwide equal and democratic environment (web neutrality) is also undermined by attempts, promoted, in particular, by the United States, to make the quality and speed of network traffic dependent on the client’s wallet. The inclusiveness of the Internet is becoming the key to reducing digital inequality, and with it the guarantor of global economic growth and social development.

Big data as the “new oil” of the digital age should have an understandable owner and an understandable value for the individual, business and the state. Only if a person and a citizen become the center of services and services in the digital environment, a balance of human rights, national priorities and business interests will be ensured, and it will be possible to regulate the currently uncontrolled global digital monopolies for the benefit of the whole society. The removal of the pages of President Trump and his supporters, as well as the “deplatforming” of the Parler social network, popular among Republicans, clearly outline the prospect of actions by tech giants to eliminate economic and political competitors if these tech giants decide to operate outside the United States. Since it is so tough and relatively easy to crack down on ideological opponents in the United States, why can’t this practice be made extraterritorial? Moreover, there are already precedents.

For Russia, the minimum task is to preserve sovereignty when making decisions affecting the main areas of national security. The maximum task is to create your own competitive technological ecosystem, become the leader of the techno-economic block and a key participant in the process of developing new rules of the game in this area. In this sense, gaining economic sovereignty is a simpler task than gaining informational sovereignty. But it seems that the survival of states in the future depends on its solution.

The export of technologies and competencies for the protection of sovereign critical infrastructure to countries wishing to ensure their independence and defense capability can and should become one of the most important political and foreign economic priorities of Russia. This will provide the country with a significant financial inflow and international influence. It is along this path that the powers claiming leadership positions in this area are already following.

Currently, the implementation of the critical infrastructure technology export strategy is hindered by the lack of experience of Russian high-tech companies in creating integrated platform solutions, their weak presence in the markets of potential partners, as well as insufficient financial capacity to work on large long-term projects.

As the civilizational and ideological confrontation escalates, examples of subversive information activity become more frequent, more and more countries are paying attention to the need for more careful control over malicious and subversive content on the Internet. In the United States, where an information war is unfolding between hostile political forces – as the 2020 presidential campaign showed – digital monopolies resort to outright censorship and manipulation in favor of their ideological supporters.

Russia should think about the mechanisms of active formation of the information space, which would allow it to lead in terms of relevance and quality of content and thereby limit foreign influence in its information space.

The challenge of the new time is the “impatience of the spirit”: a short clip or a post on a social network “wins” a full-fledged news report or an analytical article, the variety of multimedia experience distracts a person’s attention, and the speed of changes turns life into a race against time. The conservative, traditionally unhurried sphere of interstate communication is forced to change, “to run very fast in order to at least stay in place.” States that will be able to quickly rebuild clumsy foreign policy mechanisms faster than others have every chance to take a leading position in this rapid “new brave world”.

The post INTERNATIONAL COMPETITION AND LEADERSHIP IN THE DIGITAL ENVIRONMENT first appeared on Global Policy.

Yes, we know that in the DPR and LPR half of the population does not actually live in the republics, we know that in Ukraine a million people live permanently in Poland and other countries. But in the absence of other figures, we take the benchmarks indicated by official statistics. And we keep the rest in mind as correction factors.

Population of LDPR

Ukrstat believes that as of January 2022, the population of Ukraine is 40997 thousand. What catches the eye when viewing information by region at the beginning of 2022? The population of Donetsk region (4059 thousand), Lugansk (2102 thousand). We compare the data of Ukrstat for January 2014, in which the population of Donetsk region (4338 thousand), Luhansk region (2236 thousand). The difference from 2014 is too small, considering that half of the territories of the regions are not controlled. Thus, all these years Ukrstat took into account the entire population of Donetsk and Luhansk regions in the total number of inhabitants.

For 2022, there is information on the Internet about the population of the DPR – 2.2 million, the LPR – 1.4 million. The calculation of the population was carried out according to the All-Ukrainian population census of 2001, taking into account the data of the Registry Office of the Ministry of Justice of the DPR and the Migration Service of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the DPR, so it is not necessary to rely especially on their reliability. However, this figure may suggest what number of residents can be excluded from accounting for the number of residents in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions controlled by Ukraine.

If we subtract from the Ukrstat figure 40997 thousand the number of residents in the republics published by the DPR and LPR authorities for 2022, we get 37397 thousand of the population of Ukraine.

Assessment before the start of a Special Military Operation

The publication of Ukrstat data on the birth of 271 thousand people in 2021 and the birth rate of 7.3 per 1 thousand people can tell about the population of the controlled territory of Ukraine. Consequently, the population for calculating the specific birth rate is slightly more than 37,000 thousand people (271,000 / 7.1 =37123 thousand people).

We can add to this number the official number of IDPs registered by the authorities of Ukraine in 2014-2017, approximately 700 thousand people.

Based on this, we get an average figure of 38 million of the cash population of Ukraine before the start of the Special Military Operation.

After the start Special Military Operation

At the beginning of 2022, Ukrstat reports about 40997 thousand people (including the entire Donetsk and Lugansk, and excluding the population of Crimea and Sevastopol). We will subtract part of the territories not controlled by Ukraine.

By the end of 2022, the Russian Federation controls the Luhansk region (-2102 thousand of the population At the beginning of 2022).

From the list number of the population of Donetsk region (Ukrstat data 4059 thousand), we will subtract the list number of residents of the DPR (-2200 thousand), also in the DPR a number of large settlements came out of control of Ukraine: Mariupol (-461 thousand people), Volnovakha (-20 thousand), Svetlodarsk (-11 thousand), rural areas are not counted. Minus the territories uncontrolled by Ukraine, we will agree on 1,360 thousand people in the Donetsk region controlled by Ukraine on a list, or -2699 thousand people from the population of Ukraine at the beginning of 2022.

Kherson region, we consider it to have sailed away in full (-1001 thousand people).

Of the total population of 1638 thousand . Part of the Zaporozhye region is controlled by the Russian Federation, except for Zaporozhye (770 thousand people), Orekhov (13 thousand), Gulyai-Pole (13 thousand), Volnyansk (14 thousand), It turns out over 810 thousand controlled by Ukraine (excluding villages), A total of 800 thousand people for Ukraine in the Zaporozhye region since the beginning of 2022.

Approximately so according to the papers of statisticians: from January 2022 from 40997 thousand -2699 thousand (DNR); -2102 thousand (Meadow); -1001 thousand.(Dick); – 800 thousand.(Zap) = 34395 thousand of the population on the list attached to the regions controlled by Ukraine. As always, we can spin + -1 million in any direction, that is, 34-35 million. Rounding up: 35,000 thousand people. This is 85% of the list number of Ukraine at the beginning of 2022. We can stop at this figure.

The refugee factor

According to the UNHCR, after the beginning of the special military operation of the Russian Federation on February 24, 14,325,424 people arrived from Ukraine to neighboring countries. At the same time, 6,941,852 people crossed the border in the opposite direction. (the difference is 14325 thousand-6941 thousand = 7384 thousand. not back yet).

Here is such a spread, we believe that a small number left the territories controlled by Kiev in the Russian Federation. Among the 2,852,395 refugees in the Russian Federation, the overwhelming number are people from territories controlled by the Russian Federation.

Thus, from the number of 34395 thousand registered outside the territory of Ukraine, it is possible to deduct a maximum of 7384 thousand, a minimum of 4406 thousand people who have left refugees not in the Russian Federation. And the average is 6 million.

Now the list fork of the population located on the territory of Ukraine after exclusion from the refugee count is from 27011 thousand to 29989 thousand. We turn our rounding drum and focus on the figures of the population actually now located on the territory controlled by Ukraine 28-29 million.

Demographic prospects

UKRAINE IS LIKE A NEW KHAZARIA, WHERE NO MORE THAN FIVE MILLION PEOPLE WILL SURVIVE

More about demography: war is not just now, but what it is going to in the future. Ukrstat divides the population into age groups.

Here you can see children 7348,5 thousand people (0-17 years old), the active working population (18-59 years old, we subtract from the category 18 + category 60+) 23496,8 thousand people, and the population over 60 years old (10152,4 thousand people).

We looked at how the population of Ukraine is divided by age. Let’s look to the future. That, in fact, for what it was conceived. From the second France to make a second Romania, but Bulgaria is better.

Ukrstat reports that in 2021, 7.3 people were born per 1,000 of the total population. We are counting on the end of 2022.

Option 1: counting the number of residents of Ukraine as 35,000 thousand, 255 thousand people will be born next year.

Option 2: counting the refugees who have left to the maximum (-6,000 thousand people) and the population of 29,000 thousand people, 211 thousand people will be born in the territory controlled by Ukraine.

Option 2.1: counting the refugees who left at a minimum (-4,000 thousand people) and a population of 31,000 thousand people, 226 thousand people will be born in the territory controlled by Ukraine.

Option 3: Pure assumptions.

The number of inhabitants converges with Option 1 (approximately 35,000 thousand people). There is a nuance in the gender and age composition.

We take from Ukrstat the number of newborns per 1000 women of the corresponding age in 2021, which was 31.3 for the age of 15-49 years and calculate the estimated number of remaining women aged 15-49 years to assess the birth.

We assume that refugees abroad are highly mobile people with incomes. Then pensioners, people over 60 years old, can not be included in the category of those who have left. Let’s also accept the fact that a disproportionately large number of women of fertile age went abroad, since men were not released, drafted into the army, and so on.

Ukraine: THE IDEOLOGY OF GENOCIDE

What is it, a portrait of a refugee?

This is a woman (only 18% of Ukrainians who came to the EU are men), her age is from 25 to 44 years old, and there is a possibility that she is married (every second left her spouse in Ukraine). With a very high probability, she came from a city or a small town (88%) and took one or two children with her (three quarters of refugees). She is also looking for an opportunity to verify her higher education diploma in Europe – 58% of all migrants have it.

The version about the mass departure of fertile women is confirmed. It is reported that 18% of refugees are non-women, which means 82% are women. Even if they are counted as women and children, this is the overwhelming majority. As the lowest threshold, we consider the figure of 2/3 of the number of women among refugees acceptable, we will try to use this proportion in the future. The first Internet link that came across about the proportions of the population of Ukraine reports that for the population of Ukraine in 43,000 thousand people (they count with Crimea and Novorossiysk regions). This is a demo counter, but there is no other data.

Women of Ukraine by age

0-14 years old 3,238,950

15-29 years old 3,246,591

30-44 years old 5,038,221

45-59 years old 4,764,875

60-74 years old 4,584,147

75-89 years 2 000 233

90+ years 162,726

Interestingly, from 45 to 49 years old, Ukrainian women have a birth rate of 0.8 per 1000 women of this age, (1 million such women will give birth to an average of 800 people) we propose to remove the age of 45-49 from the calculation, their weight in the total number of births is small. We leave women 15-44 years old.

3246 +5038 =8284 thousand women of fertile age (with a coefficient of 31.3, they would have given birth to 259 thousand people, which is approximately +- corresponds to the birth rate of Ukraine in recent years). This is with the number of women per population of 43,000 thousand.

A few final figures:

If there are 6000 thousand refugees and at least 2/3 of the refugees out of 6000 thousand people . these are women of fertile age, then about 4,300 thousand women aged 18-44 (8284-4000) will remain on the territory of Ukraine, with a coefficient of 31 and the number of births on the territory of controlled Ukraine will be about 130 thousand.

If there are 4000 thousand refugees, and at least 2/3 of the refugees from 4000 thousand people. these are women of fertile age, then about 5680 thousand women (8284-2600) will remain on the territory of Ukraine, with a coefficient of 31, and the number of births on the territory of controlled Ukraine will be about 180 thousand.

However, it is worth considering that the figures from the two paragraphs above are taken for a population of 43,000 thousand people, since there is no other data on the number of women aged 15-44. The approximate number of permanent population of Ukraine in the controlled territories has been established as 35,000 thousand people. Which is about 20% less than 43,000 thousand (43,000*0.8=35,000). If we take into account the number of women aged 15-44 in relation to 35,000 thousand of the existing population, and not 43,000 thousand, then fertile women should be 0.8 of the base number, and this is 6,600 thousand people aged 15-44 of the population of 35,000 thousand.

We apply the final figures to Ukraine with a population of 35,000 thousand people (what Ukraine controls):

– with 6,000 thousand refugees (2/3 of them women), then remains on the territory of Ukraine (8284*0,8-4000 ) =2600 thousand women of fertile age and 80 thousand births;

– with 4,000 thousand refugees (2/3 women), then remains on the territory of Ukraine (8284*0,8-2600 )=4000 thousand women of fertile age and 125 thousand births;

As you can see, the uncertainty with the number of millions of refugees gives a large spread.

Unaccounted for: increased mortality during hostilities, mass departure of migrant workers in previous years, postponement of births due to the unstable situation, the death of potential fathers.

Results. The prospects

38 million people lived on the territory of Ukraine by the beginning of 2022, by the end of 2022 there are a maximum of 30 million people, at least 27 million people. If we complete the SMO now, then in 2023 about 250 thousand people will be born.

UKRAINE: THE IDEOLOGY OF GENOCIDE

If the refugees of different ages do not return in winter, the number of births will be approximately 210 thousand people. If there are 6 million refugees to the West, and most of them are women and children, then about 130 thousand people will be born on the territory of Ukraine. And since all demographic figures are published taking into account the population of the whole of Ukraine and its former parts, we confidently bet on 100 thousand.

The most negative demographic scenario is the departure of 6,000 thousand people as refugees of the non-pensionable population for at least a year, respectively, a decrease in the number of births to double digits.

From the negative. In 2023, someone will have to support more than 10 million people over the age of 60 in Ukraine, I hope this is not our budget.

If there is a statesman in Russia who has implemented a program to move to the Russian Federation from each controlled region of Ukraine at least 50 thousand people aged 0-40 years, and to restrict the movement of persons over 40 years old to the Russian Federation, then in the next 10-15 years the problem of the South-Western center of power will be solved.

From the goals of its: the future is determined not by the number of deaths, but by the number of births. This is a human resource living on the ground in 10-20-30 years.

Postscript

To use the sofa hundred in the Economics and Politics section. All calculations are made with conventions and assumptions ± kilometer. Additionally, we offer the following numbers for priming to take into account the mobilization potential of the ZSU.

According to Ukrstat, there are 23496.8 thousand people in the country aged 18-59 years within the borders of the whole of Ukraine in 2021, taking into account Donetsk and Lugansk. Taking into account the coefficient of 85% of the population of Ukraine, the number of people aged 18-59 in the controlled territory is ~20,000 thousand people.

In 2013, information was published that there are ~2,800 thousand disabled people in the country, 80% of them are people of working age.

There are 3,362 thousand people with disabilities in the country, including 3 million adults with disabilities, the source is not very reliable, but the order of numbers coincides with early publications.

Able-bodied in Ukraine are read by men under 60 and women under 55. We propose to agree that the age group of 18-60 years of the population meets these requirements. 80% of the 2,800 thousand people with disabilities are 2,240 thousand people with disabilities of working age. In the first part of the article, it is approximately established that the population of the territories controlled by Ukraine at the end of 2022 is 85% of the list for 2021. Then the number of disabled people of working age in controlled Ukraine is 85% of 2249 thousand people or 1911 thousand people, rounded 2000 thousand people (one million men and women).

Out of 20,000 thousand people aged 18-59 years, we exclude 2000 thousand people with disabilities., 18,000 thousand people remain. Approximately the number of men and women at this age is equal, the bias in favor of women begins after 60 years. Men, without disability, of working age under the control of the Ukrainian state are now 9,000 thousand people. Some of them were already in the army at the beginning of 2021, some were mobilized, some went abroad.

The post ESTIMATION OF THE POPULATION OF UKRAINE AND ITS DEMOGRAPHIC PROSPECTS first appeared on Global Policy.

THE ROOF OF THE NUCLEAR FUEL STORAGE AT THE ZAPOROZHYE NPS DAMAGED BY SHELLING

Fuming Jiang, a nuclear safety specialist at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), was last checked at the NPS on January 16, 2020.

ENTRANCE TO THE DRY STORAGE SITE OF SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL AT THE ZAPOROZHYE NPS

Mr. Fumin probably walked around the station with his eyes closed or his pockets full.

SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL IN CONCRETE CONTAINERS AT THE OPEN STORAGE SITE OF THE ZAPOROZHYE NPS

After all, it is impossible not to see what actually happened at the nuclear power plant. There is an official letter from one of the station’s technical specialists. The man ran after Fumin literally the whole check and warned about the approaching disaster at the nuclear power plant – the expiration date of nuclear reactors came out five years ago (unit No. 1 and No. 2 in 2015, unit No. 3 in 2017, unit No. 4 in 2018, the fifth in 2020). The work of all the reactors had to be stopped urgently, and the Soviet equipment (the units were launched in the 1980s-1990s) had to be inspected by the designers of the station – Russian nuclear scientists, the specialist warned.

Fumin together with the management of the station pretended that the inspection was calm and there was no itchy employee with a panic mood. The official verdict of the 2020 IAEA inspection is “no violations have been detected, the equipment is working properly”.

Then the management of the NPS reprimanded the employee for “taking the trash out of the hut” and promised to deprive him of his job for such antics. However, the man’s concern turned out to be stronger – his wife and children live in Zaporozhye, and the reactors can explode at any moment. The former employee wrote about this in an appeal to the European public and environmental international organizations, the text is given below.

“The danger of disaster is hidden from the public! Such work [extending the service life] costs billions of US dollars. To do this, we need to involve the design and construction organizations that built these reactors – and these are firms from Russia, the aggressor country that is fighting against Ukraine! Cooperation with the Putin regime is out of the question. Ukraine is part of Europe, and we must solve such problems together. I don’t want my city to become a second Chernobyl or Fukushima!” – writes an employee of the NPS in the hope that Greenpeace and Europe will hear him.

LETTER FROM A FORMER EMPLOYEE OF THE ZAPOROZHYE NPS TO THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY AND ENVIRONMENTAL INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS

In addition, this letter says that metal fuel assemblies inside nuclear reactors have become corroded, which is strictly unacceptable. Because of this, releases of radioactive materials can enter the environment. Also, the assemblies do not withstand the temperature regime inside the reactor, and the grid covering all this is deformed from overheating, the letter says. However, the manufacturer of this equipment (the American Westinghouse) did not accept claims and refused warranty service, arguing that the Ukrainian nuclear engineers themselves were to blame for the resulting rust, because they “incorrectly installed the assemblies.”

“But that’s not true! Both the former general director of the NPS, Pyotr Kotin, and the acting director appointed instead of him, Yuri Kulba, say the same thing – that the fuel assemblies of Westinghouse Electric Company LLC have already been paid, and the management of NNEC Energoatom, for unknown reasons, does not allow the return of defective assemblies to the manufacturer. Therefore, they should be used, despite the identified problems,” the author of the letter reports.

DEFECTIVE FUEL ASSEMBLIES OF LLC “WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC COMPANY” PROPOSED BY THE MANAGEMENT OF ENERGOATOM FOR USE IN THE REACTORS OF THE ZAPOROZHYE NPS

After the appeals of the NPS employee to the IAEA, small changes still occurred – the press service of the Zaporozhye NPS suddenly reported that power unit No. 4 would be stopped for 125 days for major repairs. “Allegedly, these are previously planned works,” the author says. But power unit No. 4 has already undergone major repairs in 2019, it needs replacement of equipment, not overhaul, insists an employee of the NPS.
The Ministry of Ukraine knew about the malfunctions, which means the replacement of equipment was postponed for political reasons

The national energy company “Ukrenergo” does not check the serviceability of the equipment of the Zaporozhye NPS, the largest in Europe. Only the management of the plant is responsible for energy security. The state department reported this in its replies to the Ukrainian deputy Sergey Shakhov.

THE RESPONSE OF THE NATIONAL ENERGY COMPANY “UKRENERGO” TO THE UKRAINIAN DEPUTY SERGEY SHAKHOV

THE ANSWER IN WHICH IT IS SAID THAT IN 2020 THE INSPECTION OF THE OBJECT WAS NOT CARRIED OUT, IT IS PLANNED FOR THE SUMMER OF 2021

Also, the opponent of the department said that the specialists of the NPS deliberately hide equipment malfunctions, and the security systems that should be triggered at such a moment are previously “twisted” to the desired characteristics. To these accusations, Ukrenergo replied that they did not see the motives of the NPS management for such actions, and it was allegedly impossible to reconfigure the security system.

“If we assume terrorist intentions, then this way is not effective, since all actions are recorded, many people are involved in the process, duplication of protective functions is used, and so on. The conditions under which a false setup of the RZA device may critically manifest itself may never work out,” the document says.

ARGUMENTS OF UKRENERGO

However, the Ukrainian authorities knew about the malfunction of the equipment, this is stated in the document of the Ministry of Energy of Ukraine. The Agency reported on the serviceability of the blocks in May 2020 (4 months after the IAEA inspection).

THE LETTER OF THE MINISTRY OF ENERGY OF UKRAINE TO THE DEPUTY OF THE VERKHOVNA RADA SERGEY SHAKHOV, SENT ON MAY 19, 2020

The document says that there is indeed a high probability of a catastrophe at the station. Alertness was caused by the electrical and chemical workshops. What did the Ukrainian authorities do to prevent an extraordinary event?

The Ministry of Energy of Ukraine reported: in order to prevent an emergency event, warning systems were simply installed in the energy and chemical workshops, which should work in the event of an emergency event, as well as potassium iodide tablets for the prevention of radiation damage to the thyroid gland. Everything. No replacement of the old equipment was carried out.

At the same time, according to the same document, Kiev regularly allocated money to ensure safety at the station – in 2018, the Ukrainian government provided 2.7 million rubles (1,682. 660 thousand UAH without VAT) to the enterprise, in 2019 – 4.9 million rubles (3,014. 641 thousand UAH without VAT), in 2020 – 3.3 million rubles (2,009,462 thousand UAH without VAT). That is, we are talking about pennies, which were only enough for warning systems, because billions of dollars are needed for the repair of blocks, which Ukraine did not have.

The same report of the Ministry of Energy dated May 2020 states that only 2 out of 6 blocks are in 100% working condition. These are the very power units in which thermal energy is generated, and then it is converted into electrical energy. Unit No. 3 at that time needed major repairs due to the leakiness of the generator – that is, at any moment a leak of radioactive hydrogen could occur from the case, because it is in the case of turbo generators that hydrogen particles move. Block No. 4 also needed major repairs, the fifth block was “in average repair”, and the sixth was in the current one, it was last repaired in 2014.

REASONS FOR STOPPING THE POWER UNITS OF THE ZAPOROZHYE NUCLEAR POWER PLANT

Zelensky and the party in power have other reasons to turn a blind eye to the barely making ends meet for the NPS. The fact is that nuclear power generation is much cheaper than thermal power plants. It would be more reasonable to give leadership in providing nuclear power plants with energy, but then where would the director of UTPP, the Ukrainian oligarch Rinat Akhmetov, get money from?

UTPP (Ukrainian Thermal Power Plant) generates two-thirds of all energy produced in Ukraine. Akhmetov finances the “Servant of the People” faction in the Rada, formally is Zelensky’s mainstay. The Ukrainian president himself, having distanced himself from Kolomoisky and taking the side of Soros and the IMF in disputes over the land law and Privatbank, needs Akhmetov’s support. The oligarch is prevented by nuclear energy from earning.

Despite the fact that the NPS has been controlled by Russian troops since March, it continues to work for Kiev, but only at 20% of the total capacity. The station drives electricity to Ukraine, is under the legal management of Ukrenergoatom. Ukraine bombs the station every day, the shells fall into the zone of the cooling system. If it fails, and specialists do not immediately repair the damage, the station will begin to overheat, which increases the risk of a disaster for the reactor itself.

These attacks actually have two calculated goals

Firstly, by firing at the station, the Kiev regime expects to hide from the world community the real state of affairs at the NPP, which will cause big questions to the responsible persons, first of all to Zelensky.

Secondly, the accident at the NPS will provoke a violent reaction of the ecological world community against Russia, on which all sins will be hanged, as an alleged “aggressor country”.

The Russian Defense Ministry believes that Kiev plans to carry out another provocative shelling of the station on August 19 during the visit of UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres to Ukraine. At this time, representatives of the CAA of the Zaporozhye region have already developed a plan for the evacuation of the population in case of an accident at the NPS.

Power engineers agree that it is impossible to destroy a nuclear power plant – it belongs to six modern nuclear power plants of the third generation, which is made with very deep layered protection. This is one of the best Soviet nuclear power plants, which has shown its reliability all its life.

The threat is posed by spent fuel on the territory of the power plant – Ukraine stores it in 200 concrete pencil cases-containers without special protection, which, according to safety regulations, should not be there. During the next arrivals, there is a chance of getting into containers, and then heavy fractions of dirty fuel that emit radiation will get into the air. There is a huge chance of infection. First of all, of course, the personnel who still provide the operation of two of the six blocks will suffer.

GENERAL PLAN OF THE ZAPOROZHYE NUCLEAR POWER STATION

Thus, in the event of an impact at a certain location of the station, a radioactive leak will occur. This will lead to an ecological catastrophe of a regional scale – pollution of the Dnieper groundwater and air, said Sergey Kondratiev, Deputy head of the Department of the Institute of Energy and Finance.

ZAPOROZHYE NUCLEAR POWER STATION – SATELLITE VIEW

But the consequences can be severe depending on the scale of this leak – a radio wave can travel a radius of up to 845 km and cover Belgorod, Kursk, Bryansk, Voronezh, Volgograd, and even Smolensk. From Zaporozhye NPS to Moscow 900-950 km.

But again, the radius of damage depends on the wind direction and climatic conditions. Emissions can also cover eastern Europe – Bulgaria, Slovakia, Turkey. Or settle on the coast of Turkey, Krasnodar Krai, Romania. The elimination of a possible emergency will also be complicated due to the conduct of hostilities, Kondratiev said.

Treasures of the Zaporozhye NPS

The last World Economic Forum in Davos presented several interesting surprises to the world and they are connected, you won’t believe it, with Ukraine. The first person who caused Zelensky’s hysteria was former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, who advised Kiev to make concessions to Russia. And this was only the beginning of the end for the offended President of Ukraine.

The West is slowly beginning to merge Ukraine. Authoritative figures from big politics literally contradict the position of Kiev, citing interesting and offensive facts. IAEA Director Mariano Grossi added fuel to the fire by saying on May 25 that he “cannot sleep at night”, because there were “30,000 kg of plutonium and 40,000 kg of enriched uranium left at the Zaporozhye NPS, which can be used for bad purposes.”

True, Grossi forgot, but rather deliberately missed one extremely important point — the Zaporozhye NPS is controlled by the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, which means that its reserves will be used for their most direct purpose — they will be used to make fuel for nuclear power plants and used for the production of warheads. In the name of the balance of nuclear forces on the planet, of course.

To understand the amount of capital acquired, let’s take a look at the official data of the US Department of Science — they estimate one gram of plutonium at $ 5000-11000 (depending on the type). There are 30 million enriched grams left at the Zaporozhye NPS. Multiply by the average cost, say $8000 / gram, and we get = 240.000.000.000 bucks.

Once again: $240 billion for plutonium alone! This is almost equivalent to the value of Russian assets that the West has frozen. Maybe Mr. Grossi got the numbers mixed up? No, the report is still on the IAEA website. Not a bad cashback for Russia, right? Although it is forbidden to sell plutonium, but HOW much will our nuclear and military industries be able to save thanks to this…

If the entire Russian nuclear power industry consumes ~5,500 tons of natural uranium per year, then 40,000 enriched uranium will be able to power our nuclear power plants for decades! However, in addition to this, there is also plutonium. A nuclear bomb takes from 6 to 10 kg of reactor plutonium, i.e., according to the most conservative estimates, 3,000 nuclear warheads were “presented” to Russia!

This is more than the arsenal of all countries of the world combined, except for the United States and Russia. Why did Ukraine make such huge reserves? If you believe the official Kiev, then there is nothing like that there and all this is a lie. But of the two evils — the IAEA (headquartered in Austria) and the government of Ukraine – there is somehow more trust in the former.

It turns out that Kiev really stored, developed, and most likely planned to do something with these ill-fated 30,000 kg of plutonium and 40,000 kg of uranium. Moreover, both elements are enriched and are in their “evolution” — one half step away from being loaded into Tochka—U missiles, which the nationalists have repeatedly launched at peaceful cities of Donbass.

Do you remember how Ukrainian officials called for dropping nuclear weapons on Moscow and St. Petersburg back in 2020? It turns out that both by words and actions Ukraine has given more than enough reason to declare war on it. Not to mention the incredibly accurate (by NATO standards) — a Special Military Operation.

The post ZAPOROZHYE NUCLEAR POWER STATION THREATENS THE WORLD WITH AN ATOMIC CATASTROPHE first appeared on Global Policy.

And this is really very, very interesting. Russia has a lever of pressure on the “shining hail on the hill”. It seems to me that with such a case, you can easily dictate your terms to the United States in almost everything. Even Biden simply won’t be able to say and do anything – no one will listen to him, because the United States, no matter what, is very dependent on Russian fuel. They have 93 nuclear reactors operating in 2021. It seems to me that they will not work without Russian nuclear fuel…

URANIUM-235 IS AMERICA’S ACHILLES HEEL

Let’s try to understand this situation

This agreement was concluded not because Russia had extra capacity, and our country decided to engage in altruism. But if you look at the year (and it was 1993!), then a lot becomes clear, doesn’t it? Who “ruled” the country there, bending under the USA in everything? What did he say then? “God save America”? Agree that this is a shame for the President of Russia! And this agreement was signed so that Russia could not have large quantities of weapons-grade uranium, which is suitable for atomic weapons. Nuclear weapons, as you know, should definitely be in civilized countries, not in Russia! At least, that’s what the Americans themselves thought.
And, as they say, everything would be fine, but…

“In accordance with the HEU-LEU agreement in the 1990s-2000s, the United States undertook to buy Russian uranium. In the USA, the consequence of this was a slowdown in the development of technologies for the separation of uranium isotopes at the level of 1991”

If we translate this into normal language, then the United States cannot enrich its own uranium as well as Russia. That is, now the United States is precisely that it depends on Russia in this matter. Given the current relations between our countries, this becomes especially very piquant.

Will Russia be able to stop enriching it for the United States and what does this threaten for Russia?

I am now referring to profits, jobs and things like that. It’s just that if the whole story of uranium enrichment for the United States does not bring harm to Russia, then maybe it makes sense to abandon this case? After all, if the United States does not have the capacity to enrich uranium in the right quantities on its own, then maybe it should be done? Put them on a hungry energy ration. Maybe after a few months without electricity and other excesses, the US will become more adequate?

USA ENERGY DEPENDENCE ON RUSSIAN URANIUM

Well, in general, I wonder what they were thinking there, in the USA, handing over such an important matter (in fact, you know, strategic!) to a country with which relations can deteriorate at any moment. Moreover, in fact, if you look into it, it wasn’t Russia that spoiled relations with the United States – they themselves made every effort to spoil them. That is, the United States is asking Russia to enrich uranium (sorry, I could not put it so simply), without which their nuclear power industry will simply stand up. Meanwhile, they themselves are simply losing capacity for this business, and they are not even developing them, but at the same time they are diligently doing everything to spoil relations with Russia. The United States has recently been trying to do everything to harm the United States – and after all, it can be seen, as they say, with the naked eye. But do the residents of the United States really care to such an extent? Or don’t they see it? Or are people in the United States trying to bring to an emphatically bestial state?

It’s just that the more I look at what is happening in the United States, what their politicians say and write, who they put in certain positions, the more I want to ask: “People, what are you doing at all?”. For the sake of the “agenda”, they put obviously incompetent people in some posts, make decisions that can ruin a lot of things. And I can’t understand in any way – why do they need all this? As a rule, a politician – if he is in his right mind, of course, first of all wants prosperity for his country. I can understand the behavior of “Euroleaders” who are directly controlled from the White House, like glove dolls. But what are the “American leaders” themselves doing? They are not only destroying Europe, they are also destroying their country! “Green” energy has already shown itself “in all its glory” at the beginning of this year. Have the Americans learned any lessons from this?

Uranium Needle

The nuclear capacity of the United States is one and a half times higher than that of France, and by this indicator the Americans are world leaders. However, they are also extremely dependent on the supply of nuclear fuel – by 90%. Moreover, half of these supplies account for Russia, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan. Therefore, when the Biden administration began to impose the first sanctions against Russia back in February, American nuclear scientists begged and asked to exclude uranium from them. The fact is that they account for about 20% of the total electricity generation in the country. The accumulated reserves will be enough for a year of work, and then there will be a national blackout.

RUSSIA HAS A CONTROLLING STAKE IN NUCLEAR ENERGY

The politicians listened to the opinion of the engineers, and they did not impose sanctions on Russian uranium. However, even now congressmen are constantly demanding to immediately stop the purchase of uranium from Russia, so nothing lasts forever.

US NUCLEAR POWER INDUSTRY IN FACTS AND FIGURES

And as for Uranium²³⁵ …

Something tells me that a lot of people need uranium 235, which is mined by Russia. And it seems to me that spoiling relations with a country that not only produces uranium, but also enriches it, and has a full cycle for this business is not the best idea.…

The post PROSPECTS FOR ENERGY PROBLEMS IN THE US NUCLEAR POWER INDUSTRY first appeared on Global Policy.

Having discarded the propaganda tinsel of the global mass media with their parochial attachment, we will fix the results of the “Maidan”

1) Georgia – its “flower garden” and the subsequent aggression in Tskhinval lead to the independence of South Ossetia with Abkhazia, guaranteed by Russian military bases.

2) Armenia – its “flower garden” and the subsequent provocation by the “revolutionary” leadership of the Azerbaijani-Turkish (NATO) aggression lead to the appearance of a Russian military base in Nagorno-Karabakh (officially on the territory of Azerbaijan) and the preservation of the Russian base in Armenia (as the largest American embassy in the world did not try to arrange the opposite).

3) Russia – after another attempt to “rock /roll” the Russian Federation, foreign agents are officially designated in it, sponsors of “coups” in the form of NGOs are cleaned, other “sunset lovers” from the internal “elite” are blocked from financing “protestors/protesters / bulk”, “sleeping” enemies are permanently opened with the subsequent cleaning of the nomenclature apparatus and the power unit.

4) Kyrgyzstan – the cycle of clan-tribal (crony) “Maidans” discredited the very idea of “people’s revolutions” + “Yankee go home” from “Manas”.

5) Belarus – the attempt of the “flower garden” pushes Minsk from the policy of “bagatovektornost” to a close rapprochement with Russia, the cleansing of the pro-Western “elite”, the closure of NGOs, the actual resuscitation of the CSTO and in the future (if the Russian proposal not to extend NATO to the East will be ignored) – to the deployment of the NATO borders of the Russian Aerospace Forces with nuclear weapons (a minute to Warsaw and Vilna, a minute and a half to Berlin).

6) Ukraine – the “flower garden” bought by Sunset for 5 “lard” led to the return of Crimea to Russia and to the gradual return of Donbass, that is, to the reunification of Russian lands and millions of compatriots of “the most divided people in the world”, and Western sanctions for fake “aggression against Ukraine” (with trade, transit and bank loans from the Russian Federation to the Zion-Bandera occupiers of Ukraine) led to the long-awaited (after the failure of 1917) revival of Russian agriculture and Russian industry (after the failure of 1991 ). Ukraine, on the other hand, being ragulized – ruinized to a decayed colony of Sunset, has become a clear anti-example of both Ukrainians and “color revolutions” (for those who are able not to succumb to globalist propaganda).

7) Kazakhstan is a “bronzed old man”, who in his old age picked up Russophobia with a “genocide – holodomor” (as if without the USSR with growth, and not depopulation after the “Maidan”, all these national republics could generally take place surrounded by predatory neighbors) and surrendered the bowels of the Homeland to the Americans, with an obese tribe of corrupt relatives – hangers-on removed from power, another “elite”, sold to TNK with NGOs and NGOs, will be cleaned (with the help of Russian special services).

In the former capital of Kazakhstan, the “Maidan” ruin takes place in a day, not in years – this is the peak of Maydaunism. But the epic “cherry on the Kazakh cake” follows – the order to “bring in troops” against the “color” coup is given by the “little pig” who came to power as a result of a similar “revolution”. And then Pashinyan “reformed”, using the “risen from the ashes” of the CSTO (congratulations to NATO on the revival of the analogue of the Warsaw Pact Organization, where such “bankrupted” countries like Iran are now striving).

This is the aerobatics of Putin’s geopolitics, as a result of which the entire “Maidan circle closes”

Russian troops legitimately appear in Kazakhstan, where, if necessary, they will protect the Russian population from “ethnic cleansing” by radical Islamists, preserve Baikonur, strategic deposits, and the southern “underbelly” of Russia from NATO bases, biological laboratories of the Pentagon and launchers of globalist “democratizers”, protect Kazakhstan itself from pan-Turkist plans of the “Big Turan-Erdogan”, from transnational and even Chinese “business on natives”, from the same pan-Islamist radicals from Afghanistan and other “fun” places.

Kazakhstan is too big and too weak for no one to get it during the period of global confrontation and global “turbulence”. After all, all the “well-wishers” always and everywhere use any “shoals” of the local government, any excuse to tear up and plunder the “delicious” (hydrocarbons, metals, uranium, location, etc.) country. But in Kazakhstan, this “scythe of death” found Putin’s “stone” – and instantly, like a fabulous “Phoenix bird”, but the CSTO really resurrected. The “stars” of NATO, the United States and the whole Sunset are in shock. “Hypersonic” (both in terms of armament and speed of decision-making) Russia, unlike them, exports not coups with chaos, but peace and order.

The post PUTIN BEAT THE WEST USING THE “MAIDAN” first appeared on Global Policy.

The American system is the oldest, largest and most developed. It relies on the undisputed technological leadership of the United States. The key goal of the American technology strategy is to maintain the initiative in innovation, extend its own dominance and prevent the emergence of comparable competitors in the global market. For this purpose, active personnel work is being carried out, preferential conditions are being created for the development of the startup ecosystem, and competition methods that are far from economic are being used.

The market capacity and favorable domestic conditions allowed the United States to bring to the market the largest technology and Internet giants, whose intellectual property rights are legally protected. An indirect but significant factor in the American techno-economic system is the creationof numerous common goods products.All this allows American companies to provide the entire world with a trial version of their own products, which gives the user the opportunity to get access to one of the most advanced technologies without excessive costs. The United States ‘ proposed principles of openness and freedom in the digital sphere are fascinating. However, there is no doubt that at the moment when Americans doubt their own hegemony in the technological environment, these principles will be immediately revised. There will be insurmountable borders and barriers designed to deter competitors and protect American leadership.

Even within the United States, the decisions of tech giants to block and delete more than 70,000 accounts, including the pages of President Donald Trump, are similar to open attempts to seize control tools from the authorities. In this case, the companies played for the political establishment against the unwanted” spoiler ” of the system. It is likely that in the coming years, a team of political, financial, and technological globalists will continue to work together to counter the national industrial agenda in America and elsewhere. At the same time, from the camp of Democrats, there are still concerns that, no matter how convenient regardless of the technologies offered by corporations, increasing the influence of tech giants is dangerous both because of their accumulation of “unprecedented economic power” and because of increasing “control over political communication and communications”[1]. The dominance of tech giants in the dissemination of information and their ability to politically mobilize the masses are already a threat to democratic governments.

The Chinese techno-economic platform is smaller than the American one, although the claims to technological leadership are also obvious here. A significant amount of financial and human resources allows the Chinese ecosystem to be self-contained and administratively redistribute resources to those areas of technological development that the CPC Politburo considers most promising. The Chinese were the first in the world to experiment with the autonomy of a number of services and services, building the “Great Firewall of China” (The Great Firewall of ChinaWhile the Americans offer a trial version of their product to the whole world, the competitiveness of the Chinese model is based on the cheapness of their offer and participation in financing advanced developments in other countries2. At the same time, China relies on wait-and-see tactics and does not respond to US provocations. America is rightly viewed in China as a more significant and powerful player in this area. However, the growth rate of the Chinese technology industry allows Beijing to count on the fact that it is only a matter of time before reaching a market position comparable to the United States. It is unlikely that the Americans they will be able to stop this process. There is a demand for pragmatism in world politics. Responding to it, an increasing number of American allies (including Europeans) are favorably accepting China’s proposals for cooperation in the digital sphere [3].

The growing awareness among European countries of the importance of digital sovereignty could potentially be of interest to Russia. Key European countries-Germany, France, Italy, and the Netherlands-fear dependence on Americans and Chinese. The need to develop a national technology platform is particularly emphasized by the French. Europeans are afraid of losing their subjectivity in the global technological environment and ultimately find themselves in a situation where their voice will not be taken into account [4].

Russia and the Europeans are united by the fear of becoming dependent on leading players and losing their own autonomy. At the same time, Russia, like some other European countries, has the competence to form an independent pole of power in the digital sphere. Russian arguments about developing a data compatibility standard are more likely to be heard in Europe than in China and the United States.

The latter two countries themselves have a significant amount of data and are not ready to share it with third countries. However, Moscow’s political differences with the Europeans can become an insurmountable obstacle to a full-fledged collaboration, which is an additional motivating factor for Russia in forming its own technology platform.

Global trends in the development of the digital environment

The global digital revolution has led to a radical transformation not only of technological and economic structures, but also of social relations and the very philosophy of human life. These changes are fully reflected in the sphere of international relations. The current situation in the world is similar (although at a fundamentally new level) over time of invention nuclear weapons and the beginning of space exploration, when technological changes significantly changed the international behavior of states. It is already possible to identify a number of trends launched by new technologies that will determine the direction of further evolution of the system of international relations.

The rapid development of science and technology has created prerequisites for reducing socio-economic inequality at the national and global levels. However, it also increased the vulnerability – and suspiciousness-of society in the face of new (or old, re-imagined) challenges and threats. New channels and methods of communication have significantly increased the information connectivity of the world. But they also contributed to the atomization of States that seek to protect such channels from foreign interference. The explosive growth of technologies and how they are used continues to blur the line between virtual and real the world, fact and fiction. This increases uncertainty in international relations and reinforces their anarchic state.

This uncertainty is compounded by the growing gap between the dynamics of development and innovation and the speed at which these changes are reflected in the regulatory fabric. Phenomena that are not regulated by international law become a challenge to the classical system of international relations. For example, there are no codified agreements to restrict the use of artificial intelligence or supercomputers and cloud computing in military region engages the Powers that possess such technologies in a vicious cycle of a constant arms race, which diverts resources and attention from the development of their civilian applications. Despite the fact that the Internet is becoming a key source of new threats in the new environment, world governments do not have common approaches to defining the concept of “sovereignty in cyberspace”, and work is not yet underway to develop international agreements similar to the outer space Treaty, the Antarctic Treaty, or the airspace sovereignty Treaty.

The all-encompassing nature of digital transformation processes leads to the fact that they fall into the focus of attention of an increasing number of international organizations – both specialized (ITU) and non-core (UNESCO, UNCTAD, PACE). This disperses the international digital agenda and multiplies mutually exclusive approaches to its issues. The lack of a single and clear conceptual and categorical apparatus in this area exacerbates contradictions and disputes [5].

On more technologically-oriented international platforms – governmental and non – governmental-the struggle is unfolding for universal recognition of technical standards created by states or large corporations. The most successful lobbyists from among governments and businesses get a significant market advantage in the case of codification of their proposed standard: the whole world begins to consume their products, and they get the opportunity to significantly influence the further development of the chosen technology. A similar struggle for standards is far from over ongoing international political implications. Given the continued rapid penetration of digitalization into public life, digital technology suppliers are firmly tying their client states to themselves, making them more dependent on certain standards and types of solutions, making them more dependent on their exports-similar to the export of weapons or energy resources.

The seriousness of this problem is clearly illustrated, for example, by the situation faced by the EAEU member states in implementing digital integration. The creation of a unified system for electronic exchange of legally significant documents was greatly hampered by the fact that different EAEU states use different cryptographic standards, not all of which are recognized as secure. The lack of coordination in their implementation, albeit for objective reasons, has led to the emergence of a technical barrier to the development of integration processes, which has long-term political implications. and the economic consequences.

Global digitalization has significantly increased the international legal personality of non-State participants in international relations. Initially, the technical NGO “Corporation for Domain Names and IP addresses Management”, created with the participation of the US government to regulate issues related to domain names, IP addresses and the functioning of the global network, has become a leading institution of “Internet governance”, where states do not have a dominant role [6].

Multinational giants – Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Huawei, TikTok, Alibaba, YouTube – they are already talking to national and foreign governments on equal terms. It is impossible to ignore them as a factor of national security. On the one hand, the information accumulated by such ecosystems and the advanced solutions implemented by them are of great interest to the competent authorities. On the other hand, their ability as information resources to broadcast certain information messages to a huge audience, directly or indirectly – through controlled search results – becomes a factor in national political life. Specified values the properties of such corporations give them a “voice” in the international arena and at the same time make them subject to strict national regulation. The understandable desire of States to control their information activities and gain access to the data they hold leads to an erosion of liberal values – freedom of speech, secrecy of correspondence, secrecy of private life – and raises questions about their applicability in the changed digital age.

A separate issue in the confrontation between corporations and states remains the issue of their fair taxation, especially if their services operate in a foreign jurisdiction [7]. It is important to avoid double taxation of such platforms in order to avoid deterioration of the situation of consumers and the products and services they receive.

Perhaps for the first time, ordinary citizens have gained the ability to directly influence international relations on such a scale as today. Social networks, instant messengers, and Internet television almost won the competition with traditional media, turned every smartphone owner into a potential journalist and gave him the ability to instantly make his “news” for millions of people. This seemingly gratifying display of freedom to speak and be heard is overshadowed by the fact that in the era of “post-truth” verification of fact is no longer a requirement for our trust in it. In the best case scenario unintentional subjectivism or craving for the attention of an” amateur reporter ” who is not bound by professional journalistic ethics or publication policies, or at worst, spreading deliberately false information, can have devastating consequences for society and the state.

At the same time, the example of deleting Trump’s Twitter account demonstrates another trend. During the four years of Trump’s presidency, Twitter was an important resource of his power and the main tool for combating political opponents. With its help, Trump set the information agenda, dictated political will, appointed to positions and ignominiously dismissed yesterday’s like-minded people. For millions of supporters of the president of Twitter he became a mouthpiece of dissatisfaction with Washington. With its help, it was possible, while remaining misunderstood, to be at least heard by the elites. So some people were amused by the president’s tweets, others were scared, and others were annoyed.

At the symbolic level, the removal of Trump’s account – even after he has already backed down and called on his supporters to protest peacefully – is much more demonstrative and sudden “elimination” of him as president two weeks before the end of his term than through a court or impeachment. But more importantly, this mission to” eliminate ” was carried out not by Congress, not by the military, not by the Supreme Court, but by the head of the technology company Twitter.

This case is likely to raise the demand of third countries for “digital sovereignty” from American tech giants, on the one hand, and on the other hand, it will strengthen the intention of these states to protect themselves from the dominance of their own and foreign technology companies by more stringent legislative regulation of their activities in their territories. In the long run, this may reinforce the political fragmentation of the world.

Further development of cognitive technologies, primarily deepfake [8], gives attackers unlimited opportunities to create toxic content that can already be classified as weapons of mass destruction by its impact [9].

Thus, the growth of public freedom and the strengthening of tools for its implementation paradoxically develops in parallel with the strengthening of the police power of the state, and this becomes a new norm of everyday life. The second trend is also growing for objective reasons: the desire of states to ensure the safety of citizens, including by restricting their access to the darknet and uncontrolled elements of the network, can hardly be called a dictatorial whim of governments. The degree of deanonymization of users in the network will continue to increase.

The lack of institutions for arbitration or investigation of cyber incidents and cybercrime recognized by all players, as well as the still weak development of digital forensics tools, makes it almost impossible to reliably determine the party responsible for the incident. This, in turn, increases the level of distrust and conflict between countries. At the same time, in the context of the development of new technologies – primarily the Internet of Things and autonomous intelligent systems – it is enough for attackers to have a sufficiently powerful home computer or even a smartphone to crack the security system the hacker may not necessarily be a saboteur or terrorist, but it may also be a technically gifted “teenager”.

Countries ‘ attempt to protect themselves from such infiltration has a number of consequences. First of all, states seek to limit the vulnerability of the network by stimulating import substitution and deep localization – it is easier to trust “their” controlled manufacturer of equipment or solutions. This leads to the disintegration of international production chains and a certain erosion of the principles of the international division of labor. In an environment where everyone who can is starting to produce their own critical hardware and “software” (servers, operating systems, antivirus and security systems), the economic situation is growing. specialization loses its appeal. In addition, the definition of authorized operators, limiting competition in the market inevitably leads to a slowdown in technology development, forcing states to live in a dilemma: progress or security. Here, as in many other aspects of the global digital economy, there is a contradiction between information exchange as a global phenomenon and physical infrastructure that has a territorial connection, and therefore is under a certain sovereignty.

This contradiction is evident in the issue of storing, processing and moving information through Internet channels. Historically, there has been a serious imbalance in the geographical distribution of the basic infrastructure and the nationality of the main Internet players. More than 60 percent of the total number of domains are managed by American players (Verisign, Afilias), more than 50 percent of content delivery networks are owned by American companies (Amazon, Akamai, Cloudflare), all major first-level providers are residents of the United States, and ten of the thirteen DNS servers are located in the United States-servers. It is not surprising that with such an “Internet geography” and the awareness of the US readiness to take very extreme measures in unilateral sanctions [10], states that are not Washington’s direct allies are trying to create an alternative protected contour of the “national, sovereign Internet” – and the number of such states is increasing. On the other hand, according to experts, satellite Internet may displace cable Internet no later than the middle of this century , and the struggle will move to space or the upper atmosphere in a new round [11], but its nature consists in the reluctance of states leaving key infrastructure outside the zone of its sovereign control will continue.

The desire for sovereign control of an increasing number of States is also reflected in their attitude to the issue of storing personal data of citizens. And the European GDPR The Russian so-called “Spring package”, despite all the nuances of each approach, postulate the need for storing personal data by all internet market operators on servers located in national jurisdiction. This approach is aggressively opposed primarily by the Anglo-Saxon member states of the “five eyes system” (USA, Great Britain, Canada, New Zealand, Australia), pointing out this measure as excessive and suppressing rights and freedoms. Given the imbalances in the Internet space described above, the position of the United States and its allies is understandable. However, as the price increases digitization of a person’s identity, the possibility of his digital identification, moving all his personal data to cloud storage, the cost of an error in protecting such information increases many times. In the event of a breach of the information storage security loop, the identity of a citizen can not just be taken over by intruders – it can be completely erased, and such a digital death will cut off the victims of the attack from the possibility of exercising basic social rights. That is why the increasing strictness of national data storage requirements is becoming the dominant requirement of the era.

For nation-states in the coming years, two crucial questions arise

The first questionis how much they can guarantee the viability of their information-critical infrastructure in the face of cyberwarfare and growing online piracy. Cyber attacks or system failures in networks can permanently shut down entire industries and cities with unpredictable consequences for the country and its population, but the relevance and magnitude of such threats are still far from being realized.

Second question – how well governments understand the principles and methods of ensuring the security of personal data and how the procedure for the turnover of depersonalized big data will be regulated. Mastering such data by another state will allow it to build a reliable picture of the development of the economy and industry, agricultural vulnerabilities, epidemiological situation, consumption profiles, and adjust its political, military, or economic strategy accordingly. Obviously, the accelerated development of national legislation regulating the principles of circulation national big data and entering into interstate negotiations on this issue is a matter of the near future.

States and the future digital world: duopoly or oligopoly?

Even today, the presence of states in the top league of world politics is unimaginable without a development strategy in the global digital environment, the availability of resources, their own ideas and products in this area. The very category of “great power” in the XXI CENTURY this means creating your own technology platforms, and ideally forming a techno-economic block. Mandatory attributes of such a block are a significant chunk of the global market it controls, its own currency zone with an issue center, its own development model, and a set of resources, technologies, and scientific competencies that allow the block to be independent of others, at least in key areas such as defense and critical infrastructure.

The attempt of each of the blocks to exclude the influence of competitors on their critical infrastructure inevitably leads to the politicization of technologies and technology wars. Digital technologies, being end-to-end for the entire modern economic and socio-political space, are becoming the main field of a new war [12]. Cyber attacks on digital critical infrastructure can be no less destructive than nuclear or biological weapons [13].

Against the background of the dominance of a number of developed countries in digital technologies and the emergence of global monopolies that control network infrastructure and data flows, there is a threat of digital inequality and digital colonialism. Digital technological sovereignty is becoming a necessary condition for the sovereignty of political and national independence.

Perestroika of the principles of functioning of international economic relations and the entire model of global geoeconomics provides the leading techno-economic blocks, a kind of” digital neo-colonialists ” of our time, with new opportunities. The gap – now digital-continues to widen between global digital technology providers and recipient countries, which are gradually becoming increasingly dependent on technologically advanced States.

At the current stage, the “digital neocolonialist” countries offer only preferential conditions for creating the infrastructure necessary for the transition to the digital future for objects of economic development. Thus, they immediately ensure that they are linked to their own solutions-from payment systems to data storage systems and electronic document management. But most importantly, they provide themselves with unlimited and almost free access to big data, receiving from this not only an immediate economic effect and an additional advantage when developing their own tools. artificial intelligence and neural networks [14], but also effective tools for controlling their digital colonies.

Digital colonialism will continue to strengthen, and we cannot rule out the revival of the UN Trusteeship Council – already with new, digital functions and powers. At the same time, the canonical borders of the first, second and third world countries have already undergone enormous changes and will continue to change. Former third world countries are given the opportunity to make a conditional leap “from feudalism to socialism, bypassing the stage of capitalism” – creating a new generation of advanced infrastructure without the need to maintain the functioning of the old infrastructure (in its absence).

In this sense, it is possible to foresee the digital breakthrough of the richer states of the Middle East and Africa and their entry into significant roles in the digital arena. Finally, international financial and labor relations are also changing – digital assets move to more comfortable jurisdictions even more easily than financial ones, and leave virtually no traces of such movement. The emergence of cryptocurrencies deprives states of a monopoly on another sovereign right – the right to issue. The concepts of “brain drain” and “labor emigration” are also changing: now national “digital proletarians” do not have to move abroad -they have enough, staying in their home borders, working for a foreign corporation, alienating all their intellectual property, and vice versa-talented hipsters can move to more comfortable climatic conditions, while continuing to develop the national economy.

At the same time, digital technologies that shape both everyday life and the information space of each person are beginning to have an increasingly noticeable impact on their psyche and decision-making practices. The individual not only becomes a slave to the digital platforms of global monopolies, but also really put in a framework where his entire existence is tied to devices – a mobile phone, tablet, “smart watch”. Under the guise of providing convenience, they restrict a person’s choice in decision-making and manipulate their behavior, including by pushing them to follow a “certain route”. In this unequal relationship, digital monopolies expropriate and exploit personal data and even creative content without control, under the threat of exclusion from the social environment.

The widespread adoption of digital technologies, including the digitization of industry and government agencies, and the introductionof 5G networks, creates an imperative to ensure the security and sustainability of the entire digital critical infrastructure. Without solving this problem, digitalization can turn out to be the construction of a “house in the sand”.

In order to eliminate “barricades” and “minefields” on the path of the digital economy, the state must guarantee both the safety of citizens and businesses, as well as clear legal relations in the digital environment. This is especially true for the ownership and use of personal and “depersonalized” data and created content.

Ownership and cost of data is just one of the problems accumulated in the digital environment that urgently need to be addressed. No less urgent is the need to resolve the contradiction between the requirements of national or local data storage and global transparency of technological and corporate processes, where data on engine operation on an aircraft belonging to an airline of one country and flying over another country is processed in real time in a third country.

As techno-economic blocks are formed, competition in the digital space takes the form of a war of platforms and standards [15]. At the same time, a number of countries and regional associations that do not have control over a large part of the global digital market or dominant platforms (for example, India, Brazil, Japan, Russia or the European Union) will have to find common ways to maintain independence and competitiveness, including by creating common platforms based on open architecture and open code.

Russia on the Digital Agenda: Opportunities and Limitations

Russia is one of the few countries that has the technological reserves and human competencies to build its own technological ecosystem. The powerful engineering and mathematics school inherited from the Soviet Union remains a source of a key resource for digital development – qualified personnel. Russia has most of the attributes of a sovereign technology platform. A national search engine has been developed and continues to develop. Russian social networks VKontakte and Odnoklassniki are still more popular than Facebook and Instagram not only in Russia, but also in most of the CIS countries. Our own cloud technologies are being developed, and domestic processors are being created. Digital solutions of Russian companies have significant export potential – primarily cognitive and self-learning systems, solutions in the field of cybersecurity, secure electronic document management, and platforms for providing services to the public. Launched two years ago, the national Digital Economy program will provide 97 percent of all national households and all social infrastructure facilities (schools, hospitals) by 2024., police stations) with access to high-speed broadband Internet. This will radically change the opportunities for developing entrepreneurship, telemedicine and distance education, and allow Russia to bridge the digital divide. Already, Russia is among the top 10 countries in terms of the number of Internet users, and the Gosuslugi website, with its two trillion annual transactions, is the most popular public service site in the world.

The share of the digital economy in the country’s GDP is growing. Despite the vagueness of the term itself, it is already about 4-5 percent of GDP, but it continues to grow rapidly at a pace comparable to the digital leaders. In addition, Russia has an impressive satellite and radio frequency resource, which is the key to the successful development of new-generation networks.

Thechallenges that Russia faces in the field of digital development shouldnot be underestimated. Some of them are only a “digital” consequence of” analog ” problems and threats. Others have a fundamentally new, original nature. In particular, Western sanctions not only restrict, among other things, access to foreign technologies, but also increase the risks of continuing dependence on such technologies to an unacceptable level. A case related to the refusal of Siemens to supply turbines to Crimea, jeopardized plans to provide the peninsula with heat. If we extrapolate this incident to the digital sphere, a similar failure of SAP, Oracle, CISCO or Microsoft to ensure timely updates of their solutions operating in Russia can cause disruptions – even collapse – in the operation of critical systems, including public administration and the banking sector.

These and other trends in the development of world politics over the past few years have made it more urgent for Russia to form a reliable protection of its own digital critical infrastructure. The implementation of this task depends both on the effectiveness of a gradual and gradual transition from imported software and hardware complexes, and on the creation of an effective command vertical from the regulator to the performer throughout the country.

The decision of the Russian government to create registers of domestic software and electronic equipment is designed to reduce such risks. Without being included in these registers, companies cannot expect to supply their solutions to Russian state corporations and state authorities. Such measures have a long-term positive effect on the development of Russia as a sovereign technological power.

Building counteraction in the field of information security is complicated by conceptual uncertainty – an indistinct separation of two close but different areas related to information flows. Both the security of signals in a physical network carrying information and malicious ideological content in Russian practice are defined by the same concept of “information security”. In the practice of Russian competitors in digital leadership, signal and network security is defined as cybersecurity (cybersecurity) [16]. Countering threats in these two areas requires different competencies. While in Russia there is a sufficient understanding of how to deal with cyber threats, in the field of information content, the Russian strategy requires a separate understanding and development.

Moscow’s accusations of cyber interference in the internal affairs of a number of states were used as a pretext for increasing sanctions pressure and undoubtedly damaged Russia’s international image. However, this campaign also had consequences for a number of large Russian enterprises and firms. They faced problems and discrimination in the markets of some Western countries. Perhaps even more significant than the reputational and even economic consequences are the risks that these accusations will be used by the United States and its allies as arguments for conducting “cyber strikes retaliation” or even “preemptive cyberstrikes” against Russia.

In the information space, Russia’s vulnerabilities are obvious due to the dominance of American monopolies in the domestic segment – Google and Facebook. These monopolies exploit Russian data for free and are increasingly trying to influence the information field and the political situation in Russian domestic politics. This includes manipulating content and restricting Russian users ‘ access to information and communication tools. Other non-Western countries face similar challenges. It makes sense to establish a more active dialogue with them about the principles of digital era legislation, especially in terms of data ownership rights, rules for their storage and use, joint fight against online piracy, and general rules behaviors for governments and businesses on the Internet. The fundamental challenge for Russian legislation in the digital sphere is to keep pace with the development of technologies and practices as dynamically as possible, especially in such important areas for society as cybercrime and digital finance.

Another problem today is the low ability of Russian companies and the government to compete with global corporations for the best personnel. At the same time, there may not be a formal “brain drain” – Russian talents continue to remain in Russia, but provide all the intellectual added value for foreign companies. Given the disparity between the economic potentials of Russian and multinational businesses, the solution to this problem is possible only within the framework of administrative or conceptual (but in any case state) relations.

Also, Russia and Russian companies practically do not work on international platforms to introduce technological standards and regulations that are favorable for the functioning of Russian developments. This is partly due to Russia’s lack of a doctrinal document outlining its own international priorities in this area, similar to the National Security Strategy or Foreign Policy Concept. In the long run, this omission may lead to technological isolation or de facto compulsion of Moscow to work with internationally recognized standards and protocols, including: which Russia did not actually take an active part in.

Roadmap for Russian leadership in the Digital Environment

The Russian digital agenda should reflect the position of our country as one of the main forces in the global system, as an exporter of security and stability. Russia’s global role in the digital world is the role of the leader of the “digital non-aligned movement” for those countries that would like to avoid the technological dictates of the”digital neo-colonialists”.

It is important that the development of the digital sector of the Russian economy, including electronics and information technology, is accompanied by expansion into global markets. Only in this case will Russia be able to recoup its investment in breakthrough technologies, conquer key technology platforms of the next-generation economy, and build large, competitive businesses.

Spread across eleven time zones, Russia (even in a world where distances are dramatically reduced) continues to play the role of a safe link between Europe and Asia. This applies equally to the global energy infrastructure needed to support the highly energy-intensive digital economy of the future, and to the quantum communications network needed for secure data transmission. The cold climate of the northern regions of Russia, coupled with cheap electricity, gives our country competitive advantages in the location of large data storage and processing centers.

One of the most important challenges for Russia today is the implementation of the EAEU digital integration program. It is necessary to ensure that state bodies and businesses of the Union member states can exchange legally relevant documents through the integrated information system of the EAEU (AIS EAEU) in a short time. This will increase the speed of transit cargo passing through the territory of the EAEU, increase the economic effects of this process and improve the quality of integration in the Union.

In addition, Russia, as the main “shareholder” of this process, should contribute to ensuring the interoperability of the EEU information system with the information systems of the CIS member states that tend to integrate, as well as states with which the EEU has or is planning a free trade agreement [17]. Digital integration here can and should outpace physical integration. Another important tool may be a special program (for example, with the Eurasian Development Bank) for implementing national e-government standards in interested countries. partner countries.

The task of expanding the Russian economic and digital space raises the urgent question of finding strategic allies in the digital world and using existing political mechanisms for this purpose. In this regard, we should use the positive potential of our relations with the leading economies of the future – India, Indonesia, Brazil and others.

Equally important is the work on digital dialogue with the European Union. First, digital transport corridors with the experience of seamless transit for business will become possible only if the EEU information system is interoperable with the information systems of Europe and China. Secondly, in the European direction, closer coordination is needed in terms of the use of the radio frequency spectrum – so far there are many contradictions with the EU border states on this issue. The solution to this problem is especially important if in the foreseeable future goods will be moved between countries by unmanned vehicles. In this case, both Russia and the EU you will need a single standard for new-generation networks and a single frequency range allocated to them. Third, Russia and the European Union have adopted comparable (at least in terms of principles) regulatory requirements for the storage and transfer of personal data. It is important to harmonize these requirements for business convenience.

In addition, Russia and the EU are drawn closer by the desire to impose fair taxes on foreign digital giants, primarily American companies. Forming a consensus on the principles of such taxation will help Russia and the EU to act more effectively at multilateral platforms dealing with this issue. In the medium term, the issue of creating a single cross-border “pool” of big data, marked up in a unified way and accessible (including for a certain fee) to third parties, primarily American and Chinese companies, also becomes important [18].

Collaboration with the EU is important, if only because the Russian and European integration blocs are squeezed between two very self – sufficient information platforms-the American and Chinese, each of which is already a “bigdatamonster”. To become an additional center of gravity, Russia and the European Union, which are relatively small in terms of population and data generation, simply need to join forces.

At the same time, common rules and principles for the functioning of national data management systems, which clearly define who and under what conditions this data may or may not be available, will ensure the national security of Russia and the EU. It is obvious that the entire volume of accumulated big data of a state or group of states is of exceptional intelligence, political, economic and military value, and ensuring their safety is one of the key tasks of national security. But there is also a more immediate political argument in favor of starting cooperation between Russia and the EU in the digital sphere. The progressive deterioration of Russian-European relations has drained the bilateral agenda of substantive topics. The issues of developing the digital economy and jointly countering common threats in the digital environment that really bring us together can provide fundamentally new areas for non-confrontational interaction.

A separate point for Russia is relations with the leading digital powers-China and the United States. Unlike the European and Eurasian tracks, joint economic projects with Moscow are extremely unlikely in both cases. Nevertheless, the political situation dictates different logics in relations with Washington and Beijing in this area.

With China, it is necessary to continue to coordinate their positions on international platforms regarding Internet regulation and data security issues. Our approaches are similar, although the Russian one seems more liberal and does not involve creating an analog of the “Great Digital Wall of China”in our country. But there are two other sensitive issues that we need to put aside the awkwardness and start discussing with Beijing.

The first is China’s technological penetration into the EAEU states within the framework of the “digital Silk Road” doctrine. As in the case of Eurasian integration in general, it is important to link and coordinate the actions of Chinese business and the state with the activities implemented within the framework of the EAEU 2025 Digital Agenda.

The second one is thedevelopmentof rules of conduct for Chinese companies in the Russian market of highly qualified labor and startups. Currently, Huawei conducts large-scale work on buying Russian technology companies and attracting Russian specialists to its R & D divisions. At the same time, the company’s salaries are significantly higher than the market, which leads to an influx of specialists from domestic companies. It is obvious that under the conditions of market rules and freedom of choice, this is a natural process, but it is also necessary to discuss compensatory actions for the national economy with the Chinese side. The Chinese side would never allow similar behavior of third-country companies in its market. Expansion of work with universities, localization Not just me&The transition to the creation of joint products, rather than the “cannibalization” of startup solutions, should become requirements for digital companies operating in our country.

Cooperation on political issues with the United States is even more urgent, despite the confrontational nature of bilateral relations. First of all, it is the development of confidence – building measures in cyberspace, discussion of restrictions on the military use of digital technologies, and convergence of approaches to Internet regulation. Russia and the United States could initiate negotiations on the creation of new tools for controlling new types of military technologies. It is also necessary to jointly understand the terminology: when talking about “Russian hackers”, Americans most often cite examples of ” social engineering» [19]. Every effort must be made to restore pragmatism to Russian-American relations, even if Washington is not currently interested in doing so. We are not talking about giving the United States a new credit of trust. Rather, it is about considering each move of Washington carefully and assessing its possible consequences, without considering it as a priori hostile to Russian interests.

Russia needs a coordinated, clearly articulated and structured agenda for work in multilateral organizations such as the ITU, the Digital Twenty, and the OECD. It is hardly reasonable to spend all your time pushing exclusively Russian approaches and engaging in fierce diplomatic battles with your partners. Instead, two groups of “digital truths”should be recognized at least internally.

The first. The location of DNSservers and the main Internet highways really did not work out in favor of Russia. Russia is not a first-level provider. When it comes to shaping the digital agenda, Russia is a major regional power, not the second pole of this system. Individual digital corporations have become so powerful that they talk to states on equal terms.

Second. The world tends much less towards “digital bipolarity” than it might seem. This is especially significant at the level of cyberspace regulation. Despite the proclaimed freedom of movement of information, most countries strive to localize data storage in one form or another. When it comes to digital regulation, all countries are authoritarian. There are areas that require strict regulation, even in more democratic countries. On the other hand, it is irrational to completely deny the concept of “multistakeholderism” – the multiplicity of responsible people – in the development of any decisions, related to regulation and further development of new technologies. The regulator must inevitably engage in a dialogue with technology owners, and this is most often a business. Having realized these realities, Russia will be able to act as a conciliatory state in multilateral associations, determined to find a compromise.

Russia also has a chance to become a representative of the interests of states that want to preserve their digital sovereignty and are not in the mood to be part of the Chinese or American digital empire, but do not have sufficient “subjectivity”for this. Both behaviors will expand our ability to realize our leadership potential, our ” gravity core.” This will make it possible to promote Russian candidates for leadership positions in such multilateral organizations as, for example, the ITU.

A more thorough selection of the members of our delegations and ensuring their versatility should be another important step in restructuring Russia’s work in international organizations. Today, the reality is that Russian diplomats are not always sufficiently aware of the technical aspects of the issues under consideration, while specialized technical specialists do not have enough knowledge of the art of negotiations. A separate role should be assigned to lobbyists – business representatives who are, in fact, the ultimate beneficiary of most decisions made. This kind of ” digital realism” instead of distractions to provocations and foreign policy “noises” orients Russia to exclusively pressing issues of ensuring the country’s digital interests in the world.

Recognizing that the 5G networking plan Russia has completely lost the initiative or the ability to actively influence the agenda, which should push Moscow to focus on preparing our proposals for the 7G network standard (or 6G after all?), to step up efforts to neutralize the threat of isolation of Russia in the issues of the radio frequency spectrum allocated for the needs of a new generation of communications. On this issue, Russian views do not coincide with the vast majority of countries in the world. The peculiarity of digital regulatory regulation is that new laws will be written by those who write the codes, that is, the technical content of the innovation will largely determine its regulatory framework. Therefore, it is important to increase the participation of Russian specialists in the development of standards and protocols for tomorrow’s technologies.

Among the technology markets of the future, the market for platforms for sovereign critical infrastructure – cybersecurity systems, communications, energy management, transport, financial flows and urban management systems, biosecurity and food control-stands out in particular. In the face of increasing tensions and uncertainty in the world, States are forced to pay increasing attention to their security and strengthen national control over their critical infrastructure.

The sovereign critical infrastructure market, which represents many trillions of dollars of orders for decades to come, is much like the global arms market. Decisions about technology partnerships are made at the sovereign level on the “friend – or-foe” principle, sales are made by systems, not components, implementation implies a high level of trust with localization of some technologies and forms a long-term political influence.

As in the arms market, Russia has its own “niche” in the market of sovereign critical infrastructure, estimated at 2030 percent of the total global market [20]. An important factor is that Russia positions itself as one of the leaders in the security systems market and has engineering schools with extensive experience in creating complex systems.

For Russia, the critical sovereign infrastructure market may become the most promising export destination. Recognized unique competencies in creating complex systems make Russia one of the leading potential suppliers of such systems – along with the United States and partly China. The independent software and hardware environment created in Russia is also an obvious competitive advantage. The “cold war” situation between the United States and China hypothetically opens up markets for Russia in the countries of Greater Eurasia, the Middle East, Latin America and Africa, which will try to reduce their technological infrastructure. and political dependence on the warring parties.

Having established itself as a “security exporter” in Eurasia, Russia can become a guarantor of its partners ‘ technological sovereignty. The presence of a trillion-dollar market of potential partners and unique competencies can help build a high-tech export strategy for years to come [21]. Thus, the country will have the opportunity to ensure its own security, increase international influence and try its hand at advancing technological development.

However, the conquest of sovereign critical infrastructure markets is impossible without the creation of breakthrough integrated platform solutions. Similarly, the implementation of such a strategy is impossible without creating strong ties with technological partners, without creating Russian educational and technological bases abroad [22].

Conclusions

Against the background of virtualization of all aspects of social life, the militarization of the information space is taking place. Taking advantage of the lack of borders in the digital space and generally accepted rules of conduct in it, states and organizations under their control distribute biased and disinformation content in order to promote their own interests and values. New technologies for creating virtual reality, such as deepfake They leave virtually no chance for the average person to separate lies from reality and can provoke religious and ethnic conflicts, destroy families, and destroy the reputations of politicians and innocent people with impunity.

In the coming years, the question of the regulatory structure of the entire global Internet will inevitably arise. Under the pressure of the block technological confrontation-mainly between the United States and China – and the ideological and political struggle, it is already divided into digital “enclaves”. The basic value of the Internet as a global equal and democratic environment (web neutrality The attempts promoted, in particular, by the United States, to make the quality and speed of network traffic dependent on the client’s wallet, also undermine it. The inclusiveness of the Internet is becoming the key to reducing digital inequality, and with it, the guarantor of global economic growth and social development.

Big data as the” new oil ” of the digital age should have an understandable owner and an understandable cost for the individual, business and the state. Only if a person and a citizen become the center of services and services in the digital environment, a balance of human rights, national priorities and business interests will be ensured, and it will be possible to regulate the currently uncontrolled global digital monopolies for the benefit of the entire society. Deleting the pages of President Trump and his supporters, as well as “deplatforming” the popular social network Parler among Republicans They clearly outline the prospect of actions by tech giants to eliminate economic and political competitors if these tech giants decide to operate outside the United States. If ideological opponents can be dealt with so harshly and relatively easily in the United States, why can’t this practice be made extraterritorial? Moreover, there are already precedents.

For Russia, the minimum task is to preserve its sovereignty when making decisions affecting the main areas of national security>. The maximum goal is to create your own competitive technological ecosystem, become the leader of the techno-economic block and a key participant in the process of developing new rules of the game in this area. In this sense, gaining economic sovereignty is a simpler task than gaining informational sovereignty. But it seems that the survival of states in the future depends on its solution.

Export oftechnologies and competencies for protecting sovereign critical infrastructure to countries that want to ensure their independence and defense capability can and should become one of the most important political and foreign economic priorities of Russia. This will provide the country with a significant financial inflow and international influence. This is exactly the path that the powers claiming leadership positions in this area are already following.

Currently, the implementation of the critical infrastructure technology export strategy is hindered by the lack of experience of Russian high-tech companies in creating integrated platform solutions, their weak presence in the markets of potential partners, and insufficient financial capacity to work on large long-term projects.

As civilizational and ideological confrontation escalates and examples of subversive information activity become more frequent, more and more countries are paying attention to the need for more careful monitoring of malicious and subversive content on the Internet. In the United States, where an information war is being waged between hostile political forces – as the 2020 presidential campaign showed-digital monopolies are resorting to outright censorship and manipulation in favor of their ideological supporters.

Russia should think about mechanisms for actively forming the information space, which would allow it to lead in terms of relevance and quality of content and thereby limit foreign influence in its information space.

The challenge of the new age is ” impatience of the spirit»: a short clip or post on a social network “wins” a full-fledged news report or analytical article, the variety of multimedia experiences distracts a person’s attention, and the speed of changes turns life into a race against time. The conservative, traditionally unhurried sphere of interstate communication is forced to change, ” run very fast in order to at least stay in place.” States that can quickly rebuild clumsy foreign policy mechanisms faster than others have every chance to take a leading position in this area. a fast-paced “brave new world”.

The post INTERNATIONAL COMPETITION AND DIGITAL LEADERSHIP first appeared on Global Policy.

It is symbolic that exactly 41 years ago, on November 26, 1975, the United States adopted the national security Memorandum NSSM-200 (National Security Study Memorandum), which set the task to control the growth of the world’s population and ensure a global decline in fertility.

THE TALE OF OVERPOPULATION OR THE CREEPING GENOCIDE OF HUMANITY

The reason was that further population growth poses a threat to US dominance over global resources, as it increases political instability in the world, especially in rapidly growing regions. It took less than half a century for humanity to face the real threat of the end of the pension system on a global scale.

Shami notes that just half a century ago, in 1965, the proportions in the world between children under 15 and old people over 65 were about 7:1, including in Africa 14:1, Asia and Latin America-11: 1, Europe and North America-3: 1. At present, according to the UN, this proportion in the world is even less than 3:1, and is steadily deteriorating, and on the global age pyramid, you can see that about 30 years ago, the growth of a younger population sharply slowed down. After 10 years, the NSSM-200 began to bear its thin fruit. The world quickly began to age…

NSSM-200

The NSSM-200 Memorandum was the two-hundredth analytical document submitted by national security adviser Henry Kissinger to the President of the United States. On November 26, 1975, it was approved by President Gerald Ford and remained classified until the early 1990s.With the collapse of the Soviet Union, many goals could not be hidden.

Making up 6% of the world’s population, the Memorandum says, the US consumes a third of the world’s resources, and they are mostly located in regions with rapidly growing populations. Therefore, it is in the interests of the United States to control the growth of their population, which threatens unpredictable consequences. The United States was recommended to start a long-term program to reduce the birth rate around the world by all available methods, involving various international organizations – who, UNICEF, UNESCO, the world Bank, the International Federation of “family planning” and so on.

THE ERA OF GLOBAL DEMOGRAPHIC TRANSITION

The most threatening to US interests were named 13 countries: India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Indonesia, Thailand, the Philippines, Turkey, Nigeria, Egypt, Ethiopia, Mexico, Colombia and Brazil. Some of them do not reproduce themselves today (Thailand), some-on the verge (Indonesia, Turkey, Mexico, Colombia and Brazil).

Henry Kissinger defines the ways to achieve this goal:

1. The introduction of “family planning” as an integral part of the health systems of “underdeveloped” countries and the strict linking of the development of any medical services, especially in the field of motherhood and childhood, with “family planning”. Simply put, medicine in exchange for a lower birth rate.

2. The development of medical technologies for the neutralization and suppression of human fertility.

3. The introduction of “family planning” as a right (“safe sex” and so on) into the minds of the younger generation, that is, spiritual corruption. Moreover, the Memorandum recommends “influencing national leaders” on this issue.

HOLLYWOOD AS A SUPRANATIONAL WEAPON

After 40 years, we can say with bitterness that the plan was a success, when the call of Turkish President Recep Erdogan to give birth to three children even many Turks were subjected to derogatory criticism-before the plan of supranational elites to reduce the population as their alleged PERSONAL choice for the right to “family planning” (in fact – to have as few children as possible) took root in the minds of people.

Kissinger writes that ” there is an urgent need to take a number of measures to start reducing the birth rate and do it effectively in the 1970s and 1980s.” Now, looking back, it becomes clear that the debauchery that became the norm in Hollywood at that time (how strikingly different are the films made before the 1960s!), was an integral part of the global plan.

“The key factor in the effective use of existing contraceptive techniques has been and remains the problem of education. Without reducing the efforts aimed at the adult population, it is necessary to focus on the younger generation – those who are now in elementary school or even younger, ” Kissinger suggests.

The Memorandum provides for “orientation of new generations to create a small family”. “The desired family size is four or more children.” Therefore, “it is imperative to convince the General public that it is in their individual and national interest to have an average of three and then two children,” the secret plan says. In order to avoid suspicion, “we must make sure that our activities are not perceived by developing countries as policies of a developed country directed against these countries.”

As for the implementing organizations of the plan, ” the US should bring together donor countries, who, UNFPA, UNICEF and the world Bank to create a consortium that would help the most needy countries in the organization… a health system that will be an integral part of family planning.” UNESCO was asked to lead the work with primary school students. The current school “sexprosvet” grows legs from there.

It is noteworthy that in 1989, in the pages of the magazine “Washington Quarterly” in the article “Global demographic trends in 2010 in the aspect of US security”, the Pentagon openly called for “population planning” to be given the status of a program for the development of new weapons! It is not known whether this was done, but in fact the NSSM-200 became a real weapon in the demographic war waged against the whole world. And before humanity in it loomed the real threat of defeat and-enslavement. In fact, it had a global character and was only framed in terms of the state. The real customer was the bigger players.

MYTHS ABOUT OVERPOPULATION OF THE EARTH

Ordering supranational elites

According to the historian Andrei Fursov, in 1974 in the United States was over “creeping coup”, which began with the shooting of John F. Kennedy and ended with the removal of Richard Nixon, when power over the United States established transnational corporations, designed in supranational structures. By that time, the club of Rome (1968) and the Tripartite Commission (1973) had been established. Kissinger was one of their active participants and actually ran the United States in the 1970s.

Interestingly, the NSSM-200 memo was filed with the new President Ford four months after Nixon’s ouster.

As Olga Chetverikova, a specialist in closed Western structures, writes, in the early 1970s, transnational business, having “pumped out” everything necessary from the economy of mass consumption and the state of “universal welfare”, came to the conclusion that it is necessary to develop a strategy for global governance. The Rome club and the Trilateral Commission have become new front structures (the real ones can only be guessed at), uniting representatives of the world’s political, financial and scientific elites and implementing the ideas of globalism.

THE SECOND CIRCUIT OF POWER IN THE WEST AND CAPITALISM

It was during these years that the reports of the Rome club “limits of growth” (1972) appeared with the aim of controlling the growth of the world’s population, “Humanity at a turning point” (1974), “Revision of the international order” (1975) – the names of which speak for themselves – as well as the famous “Crisis of democracy” (1975) – about the need to create a “managed democracy” in the interests of the ruling elites. They, and not the US state, were the main customers of the plan for total control of The earth’s population, at first – at the level of population management.

At the same time, a new term was introduced, which entered the Russian language as “sustainable development”, although this is not entirely accurate. Sustainable development means, rather, development supported by long-term interests, that is, managed. Thus, in the 1970s, the goal was announced-global governance in the interests of the world’s ecology. However, the goal of supranational elites was and remains global power. Birth control out of concern for the environment is only one of the means.

International legalization

FEMINIZM AS AN IDEOLOGICAL WEAPON OF GLOBALISM

The International conference on population and development in Cairo in 1994 adopted a Programme of action that reaffirmed the right of all married couples and individuals to decide freely and responsibly on the number of their children and the length of time between their births. What was new in this Programme of action was that the focus should be on the individual and their rights. Ensuring universal access to” family planning services ” (i.e., ways to reduce the birth rate) has been identified as one of the main goals on a global scale. That is, humanity’s dissatisfaction with “family planning services” and its rapid growth was recorded as a postulate. The policy of all-round reduction of the birth rate was legalized.

Tragic result

According to the UN forecast (the average version), the world’s population will grow until the end of the XXI century.

POPULATION OF THE EARTH IN THE PERIOD 1950-2100 YEARS

However, its growth rate will steadily decline.

The total fertility rate will also decrease. In the middle of the century, the average birth rate on Earth will fall below the level of simple reproduction, that is, humanity will begin to die out, although its population will still grow by inertia.

At the same time, the age structure of the world population will deteriorate. Since the mid-1960s, when children made up 40% of the world’s population, their numbers have been steadily decreasing. The proportion of old people, on the contrary, is growing all the time and will continue to grow. The current three-fold superiority of children will double in the early 2030s, and around 2070 there will be fewer children than old people. Earth will become the planet of old men. However, the big problems begin now, because all these trends are already in effect, especially in the “developed countries”, and the working population is declining.

The median age of the World’s population is also growing steadily. In 40 years, it has grown from 21 years to 30 years, and by the end of the century will reach 42 years. The world will become a world of pensioners. The trouble is that the old people will no longer be pensioners by that time: they will have no one to pay their pensions.

MEDIAN AGE OF THE EARTH’S POPULATION IN YEARS

On all charts, we can see that the first 20-25 years after the Second world war, the population really multiplied rapidly: the number of children increased, the annual population growth accelerated, the birth rate was very high (about 5), the median age decreased. The world was a world of young people who had a future to build, and it was encouraging. Less than half a century later, the world quickly grew old, and the future darkened, burdened with the main concern for food.

Gloomy prospect

In 1970, only 0.7% of the World’s population was over 80 years old. According to the UN forecast, by the end of the XXI century, this will be almost one in ten. In 1995, Italy became the first country in the world where the number of elderly people aged 65 years exceeded the number of children under 15 years, after which almost all countries in Europe experienced this ominous change. Aging is expected all over the world: by 2050, everywhere except Africa, the share of the population from 60 years and older will be 25-30%!

PERCENTAGE OF THE POPULATION AGED 60 YEARS BY REGION OF THE EARTH

All this will happen against the background of a declining birth rate. Already, 75 countries (almost half of the World’s population) have a birth rate below the level of simple reproduction, which is just over two children per woman. In General, in the world it is about 2.5, that is, only slightly higher than the level of simple replacement of generations.

FUTURE MIGRATIONS OF PEOPLES. . HISTORY REPEATS ITSELF UNTIL IT IS REALIZED

This means that almost half of the planet is already virtually extinct, and in General the planet is facing a real prospect of global extinction. The population structure is rapidly deteriorating almost all over the world. And with it, a real threat of extinction looms over the social state. As can be seen from the global fertility map, almost all over the world, except for Africa and some countries in South Asia, the total fertility rate is below the global average.

That is, almost the entire world, except for these regions, is either facing the immediate threat of inability to reproduce itself, or already in a state of hidden extinction (when the population is still growing by inertia, but the birth rate is already below the level of reproduction), or at all at the stage of explicit extinction (Europe). The” end of history ” that Fukuyama dreamed of is quite real, and it is clearly visible in the demographic dimension.

WHO NEEDS LGBT PEOPLE

The UN predicts that by the end of the twenty-first century, almost the entire world will die out: the birth rate will ensure the reproduction of the population only in some countries of Central Africa. This managed “sustainable development” will become total control in exchange for maintaining the lives of an aging population that will only be interested in old-age benefits. “Family planning” in the long run turns out to be a slow way to take away humanity’s freedom in exchange for the Chimera of “reproductive rights”. Although it is precisely the right to procreation that is most hindered. This explains the worldwide decline in financial support for families. And all the tools continue to work to reduce the birth rate: propaganda of egoism, individualism, careerism, consumerism, equality, sodomy, contraception, sterilization, abortion, euthanasia, debauchery and other abominations. The fact that this plan is not subject to revision, recently said us President-elect Donald trump, when he said that about Sodom “marriages” “the issue has already been resolved.”

SODOM

The stable state of humanity that some dreamers dream of, when the population simply moves to a stable zero population growth, is impossible without breaking the fundamental institutions of marriage and the state. Before humanity reaches this imaginary stable state, it is doomed to a catastrophic deterioration of its socio-economic situation, when, rather, will agree to give all power in private hands, if only they provide it with a minimum that the “demographically exhausted” state will no longer be able to fulfill. This will be the finest hour of transnational corporations, which will declare that they are more effectively performing those services that can not be performed by the state, and will take all power into their own hands. In fact, the process of discrediting the state as an effective economic regulator has been unfolding for several decades, when private companies duplicate state institutions under the pretext that they supposedly more effectively perform their role. Like, what difference does it make who provides services to the population, because the state is only a tool for providing services. The term “public services” is promoted for a reason.

And as for the desired stable state, in demographic science, a stable population is one that is characterized by a constant level of birth rate and mortality and a constant age structure. That is, for example, a stably dying population is also stable, since at the same time it changes by the same relative value, only “in minus”. “Sustainable development” in fact turns out to be a planned and managed “legacy”.

In Russia, the nssm-200 plan has largely achieved its goals. “The rapid political, economic, social and demographic changes that took place in the Russian Federation in the 1990s have historical significance and far-reaching consequences,” the UN population Fund mission said in a report. Unfortunately, this is true: the damage to Russia has been done for decades. However, since the beginning of the XXI century, our country has embarked on the path of restoring sovereignty. As psychologists Irina Medvedeva and Tatiana Shishova write, ” Russia’s policy should be aimed at multiplying and protecting life, and not at planning non-existence.” At the same time, the policy of a country is largely determined by its residents by their actions or inaction.

The post GLOBAL POPULATION MANAGEMENT PLAN first appeared on Global Policy.