The demographic and spiritual center of world Christianity today is not in Rome, Geneva, or Nashville, but in the Global South – in Africa, Asia, and Latin America.

РАСПОСТРАНЕНИЕ ХРИСТИАНСКОЙ РЕЛИГИИ ПО РЕГИОНАМ НА ПЛАНЕТЕ

While at the beginning of the 20th century more than 80% of the world’s Christians lived in Europe and North America, a century later the situation has radically reversed: today, about 61% of Christians are residents of Africa, Asia, and Latin America. Sub-Saharan Africa, where only 1.5% of Christians lived in 1910, has become the largest Christian region on the planet in terms of population, surpassing Europe and now home to almost a quarter of all Christians worldwide.

🔹 In Latin America, once almost monolithically Catholic, there is an explosive growth of evangelical, especially Pentecostal, churches. In Asia, powerful churches and missionary movements are emerging in China, South Korea, the Philippines, and India.

🔹 This demographic shift is driven by three key factors. Firstly, the rapid population growth and high birth rates in the Global South. Secondly, the phenomenal success of missionary activity, particularly of evangelical and Pentecostal movements. And thirdly, the secularization and aging of the population in the historically Christian West, where the number and proportion of Christians are steadily declining.

THE IDEOLOGY AND POLITICS OF THE VATICAN IN THE CONDITIONS OF TRANSITION TO THE GLOBALIZED WORLD ORDER

But this is not just about quantitative changes. A qualitative transformation of Christianity itself is taking place. Faith in the Global South possesses distinct, contextual characteristics that are increasingly shaping its global image.

🔹 In Africa, for example, Christianity is deeply rooted in everyday life. The level of religious involvement there is one of the highest in the world: more than 75% of Christians in every surveyed country in sub-Saharan Africa say that religion plays a “very important” role in their lives, and they pray and attend church more frequently. And it is Africa that is projected to account for almost 70% of the total growth in the world’s Christian population between 2020 and 2070.

🔹 In Latin America, Christianity has become a tool for social mobilization and the formation of a new identity for millions who are leaving traditional Catholicism. Pentecostal churches, which emphasize personal experience of the Holy Spirit, miraculous healings, and material blessings, are proving attractive to the urban poor and even the middle class.

🔹 This new reality presents American evangelicals with complex, and sometimes uncomfortable, questions, forcing them to re-examine their traditional roles and priorities.

🔹 Firstly, the typical portrait of a global evangelical is no longer a white American from the “Bible Belt.” Researchers agree that there is no such thing as a single, unified evangelical. By the broadest estimates, 47% of the world’s evangelicals live in Africa, 26% in Asia, and only 11% in North America. The country with the largest evangelical population is no longer the United States, but China.

🔹 Secondly, serious theological and cultural tensions are escalating. For Christians in the Global South, who grew up in the context of colonialism, poverty, and social injustice, the distinction, common among many Americans, between “evangelism” (caring for the soul) and “social ministry” (caring for the body and society) seems artificial and even harmful. They insist on a holistic approach, where combating systemic sin and oppression is just as important as preaching personal salvation. Criticism of the “coloniality” of Western Christianity, which for centuries imposed its cultural forms as the only correct ones, is becoming increasingly vocal. Now, churches in the South are demanding equal partnership and the decolonization of mission and theology, which calls into question America’s historical role as teacher and sponsor.

ОБАМА ПЕРЕД СВОИМ УХОДОМ ЛЕГАЛИЗОВАЛ САТАНИЗМ

Finally, these global shifts are also reflected within the United States itself through growing immigrant and multicultural communities. Haitian, Nigerian, Korean, or Salvadoran churches in American cities bring with them the energy, theology, and social priorities of the Global South. They often combine conservative views on family and morality with an active stance on issues of racial justice, immigration reform, and poverty alleviation.

The post HENEZIS OF THE CHRISTIAN EMPIRE IN THE 21ST CENTURY first appeared on Global Policy.

The Taliban are cutting the umbilical cord of dependence, leaving Islamabad and Beijing in the lurch. A historical turning point that most experts didn’t even have time to notice: Afghanistan is officially closing its only previous trade route through Pakistan and completely reorienting its export and import towards Iran and India.
Now the port of Chabahar is becoming Afghanistan’s main foreign trade “window” to the world.

AFGHANISTAN – INDIA CORRIDOR

Pakistan no longer controls the Afghan economy, China is losing a strategic link in the CPEC corridor, Iran is gaining a new source of income, and India is gaining enormous influence in Central Asia.

The Afghan Minister of Trade unveiled a five-point plan:

1. Maximizing trade with India.
2. Fully utilizing the Chabahar port.
3. Creating “dry ports” on the border with Iran.
4. Launching cargo flights between Kabul and India.
5. Increasing Indian investments in all key sectors of Afghanistan.

In other words, Afghanistan is not simply “turning away” from Pakistan – it is leaving Islamabad’s strategic orbit and entering a new alliance: Iran + India + Afghanistan.

For 20 years, Pakistan cultivated the Taliban as an instrument of influence. But the instrument suddenly became an independent actor – and Islamabad was furious. The Taliban drew the only logical conclusion: dependence on Pakistan is a death sentence, especially in light of threats of expelling refugees and economic blackmail.

Что получает Иран?

Money. Influence. And more money.

Chabahar is a competitor to Pakistan’s Gwadar, which Beijing has been transforming into its “pearl” of the Indian Ocean. Now Chabahar is becoming the main hub for 40-million-strong Afghanistan.

Iran gains transit revenues, growth in transport infrastructure, a strengthened role in the region, and transformation into a major trade hub for Central Asia.

Что теряет Пакистан?

Literally everything:

• Billions in transit revenues.
• Smuggling schemes that enriched local clans.
• Political influence in Kabul.
• Positions in the Chinese CPEC project.

Let’s recall a symbolic example: in 2002, Pakistan “legally” imported 8 million telephones into Afghanistan, which mysteriously remained in Pakistan – without duties or taxes. This was a huge source of corruption.

Afghanistan is officially withdrawing from the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), into which Beijing has already invested $37 billion. The remaining section is turning into a dead end with no access to Central Asia.

PROMISING TRANSPORT ROUTES IN THE INDIAN SUBCONTINENT.

In other words, geopolitically, China is losing one of its main alternative routes to the Indian Ocean.

The Taliban have done what neither the previous Afghan governments nor even the mujahideen dared to do: in one fell swoop, they have freed themselves from 70 years of dependence on Pakistan.

Afghanistan is choosing Iran and India – and thereby creating a new triangle of influence capable of redrawing the trade routes of all of Eurasia.

The post AFGHANISTAN IS JOINING THE IRAN-INDIA TRADE CORRIDOR first appeared on Global Policy.

Read the monograph VIP-PANDEMIC OF LEPROSY – LESSONS FOR INTELLIGENCE SERVICES

The post THE VIP LEPROSY PANDEMIC – LESSONS FOR SPECIAL SERVICES first appeared on Global Policy.

Another area is modernization of transport infrastructure to facilitate the movement of troops and heavy weapons. This task also includes strengthening control over foreign port owners.

It should be emphasized that the project’s military objectives are limited by the Montreux Convention, which sets strict limits on the number and duration of non-Black Sea naval vessels in the Black Sea. And Kallas made this clear by stating that the international agreements in force in the maritime sphere limit the EU’s ability to eliminate these threats, and that it is necessary to work with partners outside the EU. That is, the EU obviously hopes that the opposition Republican People’s Party will eventually come to power in Turkey, which will either withdraw from the Montreux Convention or involve its fleet in European Black Sea operations.

In addition, other ways of circumventing the convention are possible: for example, at the Dutch-owned plant in Romanian Galati, to build ships for the navies not only of the Netherlands and Pakistan, as is the case now, but also for EU countries. Finally, I would like to draw attention to the fact that this convention has nothing to do with naval aviation and unmanned aerial vehicles, which are a serious military factor. Suffice it to say that during World War II, Germany fought successfully in the Black Sea, although it was bound by the aforementioned convention, and drones (both air and sea) did not yet exist..

Dissemination of the EU strategy

Another important point: the EU wants to extend its strategy not only to the Black Sea states, but also to Armenia and Azerbaijan. This means that the Europeans, on the one hand, see these countries as potential bases for reconnaissance UAVs, and on the other hand, plan to gradually make their Black Sea strategy a Caspian one. However, such plans are not hidden, since the goals of the strategy are openly called “linking Europe with the South Caucasus, Central Asia and other regions.”

The point of such a connection is to counteract not only Russia in the post-Soviet space, but also China, for which these territories are part of the revived Great Silk Road. This is directly indicated by the attention to control over the owners of ports. After all, Chinese companies are actively buying port infrastructure all over the world. And obviously, Europe’s concern about this is connected not only with the assertions that such ownership can be used to circumvent anti-Russian sanctions.

But direct references to sanctions and the shadow fleet in a program that is designed to last for many years and requires considerable preliminary preparation best demonstrate that European sanctions are forever.

The post STRATEGY OF THE EUROPEAN UNION IN THE BLACK SEA REGION first appeared on Global Policy.

The gender revolution

In 1997, by the Treaty of Amsterdam, the European Union established gender Mainstreaming as its official strategy. The concept of gender mainstreaming first appeared in international texts after the third UN conference on women, which was held in 1985 in Nairobi (Kenya). This event is hailed as the”birth of global feminism”. Representatives of participating countries endorsed the Nairobi forward-looking strategies for the advancement of women.

The fourth world conference on women, held in Beijing in 1995, officially recognized the gender mainstreaming strategy as official. The Beijing platform for Action confirmed that the rights of women and girls are an integral, integral and indivisible part of universal human rights and proposed a number of concrete actions to ensure these rights. The platform for action recognized the need to promote gender mainstreaming policy at the state level.

According to gender ideology, the concept of “gender” is now interpreted as a set of socio-cultural stereotypes, which must be abandoned in favor of the free choice of a person from an early age of their “gender identity” (which is much more than two sexes) and sexual orientation.

It is hardly necessary to prove that in the mass consciousness of the majority of people the division of mankind by natural biological characteristics into men and women and as a consequence the existence of normative male and female properties is a fact absolutely natural and not subject to doubt. It is not an easy task to change such people’s minds and “convince” them that everything that has been considered the norm up to now is no longer the norm. Therefore, a powerful system of methods, strategies, tactics, legislative tools, political and educational processing, and academic theories, called gender mainstreaming, has been put into use.

The European Commission defines this concept as follows: “Gender mainstreaming is an effective strategy aimed at achieving gender equality”. The EU’s explanation is that this phenomenon is a process of integrating gender perspectives, including creation, implementation, observation and evolution at all stages of policy implementation, in order to promote and promote equality between men and women. This means assessing the impact of equality policies on the lives of men and women and recognizing the responsibility to change these policies if necessary.

The most simplistic explanation of the theory of gender equality is the denial of innate natural differences between men and women. Ignoring the laws of nature, the ideology of gender equality claims that people should be distinguished not by their biological sex, but by the one they have chosen. People should have the freedom to choose who they want to be and choose the gender they think is more appropriate for them. The ethical justification of the theory of equality is the idea of equality. According to gender ideology, gender should be perceived as a socially determined definition. This assumes that any sexual orientation is normal. A person has the right to choose gender, that is, what he should be, a man, a woman or… someone else. Any attempt to resist this “choice” is considered discrimination.

Children also have the right to choose their gender, and therefore they should be brought up in an atmosphere of neutral genders, that is, to treat them as asexual, until they choose a suitable gender for themselves. Psychological treatment of children is carried out consistently and systematically through the entire educational system.

This monstrous gender-based treatment of children is especially actively sought in Sweden. There, for example, practice neutral kindergartens, where it is forbidden to divide children into boys and girls. Children are raised in an absolute gender-neutral space. The beginning of this “gender” neutralization was laid in 1998 with the introduction of changes in the Law on Swedish education, obliging all schools to counteract the spread of the previous gender stereotype.

Another tool for processing children was the juvenile justice system. It is based on the noble idea of protecting the rights of children. However, in the West, it is increasingly used for other, far from officially proclaimed purposes, and under the guise of a noble idea, children’s sense of respect for their parents is undermined, which in turn undermines the meaning and meaning of the institution of the family. Individual cases where children really need protection are used to justify the total ideology of child protection. Through the education system, they are taught that they have an unlimited right to protection. But in the absence of a systematic approach to teaching children the principles of morality and respect for parents in children’s perception inevitably cultivated the idea of the possibility of “escape” from parental education. Children are encouraged to complain, to inform on their parents on any occasion. The very idea of trust and mutual respect between children and parents is being undermined. The principle of “honor your father and mother” is replaced by the right to permissiveness.

Sweden has become the vanguard for this kind of” protection of the rights ” of the child

She practically took control of the children’s upbringing, replacing the family. In Sweden, there is an absolute ban on corporal punishment of children, which means a ban on almost any kind of punishment of a child by parents, including raising the voice. Thus, the importance of the very institution of the family, its role in the upbringing of children, is completely undermined, instead of recognizing its crucial importance as one of the values of society, the idea of law is implanted. Such an attack on the family is one of the directions of gender ideology, since among its main tasks the ideology of gender equality puts the destruction of the institution of the family. This is easily explained – after all, it is in the family that the basic moral standards of behavior are brought up and developed.

Another goal of introducing gender ideology is to reduce the birth rate of normal people

GLOBAL POPULATION MANAGEMENT PLAN

This is achieved through policies that encourage same-sex marriage and encourage abortion. Same-sex couples cannot have children, but it is likely that the children they adopt and raise will grow up in an atmosphere of gender mainstream ideas.

Since 1999, the implementation of gender ideology has become a leading policy in Germany. When filling out various types of questionnaires, there is a right to choose a third answer to the question “sex” (gender). In December 2018, Germany approved the law “on the third sex”, according to which people with intersexuality, that is, not identifying themselves with either a man or a woman, can indicate their gender in official documents as “different”. Until January 1, 2019, when the law came into force, people with intersexuality had the right to leave the “gender” column empty.

WHO NEEDS LGBT PEOPLE

But this innovation was not enough. LGBT activists [1] demanded that the law allow people who do not identify themselves with the gender indicated on their birth certificate to change the name of their gender in official documents.

The most important and tragic thing is not even what the representatives of the gender theory believe, but that this gender absurdity has become imposed on people on a mass scale. And also in that obvious from the point of view of the normal person mental deviation at the highest level is issued for norm.

In reality, the gender mainstream today is a global ideology that includes a variety of strategies and ways to manipulate humanity. Its goal is to construct a new social type of man, in whose mind the binary code of natural identity that separates people into men and women is disabled. There is an opinion that the systematic destruction of the identity of men and women is carried out in order to commit an anthropological revolution, and this leads to serious ontological and social consequences.

The gender mainstream is an aggressive ideology directed against the moral norms of humanity and the natural acceptance and respect of biological characteristics, all the moral and value orientations that make a person human. In fact , it is a purposeful policy of etching the human in man.

The absurdity within the law

The idea of gender equality received a new impetus when Western Europe embarked on the path of legalizing same-sex marriage.

SODOM

The legal recognition of what has always been considered a deviation from the norm and even a disease means that the absurd ideology of gender equality has become even more militant, moving from propaganda to instilling the idea of same-sex love as a normal phenomenon, to a direct attack against the moral norms and moral principles on which human relations have been built for centuries.

WHO NEEDS SAME-SEX MARRIAGE ?

In 2013, at the initiative of the then Prime Minister and conservative party leader David Cameron, same-sex marriage was legalized in England. The Anglican Church strongly opposed the law. She forbade her priests to perform the marriage ceremony of homosexuals. England has become the fifteenth country in the world to officially legalize same-sex marriage. Earlier, in may 2013, the law on same-sex marriage was adopted in France.

The moral justification for such non-traditional marriages is determined by their proponents in terms of seeking personal comfort and acceptance in society. From a legal point of view, the argument in favor of legalizing such marriages is based on the assertion that members of sexual minorities should have the same fundamental rights as heterosexuals.

A PROMINENT ACTIVIST OF THE “LGBT MOVEMENT” MARIA GESSEN ON GAY MARRIAGE

In academic philosophical circles, the main argument of supporters of the idea of same-sex marriage is reduced to the following questions: Why does marriage exist at all? Should marriage be gender-based, that is, based on the principle of Union of people of opposite sexes? What is the role of the state in addressing issues related to the institution of marriage? What place is given to the interests of children in matters of marriage? Will legalizing same-sex marriage lead to legalizing polygamy?.

USA: HOMOSEXUAL FREEDOM AND FOREIGN POLICY

The polar opposite view is a sharp criticism and rejection of the very idea of homosexual marriage. Among the large number of reasons that determine this position, a special place is occupied by the interests of children. In addition to all the tragic absurdity of the very existence of same-sex couples, one of the most important problems is what children who are raised by homosexuals will grow up to be. American researchers have concluded that young transgender people are much more likely to attempt suicide than those young people whose gender is the same as that specified in their birth certificates.

In 2010, mark Regnerus, PhD in sociology, Professor at the University of Texas at Austin (USA), started a scientific study on the topic “how different are adult children whose parents have same-sex relationships”. The results of this study were published in 2012 in the pages of the authoritative journal “Social Science Research”.

FACES OF BABYLON: HOMOSEXUALITY

M. Regnerus came to the conclusion that grown-up children who were raised by gay parents have serious problems compared to those who were raised by heterosexual couples. Among other things, this is a high level of venereal infection, psychological disorders (many have tried or planned to commit suicide), problems of sexual identity.

Dr. Regnerus’s research has been heavily attacked by those who support homosexual relationships. An extremely aggressive information campaign was also launched against him, and demands were made to prevent the results of the study from being publicly disclosed.

An objective, just a reasonable person, no matter what ideological and political positions he may hold, it is difficult not to agree with the head Of the Department of external Church relations of the Moscow Patriarchate, Metropolitan Hilarion of Volokolamsk, who called the gender mainstream an ideology of deception. “The decisions that are being made today in many European countries are dictated by the very ideology that has already led to the destruction of many families, the ideology that says that a person can choose his gender, that a person almost from childhood can determine with which partners he will live in the future-his own sex or another sex. At the heart of all these sex-change operations, at the heart of all this lies deception. Deception, which is imposed today with the help of ideology, and this ideology is imposed already in school education. This is a huge tragedy of modern Western Europe and the whole modern Western world. A tragedy, the scale of which will be understood only, probably, by the next generations”.

Feminism as a prerequisite for the emergence of gender ideology

FEMINISM AS AN IDEOLOGICAL WEAPON OF GLOBALISM

To understand how gender ideology became dominant in Europe, it is necessary to trace its origins. If we analyze the main ideas of feminism, it is fair to say that it was the main prerequisite for the development of gender equality theory.

Feminism is a complex system of views on the social experience of mankind, which focuses primarily on the strengthening and even priority of the role of women in society. The emergence of feminism as a socio-political movement is due to certain social and intellectual reasons. Its appearance was the result of the process of secularization of society and the development of bourgeois relations, the involvement of women in employment.

Historically, feminism of the late XIX – early XX centuries advocated equality of social and political rights between men and women, without affecting the gender issue. This theme received a new interpretation in the works of the French writer and philosopher Simone de Beauvoir (1908-1986)). De Beauvoir can be considered an ideologue of the second wave of feminism by the power of the impact of her views, which she outlined in the book “the Second sex”, published in France in 1949. It was she who gave the word “gender” a gender, that is, a socio-cultural character. In French and English, there is a terminological difference between grammatical male / female gender (French genre, English gender) and biological sex (sexe/sex). However, the concept of “gender” is more complex, including socio-cultural aspects.

De Beauvoir argued that a man is not born a woman, but becomes one. She first touched on the biological nature of women and their “suppression” in society. According to her views, women play the role of “second sex”. The reason for this she saw in the fact that in the public worldview there was an opinion that by virtue of their biological sex, a woman is doomed, unlike men, to inertia.

Rejecting this, the French writer argued that women are no less capable of an active life than men, and not just to exist within the family. But historically, she noted, women, overwhelmingly, simply submitted to men. Men, in her opinion, saw in women only the embodiment of frozen femininity. Therefore, Simone de Beauvoir declared a “revolt” against femininity as a special characteristic of the female sex. At the same time, she paid special attention to the inner world of women in her works and speeches, emphasizing that no struggle for political and social rights will give liberation until the woman herself finds inner freedom.

The ideas expressed by Marxist theorists had a significant influence on S. de Beauvoir. But, revealing the theme of emancipation, K. Marx and F. Engels investigated the situation not so much of individual individuals as of the masses of women workers who are subjected to exploitation. At the same time, Marxism considered women’s wage labor as a positive factor that creates the necessary economic prerequisites for women’s independence. These ideas proved very attractive to Simone de Beauvoir. The second wave of feminism was also significantly influenced by the philosophy of the Frankfurt school, which sharply criticized the morality of modern bourgeois society, exposed the repressiveness that reigned in the family and the Church.

At the final stage of her work, de Beauvoir argued that although women had achieved equal political rights, their socio-cultural and economic influence did not extend beyond the marginal. Women still remain in a state of subordination to the world of male culture and male values.

From feminism to gender theory

FEMINISM: FAMILY IN THE WEST-FIND AND DESTROY

De Beauvoir’s feminist ideas were further developed in the philosophy of post-feminism and social constructivism. One of its representatives is Judith Butler (Judith Butler) – the ideologist of the gender revolution, Professor of philosophy at the University of California at Berkeley, a member of the leadership of the International Commission for the protection of gay and lesbian rights. Before Butler, feminism asserted the political and social equality of women and men, but maintained the concept of female identity, recognized the right to possess feminine qualities. Butler went much further. It proclaims that “biological sex” does not exist at all: the characteristics of male and female behavior are not determined by biological sex, but are the result of socio-political construction. The differences between women and men, according to her, are not based on biological origin, but are imposed by social structures, that is, they are acquired.

In 1990, Butler published the book “Gender anxiety: feminism and identity Subversion”, which laid the theoretical basis of gender theory [9]. Its main idea is to undermine identity, to dissolve male and female identities. Butler calls for the destruction of the interaction of the sexes. Instead, it offers free choice of one’s own gender and, therefore, free choice of any sexual orientation. This idea was the basis of the gender mainstream strategy.

Butler became the author of the performative theory of gender and one of the followers of the queer theory, which became widespread at the end of the last century. Queer in English means “strange”, “different”. This is a critical sociological theory about the nature of gender, which spread in the end of XX century In the framework of queer theory people are not aware of themselves nor the relevant sample of men or the sample of women. Within the framework of the queer theory, people differ from a pre-set pattern. They are not aware of themselves as corresponding to the pattern of either man or woman. In other words, people have the right to determine their own identity, which means that they do not conform to the normative patterns of men or women and be someone else.

The peculiarity of the post-feminist concept is that it generally rejects the binary oppositions of male and female. Butler believes that the biological sex without meaningful gender content loses its “nature”. The gender identity of a woman, in her opinion, should not be determined depending on her gender, and therefore on the reproductive capabilities of her body.

The presence of reproductive organs as the main natural factor and one of the signs of natural (natural) identity in the awareness of a person as a man or woman is thus reduced to almost zero. Gender theory calls into question the existence of the feminine and masculine. This means nothing more than the negation of nature itself.

Why did the gender revolution become possible in the West

The gender revolution does not enjoy mass support in the West and is often sharply criticized and condemned. For example, the German writer and sociologist Gabriela Kubi writes about the disastrous consequences of the introduction of gender ideology in society. She believes that attacks on the sexual identity of men and women have a philosophical basis, it is-relativism. According to his postulates, there is no truth, because reality arises only through subjective perception. “Modern philosophers think that they can simply throw natural law and metaphysics into the dustbin of history. Instead, only a person’s need for pleasure, sexual pleasure, or love is recognized. Their credo: pleasure is the main value”.

Ethical or moral relativism denies the absolute character of morality. For the first time the principle of relativism is found in the ancient Greek sophists, one of whose representatives the philosopher Protogoras declared that man is the measure of all things. “In fact, ethical relativism was the brainchild of its time, which was generated by the ideas of Protagoras.” “The philosopher suggested that virtues are not innate, but acquired properties of man. He separated the natural laws from the social and moral ones, which, with the mastery of the art of convincing in their rightness, can now be interpreted by philosophers very subjectively”.

In other words, it denies the principle of binding morality, which changes depending on changes in the situation, time and the prevailing ideology. Ethical relativism is characterized by a blurring of moral guidelines, when the differences between good and evil become relative.

Representatives of the Vienna circle of logical positivists, which existed in the early 20s of the last century, believed that metaphysics and ethics are meaningless. According to their views, scientific statements make sense, because they can somehow be checked, tested.

But how can one check whether an action is morally right or wrong? For example, A. Ayer and R. Carnap generally questioned the possibility of moral evaluation. Ayer argued that the moral assessment is subjective, because this assessment is often the actual classification of certain actions by a group of people in which there is a certain moral position, which is familiar to the one who expresses a moral assessment, and therefore it is the subjective opinion of this group, where such a moral position exists. For example, a committed utilitarian [3] may call an action right because he is simply trying to promote it, because it leads to happiness. In this case, the validity of the moral assessment becomes empirical.

The domination of relativistic morality led to the erosion of moral guidelines, the denial of the concepts of “good”, “evil”, and norms of behavior. Moral priorities were replaced by values of freedom of expression. Morality has become subjective, it is reduced to personal choice, depending on the situation and time. The natural consequence of this is spiritual extinction.

By “spirituality”, by definition, it is accepted to understand the state of human self-consciousness, which finds its expression in thoughts, words and actions, represents the internal, special qualities that guide a person-ethical norms, rules of behavior. As you know, every religion clearly defines the boundaries of what is possible and what is not, when the boundaries are not imposed, but are the result of internal qualities of human thinking that determine its value orientations. When good actions are performed not because it is necessary, but because there is an internal need for it, and something will never be done, even if many others do it, because there is an internal sense of responsibility that restrains desires and needs, so as not to fall into the abyss of evil.

The European rejection of religion and the imposition of the legal concept of human rights have played a key role in the process of erasing those internal qualities that define human values and support a sense of responsibility. There are different ways to assess this, but the fact is that spiritual values in the West remain only among practicing Muslims today, who draw their spiritual and moral laws from the Koran, visit mosques and pray several times a day.

Europe, whose roots go back to Christianity and Greco-Roman civilization, has ceased to be Christian. The loss of the Christian faith was due to a number of social, cultural and economic factors. One of the most important of them, in my opinion, is integration into the European Union, which does not have a strategic goal of preserving the cultural and spiritual values of Europe. The only value was the achievement of material well-being.

Due to its economic development, Western Europe has become a major center of attraction for migrants from the East, Africa and South Asia, seeking higher earnings and more comfortable working conditions. A significant part of the population of Western European countries today are immigrants from Muslim countries. Although some of them were born and educated in the Christian countries of Western Europe, they remain largely committed to their culture, based primarily on religious self-knowledge. Having lost faith in God, Europe simply “gave way” to other religions and cultures, turning into a kind of passageway, where there is a place for any religion, any culture,but there is no respect for the spiritual values of Christian civilization.

The West has plunged into a spiritual vacuum, where there is a demand for rights, but the awareness of personal responsibility has been blunted. There were only wants and needs. There are almost no brakes left to restrain these desires. Substantial social rights to life, work, security, health and legal protection have become insufficient. People, especially the younger generations, demand freedom in everything, including the right to freedom of personal identity. The problem of identity and consciousness is considered by modern Western, including American philosophers and publicists, exclusively from the legal point of view. And the emphasis is not on finding and asserting moral principles, but on justifying any “atypical” behavior with personal comfort. Whatever it is, but if a person is comfortable, why not?

In the modern political philosophy of Western Europe, the prevailing view is that the differentiation of humanity on such grounds as race and gender simplifies the issue of identity and, characteristically, limits the freedom of the individual. The concept of cosmopolitanism is put forward, which goes beyond the concepts of nationality and citizenship. The framework of awareness of one’s national, racial, and therefore cultural identity is being erased. “I” want to be what I want to be, regardless of racial or national roots. This theory fits logically into the framework of the ideology of gender freedom. If you can choose a gender identity, you can choose any one.

The search for freedom or freedom from morality

Gender ideology is covered by the idea of “equality” between men and women and the right to freedom of choice. In itself, this idea sounds, of course, noble, because equality leads to justice. However, this leaves aside the question of predicting the consequences of equalizing what is clearly not equal and cannot be equal in nature. Behind the idea of equality interpreted in this way lies an aggressive attack on moral norms.

The above-mentioned Gabriela Kubi clearly traces the reasons for the absurdity and danger of gender ideology, which destroys the social health of society. This ideology, she said, is fighting:

• against common sense, because it denies the biological, psychological, and social differences between men and women;
• against women, because it allows feminist-oriented image to prevail and significantly devalue the importance of motherhood and destroy morality;
• against men, because girls and women are given a privileged position, while the authority of men is belittled by the assertion of an effeminate image of a man;
• against the Union of a man and a woman in marriage and their necessary cooperation in the future;
• against unborn children, since it proclaims abortion as a ” human right»;
• against already born children, because it destroys the family, the irreplaceable space where a morally healthy person is formed and traditions of culture and religion are transmitted;
• against the family, and this ideologically, socially and materially destroys the very foundations of life;
• against the scientific ideal of truth and its roots, turning science into an agent of its ideology;
• against freedom of speech in the media and science, suppressing opinions that are at odds with this ideology;
• against democracy, sacrificing common sense and the principles of normality through state power in order to satisfy the interests of the minority; against God and Christianity.

Any debauchery and any lust can be found “moral” justification, if you use as the primary basis of the requirement of the right of the individual. However, rights are secondary because any right is originally intended to be a continuation of moral values. The product is the same morality is first and foremost a sense of responsibility. The demand for right is inextricably linked to the desire for freedom. But unrestricted freedom, like any other extreme, is harmful and dangerous, because it inevitably blunts, nullifies the sense of responsibility, blurs the boundaries between acceptable and unacceptable.

The values of life, on which the moral foundations of society have been built for centuries and millennia, are distorted and crumbling to such an extent that everything that was once considered a pathology, a disease, is declared and for a part of society really becomes the norm.

Being extremely militant and aggressive, gender ideology aims to silence all its critics. But how is it possible to prevent people, at least most of them, from saying what they really think? But the majority of the population is convinced that same-sex marriage is an ugliness, the ultimate distortion of the very institution of marriage as a natural Union of two people, as a result of which children are born.

In this situation spread to the West, political correctness plays a critical role political whip, which not only defines the ethics of social behavior, but also facilitates the introduction into the mass consciousness sometimes perverted to the base of the ideas of freedom, normality, tolerance. Political correctness often reaches the point of absurdity, when it struggles not so much with language tactlessness or straightforwardness, but with common sense and reason itself. Any attempts to Express dissatisfaction with the total imposition of gender equality, protest against the imposition of homosexuality are perceived as discrimination and incitement to hatred of minorities.

Here are just two examples of what is happening in this area in Europe. In January 2006, the EU adopted a resolution declaring its determination to eradicate homophobia through a system of educational measures, including information campaigns in schools and administrative measures.  So-called “homophobia” is now equated with racism and anti-Semitism.

In September 2008, the European Parliament adopted a resolution on “how marketing and advertising should affect gender equality”. The resolution expresses the desire of the European Parliament to prohibit the use of images containing “sexual stereotypes” in textbooks. This means that from now on, a man in advertising, in the media should not be portrayed in such a way that it can be associated with a male image. And the image of women should not be associated only with women.

The resolution pays special attention to children’s perception. It is emphasized that “children’s programs are a special problem because of their potential impact on gender socialization, and, as a result, the formation of children’s ideas about themselves, their family members and the world around them” [15]. Since children are particularly susceptible to external influence, gender stereotypes can influence the formation of ideas in the child that gender can “dictate” what is possible and what is unacceptable”. The question remains: does this mean, from the point of view of officials of the European Parliament, that the image of a woman in children’s programs should not be associated in the child with the concept of mother, and the male image should not cause the child any associations associated with the image of the father? Does it mean that a girl should not be raised as a future woman and mother, and a boy should not be raised as a future man and father?

THE FALL OF THE WEST

False value

A militant ideology that serves the interests of a minority leads a powerful attack against all the norms and values that make a person human. Deviation from the norm becomes the norm, which means that there is a statement of false values. If Judith Butler and the followers of the queer theory of the new sex and gender equality believe that the acceptance of all that is created by nature is a restriction of personal freedom, then, no matter how you interpret it, it is nothing but a loss of reason, because there is nothing more true and brilliant than nature. Nevertheless, the forcible imposition of painful fantasies of people with obvious mental abnormalities and uncertain sexual orientation as certain “progressive” ideas, values, and freedom has become not just a trend, but a reality in the West.

The modern Europe of pseudo-freedom is not at all the genuine Europe, familiar to us from legends and literature, which once drew its inspiration from the classical tradition of Ancient Greece and Rome, where philosophical thought sought truth and the laws of morality. Behind the facade of the ideas of freedom and human rights to freedom of expression hides a totalitarian ideology of deception, the purpose of which is to destroy the moral values and foundations that define human existence itself. The Kingdom of lies has come.

The post GENDER GENESIS OF EUROPE AT THE TURN OF XX-XXI CENTURIES first appeared on Global Policy.

The U.S. government has no more important duty than defending the nation. However, providing for the “common defense,” as the Constitution puts it, is remarkably easy. America has vast oceans east and west and peaceful neighbors to the north and south.

Today only Russia, with an arsenal of nuclear-tipped missiles, could launch a serious attack on America. However, Moscow has no incentive to do so, since the result would be devastating retaliation. China’s military is expanding but directed at preventing Washington from dominating the People’s Republic of China at home and in its neighborhood.

Terrorists abound but mostly result from maladroit U.S. policies that create enemies and make other people’s conflicts America’s own. Moreover, while such attacks are atrocious, they do not pose an existential threat. Nor do America’s conventional forces and nuclear arsenals offer the best response; promiscuous war-making around the world is more likely to accelerate than diminish terrorism. The better option would be to do less militarily, especially in the Middle East.

Why, then, is Washington spending $717 billion in fiscal year 2019 to maintain vast armies, fleets, and air armadas around the world? Not for defense, of America, anyway. It is to protect allies, assert influence, remake failed societies, dictate behavior, promote values, and more. All of these may have some value, though rarely as much as asserted. And none have much to do with protecting America’s territory, people, constitutional system, and prosperity.

Unfortunately, attacking is far more expensive than deterring. Most of America’s Pentagon outlays go to project power, which is why the United States has an outsize military budget, equal to that of the next dozen or so nations combined. None of them, or any combination of them, could defeat America. Rather, Washington wants the ability to target them. The so-called “defense” budget is the price of America’s aggressive foreign policy. Playing global gendarme — is not cheap.

Although Americans should be prepared to pay any price necessary for their defense, not so with remaking the globe. Sending Americans to fight and die for tasks of peripheral importance always was foolish. Even if America once felt wealthy enough to squander its financial resources in such pursuits, those days have ended. Washington is effectively bankrupt, with massive unfunded liabilities. Its fiscal future will only worsen as Baby Boomers continue to retire.

Last year the Republican Party, once the self-proclaimed guardian of the treasury, used control of both ends of Capitol Hill to simultaneously hike federal spending and cut taxes. The result was a deficit approaching $779 billion, up $114 billion from the previous year. The last time Uncle Sam generated as much red ink was 2012 when recovering from the financial crisis.

Unfortunately, the numbers will only go up

The Congressional Budget Office figured the president’s 2019 budget proposal will push the deficit to nearly $1 trillion — without another financial crisis. And the numbers will continue to rise, to $1.527 trillion in 2028, or nearly twice last year’s level. There will be an extra $12.4 trillion in red ink over the coming decade.

AMERICANS ARE LOSING THE MEANING OF LIFE

This debt increase would be accompanied by rising interest rates, which already have begun their inexorable rise as the Federal Reserve begins unwinding its radical expansionary policy dating back to the financial crisis. CBO figured “net interest,” which disguises federal costs by subtracting interest paid to Uncle Sam, will rise from $315 billion last year to $819 billion in 2028.

That would roughly double the share of GDP devoted to interest from 1.6 percent to 3.1 percent of GDP. At that level, interest would be Washington’s third-largest program, smaller only than Social Security and Medicare. In another two decades, interest payments would match Social Security, currently the most expensive federal program. Interest payments would then consume 6.3 percent of GDP, the highest ever.

Alas, the numbers probably will be worse

The president’s budget targets domestic discretionary spending, as have most presidents, with little result, since Congress is not prepared to shut down the Washington Monument, furlough congressional staffers, and kill politically popular grants. More important, that area is not where the money is, accounting for just 15 percent of outlays. Zeroing out such expenditures would still leave a deficit.

Washington could stumble along and hope for better than expected economic news: higher productivity, lower interest rates, and faster economic growth, all of which would ease fiscal pressures on Washington. However, the reverse also is possible. In fact, the president’s trade war increases the chances of negative changes, while escaping a recession during the next decade will require more than a little luck. To combat the latter policymakers likely would hike outlays to “stimulate” the economy, adding to a deficit already expected to exceed a trillion dollars annually.

Of course, Congress could cut domestic expenditures. To achieve anything approaching a responsible budget requires addressing the four big domestic boulders, which along with military outlays make up 85 percent of the budget: interest, which cannot be reduced without repudiating debt; Social Security, the traditional “third rail” of U.S. politics; Medicare, the equally popular elder health care program; and Medicaid, the perennially under-funded promise of medical services for the poor. Spending pressures are inexorable. Entitlement outlays automatically rise as the population ages — both a larger percentage of the population is older and people on average live longer — so Social Security and Medicare will drive the budget.

More likely, Congress will act like, well, Congress, and both spend more and collect less than under current law. If so, the “Extended Alternative Fiscal Scenario” predicts that the deficit as a percentage of GDP will rise from 78 percent last year to 105 percent in 2028, 148 percent in 2038, and an astonishing 210 percent in 2048. Even the CBO’s best case, under “Extended Baseline,” which simply runs out existing law, including expiration of tax cuts, forecasts 152 percent of GDP in 2048. That is higher than in Greece at the onset of its fiscal crisis, which generated economic hardship, social dislocation, and political disruption. America’s average over the last half-century was just 41 percent; only during World War II and in its immediate aftermath did the federal debt exceed 70 percent, peaking at 106 percent in 1946.

With larger deficits and debts, interest rates likely would be higher and GDP growth lower. Once the spiral starts it will be difficult to stop. First, warned CBO, “rising interest rates and increased federal borrowing boost net interest costs substantially.” Net interest costs rose 20 percent last year alone. No surprise, noted the agency, “the higher the government’s interest costs, the more difficult it would be to achieve any particular target for deficit reduction.” Indeed, CBO observed, “Rising interest costs would boost deficits and debt and rising debt would push up interest costs.” The latter would be “a major contributor to that growing gap” between outlays and revenue in the coming years.

Second, noted CBO: “Large federal budget deficits over the long term would reduce investment, resulting in lower national income and higher interest rates than would otherwise be the case. If the government borrowed more money, a greater amount of household and business saving would be used to buy Treasury securities, thus crowding out private investment. Both the government and private borrowers would face higher interest rates to compete for savings.” This would cut savings, and private investment, including in capital goods. Which, in turn, would cut productivity and real wage growth, and hence economic output.

The crisis might not stop there, however

DEATH OF AMERICAN DEMOCRACY

Such circumstances, concluded CBO, would increase “the chance of a fiscal crisis.” The spiral toward disaster could be rapid: “Higher interest rates would increase concerns over repayment, which would continue to raise interest rates even further. Even in the absence of a full-blown crisis, such risks would lead to higher rates and borrowing costs for the U.S. government and private sector.” Rising Treasury rates would lower the securities’ value, undermining the stability of financial institutions. Large-scale Federal Reserve purchases could accelerate price inflation and/or dollar depreciation.

Such a situation “would ultimately be unsustainable,” CBO observed politely. Imagine a 2008-style crisis, but with the debt burden twice as great.

Of course, Congress could raise tax hikes, but they are no more popular than spending cuts. Moreover, the growing deficit is mostly a result of increased spending. Over the coming decade, CBO estimates that outlays will rise faster than revenues, $2.2 trillion compared to $1.9 trillion. The disparity grows even greater in future years, as “revenues would grow faster than the economy but more slowly than spending,” according to CBO. Under the so-called “Extended Baseline,” revenues will average 19.8 percent and outlays 29 percent of GDP by 2048. Over the last fifty years, these numbers averaged 17 and 20 percent, respectively.

In this world, what happens to the Pentagon, which spends so much money and time, and so many Americans’ lives, protecting other nations, most of which are populous and prosperous?

Cuts are inevitable

The obvious place to start is overseas contingency operations, funded by supplementals to the base-budget appropriations. OCO monies peaked in 2007 and 2008 at 28 percent of Pentagon outlays. From 2001 to 2018 they averaged about a fifth. These funds mostly go for wars of choice, social engineering, and other dubious ventures without much to do with America’s “common defense.” (This practice creates another problem, obscuring military spending and its purpose. As CBO, explained, use of OCO “creates an inaccurate picture of what future defense spending might be in the absence of military conflicts.”)

However, far more serious reductions are required. The base-budget underwrites a system of guarantees, alliances, and deployments which are not sustainable—and wouldn’t be in America’s interest even if they were. The starting point, though, is to revise foreign policy. That is, cutting expenditures without trimming tasks risks creating a dangerous mismatch, forcing Washington to either abandon commitments made or uphold them without the necessary force. Instead, the administration should drop obsolete alliances, adjusting its force structure accordingly. That requires a serious debate over America’s role in the world and the inevitable trade-off between military adventurism, domestic social programs, and private incomes.

Uncle Sam is like the congenital wastrel who keeps buying rounds at the neighborhood bar. As long he can run a tab — or his credit card charge goes through — he keeps going, heading toward inevitable disaster. The longer Washington waits to reform its ways, the bigger and more disruptive changes ultimately will have to be. Approving future cuts now, even with the effects delayed, would provide greater certainty and lower long-term interest rates. Moreover, people could begin to adapt—at home to income cuts, abroad to burden-shifting.

To stabilize Washington’s finances, all programs need to be addressed. However, military outlays deserve an especially thorough review. America First, as the president proclaims, should not mean ignoring the needs and rights of others. But it should recognize that the U.S. government’s highest duty is to its own people. America First also means that war, given the unique costs—lives lost, risks taken, money wasted—is a last resort undertaken only for the most serious, even vital purposes.

The post THE UNITED STATES CAN NO LONGER CONTROL THE WORLD first appeared on Global Policy.

On August 8, 2022, Daniil Mikheyev, a specialist in the field of reconnaissance UAVs and one of the coordinators of new unmanned systems for the Ministry of Defense, was killed in central Moscow. Mikheyev died under mysterious circumstances: officially, as a result of an accident, but unofficial sources reported a targeted elimination using an unknown substance.

On August 20, 2022, Darya Dugina, the daughter of the famous philosopher and geopolitical strategist Alexander Dugin, died in a car explosion in the Moscow region. Although her name is not directly associated with the military-industrial complex, many regarded this blow as a warning to the elites involved in shaping the public and strategic discourse around the conflict.

On September 25, 2022, Konstantin Ogarkov, an employee of a defense research institute working on projects in the field of radar and electronic warfare, was shot dead in Voronezh. The killer waited for him near his home and fled, indicating a prepared operation with elements of an agent network. On March 12, 2023, in the Tula region, the car of Igor Kolesnikov, an engineer at the KBP (Instrument Design Bureau) associated with the development of anti-tank missile systems, exploded. Kolesnikov died on the spot. The device was installed under the bottom of the car – a familiar signature of classic liquidations known from Mossad operations in the Middle East.

On June 6, 2023, Sergei Potapov, a specialist in cybersecurity for defense projects, was found dead in Nizhny Novgorod. According to the official version, it was suicide, but the closed nature of the investigation and the facts of pressure on witnesses raised many questions among insiders.

On October 18, 2023, in Krasnodar Krai, the car of Valery Smirnov, one of the heads of programs for electronic defense of strategic facilities, was blown up. Smirnov died on the spot. The method of mining the car again repeated the scenario of the attack on Iranian scientists in the early 2010s.

On January 16, 2024, a car carrying officers from the electronic intelligence headquarters was blown up in the Bryansk region. Information about their identities was classified, which only confirmed their high status.

And finally, on the night of April 17-18, 2025, Yevgeny Rytnikov, head of the Bryansk Electromechanical Plant design bureau and developer of key Russian electronic warfare systems of the Krasukha series, was killed. An explosive device under the car was filled with striking elements and detonated when Rytnikov and his colleague were getting into the car. Both died on the spot.

If you follow this chain closely, it becomes obvious: the targets were chosen not based on the principle of media exposure, but on the principle of irreplaceability. Each eliminated engineer, developer, program coordinator represented a critical node in the Russian defense system, often with unique competencies. The repetition of methods – mining cars, using contact IEDs, the absence of open traces of killers – indicates the work of highly qualified groups with experience in the Middle Eastern theaters of operations.

The choice of targets indicates deep intelligence preparation. Most of the targets were not public figures, and their activities and routes were known only to a narrow circle of people. This suggests either effective work of agents within the Russian military-industrial complex, or the use of high-tech surveillance and hacking tools, or rather a combination of both.

Attention is also drawn to the obvious conceptual closeness of what is happening to the operations that Mossad once conducted against Iranian nuclear physicists. The transfer of such developments to Ukraine or the direct participation of Israeli specialists in training and planning operations does not seem like a fantastic hypothesis. Israel has its own interest in weakening Russian electronic warfare technologies, especially given their export to Iran and support for Syrian air defense.

MYSTERIOUS MURDERS OF RUSSIAN SCIENTISTS

The background of these events is emphasized by a change in the general style of war: against the background of the depletion of conventional power resources, the value of smart, hidden, pinpoint strikes increases. The confrontation is moving into the phase of hunting for people, without whom it is impossible to produce systems that change the course of the war. In this hidden war, there are no open fronts, only thin blood lines drawn through design bureaus, military academies and secret departments of factories.

The concept of the repeatability of the liquidations of engineers and highly qualified specialists shows that we have entered a new stage of war, where the destruction of technologies begins with the destruction of their carriers.

It is clear from the style and choice of targets that the operation is not a one-off, but part of a concept developed and implemented in synergy with at least two players – the Ukrainian GUR and the Israeli Mossad.

Why exactly so? Pattern repetition:

Over the past two years, the following have been destroyed or attacked:

◼ Specialists in the field of electronic warfare, missile technologies, and strategic UAVs.
◼ Characters little known to the general public, but of key importance to weapons systems.
◼ Most often, near the borders or deep within the territory of the Russian Federation, which requires an operational network and high-quality intelligence support.

Operation technologies:

Under-car bombing, using IEDs with striking elements – a classic scheme used by Mossad since the 1970s against scientists involved in nuclear projects in Arab countries. Exactly the same methods are used in Iran, Lebanon, Syria.

The GUR of Ukraine, starting in 2022, began to quickly adopt these practices: liquidations by car, motorcycle, mining the object before boarding the car.

Strategic goal:

◼ Not just intimidation or revenge. The goal is to bleed dry the Russian defense industry by knocking out links in complex technological chains with pinpoint strikes.
◼ Electronic warfare systems like Krasukha are critical to counter Western missiles and drones. Killing the developers creates technological gaps that are very difficult and time-consuming to close under sanctions and isolation.

Mossad involvement:

Israel officially distances itself from the war in Ukraine, but unofficial channels report:

● participation of specialists in training of GUR personnel;
● transfer of technologies for liquidation operations;
● Providing communication and coordination channels for “particularly difficult targets”.

Israel has its own reasons:

◼ the destruction of electronic warfare specialists, weakening Russian technology exports to Iran and the Arab world;
◼ undermining the potential of Iran’s ally in future conflict scenarios.

Network architecture of the operation:

Obviously, such actions require:

◼ agent network within the Russian Federation;
◼ working with databases;
◼ monitoring the target’s movements in real time (possibly through GPS tags, visual observation or bookmarks on transport).

The GUR does not have such capabilities on its own yet. This indirectly points to joint projects with Western or Israeli structures.

The regularity of the moment:

The time of Rybnikov’s liquidation – against the background:

● increasing supplies of Western weapons to Ukraine;
● aggravation in the southern directions of the front;
● open hints from the US and Britain about their readiness to “strike deep into Russian territory using the hands of their allies”.

The post ON THE SOFT PAWS OF MOSSAD: CHRONICLES OF THE MURDER OF KEY MILITARY SPECIALISTS IN RUSSIA first appeared on Global Policy.

Spiritual Father of Europe

One of such goals, considered by Coudenhove-Kalergi as the main condition for the economic and political unification of Europe, is the re-creation of a single “European nation”. Considering that the identification of a nation based on blood relationship is deeply incorrect, he contrasted this with spiritual kinship, identifying a single “European nation” as a spiritual community with common spiritual teachers.

IDEOLOGIST OF UNITED EUROPE R.N. COUDENHOVE-KALERGI (1894-1972)

In order to solve national problems, Coudenhove-Kalergi proposed to separate nations from the state (as the church was separated from it) so that the question of nationality would become a personal question for everyone.

And, since the question of citizenship would become secondary, this would lead to the solution of state borders: “There is only one radical way to solve the European question of borders fairly and for a long time.

This path is not called the transfer of borders, but their elimination. The European… must direct all his energy to the elimination of borders, national and economic… State borders will be reduced to regional ones and will lose their meaning.”

However, in addition to the official goals, Coudenhove-Kalergi also outlined his understanding of the final results of the restructuring of Europe, which is contained in a work published in a small edition, intended for a narrow circle of people. In the book “Practical Idealism” published by him in 1925, he described the future of Europe, showing what the “European nation” would be.

The key idea of ​​the book was the justification of the spiritual leadership of Judaism in European civilization and the need to turn Jews into the “leading spiritual race of Europe.” This followed from his unique understanding of the hierarchical structure of society.

From the entire mass of Europeans, whom Coudenhove-Kalergi calls “people of quantity,” he distinguishes two races of “people of quality” – the hereditary nobility and the Jews, who together form the core of the future European aristocracy.

However, the leading core of this aristocracy is still the Jews, both by virtue of their “special ethical attitude to the world” and by virtue of their superior intelligence – they constitute the so-called “nobility of the brain” or “spiritual aristocracy”, occupying leading positions in the struggle for the governance of humanity (he considered Lassalle, Trotsky, Einstein, Bergson, and others to be typical representatives of it). As for the rest – “people of quantity”, Coudenhove-Kalergi writes about them: “The man of the distant future will be of mixed blood.

Races and classes will disappear due to the overcoming of space, time, prejudices

The future Eurasian-Negroid race, outwardly similar to the ancient Egyptian, will replace the diversity of peoples with a diversity of individuals”.

That is, the future of Europe was seen by Coudenhove-Kalergi as follows: Europeans will mix with other races and peoples and disappear as national individuals, and their elites will be replaced by a Jewish spiritual caste of leaders.

Since then, the plans have not changed, and what is being implemented today in the European Union fits in completely with the projects outlined by its “spiritual father”. And it is obvious that these projects are incompatible with the preservation of either national states, or national borders, or nations themselves. So the assertions that European politicians, pursuing an insane migration policy, do not know what they are doing are from the evil one.

THE MASTERS OF EUROPE

The current well-planned and controlled “migration chaos” in Europe is not a sudden invasion, but just another tactical operation on the path of fundamental restructuring of Europe.

She is working to dismantle nation-states and strengthen the European Union, whose leadership does not represent the interests of citizens, but of a large European multinational business embedded in supranational structures.

The most important role here is played by the European Industrialists’ Round Table or the European Round Table (ECT), created in 1983, which unites representatives of 45 major European corporations, among which the most influential are Bayer, Shell, BP, DaimlerChrysler, Ericsson, Nestle, Nokia, Petrofina, Renault, Siemens, Solvay, Total and Unilever, the heads of which regularly attend meetings of the Bilderberg Club. Today it is headed by Leif Johansson, Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Swedish company Ericsson.

SEX is one of the key pressure groups exerting decisive influence on the most senior politicians and ensuring the formation of a strategic alliance between big business and members of the European Commission.

The organization’s goal was initially proclaimed to “stimulate the global competitiveness of European industry,” but its main task was to change the way Europe is governed in the direction of its complete unification in the interests of big business, in which its economic system would have a single decision-making center.

Intensive neoliberal-style treatment of top managers and the appropriate selection of personnel led to the fact that if in the 80s it was still possible to distinguish between groups of protectionists and globalists within the CEN, by the early 90s all the members of the Round Table were already unanimous in upholding the full openness of markets and borders and took a clearly pro-Atlanticist position.. Globalization and major projects of a general supranational nature have become the main topic of discussion here.

Today, the main issue on the CEN agenda is the creation of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) – the free trade agreement between the EU and the United States, which British Prime Minister David Cameron called “the most important bilateral trade agreement in history.”

It was planned to conclude it at the end of 2014, then the issue was postponed to 2015, and now to 2016. The TTIP, as it is thought, should lead to full corporate control over the economy and the social sphere, minimizing any government regulation, so negotiations on the project were held behind closed doors, in secret from the European public, and the European Commission published a brief overview of the relevant documents only in January 2015.

The chronology of the agreement’s preparation is as follows: 1990 – the Transatlantic Declaration was adopted, 1995 – the Transatlantic Business Dialogue business initiative groups were established, in 1998 – the Transatlantic Economic Partnership Advisory Committee, and in 2007 – the Transatlantic Economic Council, consisting of representatives of leading Western firms.Finally, in 2011, a high-level expert group was established, which recommended starting negotiations on an agreement in 2013.

A striking indicator of the leading role of the European Round Table in this project was the creation in March 2013 following a meeting between A. Merkel and F.Hollande met with the leadership of the joint Franco-German Working Group in order to develop a unified international trade strategy that serves the private interests of Europe’s largest companies, whose representatives became part of it.

As one observer put it, “the requirements of the CEN are to put the EU fully at the service of enterprises, and nothing more“. The Group put forward 32 recommendations of an ultra-liberal antisocial nature, which formed the basis of proposals for European-American negotiations on the creation of the TTIP. The main thing here is the openness of markets, investment protection and labor market reform in order to “increase competitiveness.”

The CEN is closely linked to the Transatlantic Political Network (TPS), a powerful Euro-Atlantic lobby working to create not only a transatlantic market (by 2020), but also a European-American bloc at the political and military level and preparing documents for the TTIP agreement.

TPS was formed in 1992, and its members are the largest multinational corporations and banks, including Boeing, EADS, United Technologies Corporation, Ford, IBM, Microsoft, Siemens, BASF, Bertelsmann, AT&T, Nestle, Deutsche Bank, Citigroup, Warner & Walt Dysney.

In addition, 60 members of the European Parliament are members of the network (it is significant that of its 22 commissions, 8 are headed by members of the TPS) and 37 members of the US Congress [8]. The Network relies on developments from leading Western think tanks (the Royal Institute of International Relations/Chatham House, the Aspen Institute, the European-American Business Council, the Council on Foreign Relations, the Brookings Institution, the European Institute for Strategic Studies, the French Institute of International Relations, the Center for Strategic and International Studies, etc.).

In July 2015, the European Parliament, using effective political and informational levers of pressure, and first of all, intimidation by the “Russian threat” and the need for Euro-Atlantic solidarity, adopted a resolution supporting the TTIP (436 MEPs against 241).

While not binding, it clearly demonstrates the mood of the members of Parliament, whose position will determine the ratification of the TTIP treaty.

It is significant that the authorities did not allow any public discussion at this stage either, since the majority of Europeans do not support an agreement that would mean a complete assertion of corporate power and bury forever the remnants of Europe’s cultural, environmental and social values.

However, no real resistance can be offered due to the deep disintegration of European society, which is caused by the demographic revolution that has been taking place for 20 years, which is one of the main factors in the establishment of corporate power.

THE SUBSTITUTION OF EUROPEAN NATIONS

Many researchers call this revolution a demographic catastrophe, since the European region has stopped reproducing its population.

By 2050, excluding immigration, instead of the current 728 million Europeans, the contingent will number 600 million, which is equivalent to the loss of the population living today in Germany, Poland, Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Finland combined.

The last time such a significant population decline was observed in Europe was only during the plague epidemic of 1347-1352.

The situation is particularly serious in Germany (the population may decrease from 82 million to 59 million by 2050), Latvia, Hungary, and Portugal. In the same countries where the birth rate is relatively high (Great Britain, France, Sweden), it is provided mainly by Muslims.

As A. Rahr, director of the Russian and CIS Department of the German Foreign Policy Council, once said frankly, “we are at a crossroads, and it is difficult to say where this will lead.”… Yes, we can say that the “white race” is dying out.… It is still difficult to conduct such discussions openly, because there is an electorate.”

Naturally, this leads to the inability of the EU to maintain its existing social integrity: there will soon be a catastrophic shortage of workers, which already calls into question the very preservation of the social security system.

The numerous generations that were born in the demographic boom after World War II are still working in Europe, but when they retire, the system will radically change.

Therefore, the frantic actions of European politicians aimed at raising the retirement age, reviewing disability support schemes, etc., are associated with an attempt to delay the decline in high standards and consumption for as long as possible, which will inevitably be followed by its rapid collapse.

The most important condition for its prevention is the constant and growing influx of immigrants. As stated in one of the secret reports of the French government back in the early 2000s, the European Union has no alternative to the vocation of 75 million migrants.

At the same time, French experts recognized the problems this would cause in the hybrid racial society being created.

However, European politicians will never change the situation. They will make beautiful and bold statements about the failure of the multiculturalism policy, carry out demonstrative anti-immigration actions, but they will not change their course, as they rely on migrants – this is the strategic line of the transnational class, meeting its fundamental interests.

By the early 2000s, about 400,000 people were officially seeking asylum on the European continent every year, and more than 500,000 people began to travel here through various illegal channels.

The total number of illegal immigrants in Europe today was from 5 to 7 million people (and these are approximate estimates, since there are no official European statistics on the number of illegal immigrants).

The largest number of illegal immigrants is concentrated in France, Germany, Italy and Spain, in each of which there were up to 1-1.5 million, and the number increased by 100 thousand annually.

The main stream went and is going from North Africa to Spain, and the other from Turkey through Greece, Albania and Italy.

The milestone for Europe in this regard was 2011, the year of the “Arab revolutions,” when almost 113,000 EU border crossings were recorded in the first nine months alone [13].And already in 2014, the number of refugees who entered Europe through the Mediterranean amounted to 626 thousand people.

Today, according to the ILO, out of 175 million migrants in the world, 56 million. They live in Europe, of which 27.5 million carry out economic activities here. In some European countries, such as Luxembourg and Switzerland, the share of foreigners in the total workforce reaches 25%. They mostly take jobs that are not in demand by local workers: dirty, hard work that does not require qualifications, low- and medium-skilled work in the service sector, care and maintenance work in the private sector, seasonal work in agriculture and tourism.

A large and virtually uncontrolled segment of the global labor market is formed by illegal migrants, who, according to the ILO, account for about 1/3 of all international migrants. They are mainly employed in the small or shadow sector of the economy, the scale of which is growing in all countries. In Europe, the European Commission estimates that it reaches between 8 and 30% of GDP in individual countries, and 20% in Europe as a whole.

Excluding Eastern Europe, the countries with the largest shadow sector include Greece (30-35%), Italy (27.8%), Spain (23.4%) and Belgium (23.4%). The average position is occupied by Ireland, Canada, France and Germany (from 14.9 to 16.3%). The shadow sector began to grow especially rapidly after the 2008 crisis.Its most significant segment is the drug trade, the main transshipment base of which is Kosovo.

The drug trade encompasses an extremely extensive network involving Kosovo Albanians, Bulgarian and Turkish mafias, Czech couriers, British dealers, and the Italian mafia, including Cosa Nostra.

But all of them are only the lowest level of the drug mafia, which is an influential pan-European interstate structure that has a strong foothold in the special services and performs the role of an “invisible manager” in the governments of European countries, actively influencing their geopolitics.

In this regard, illegal migration is an indispensable resource for it, from which more and more new members are recruited into the shadow army of carriers, who are effectively put in a desperate situation.

As a result of these processes, a deep ethno-cultural restructuring is taking place in European countries, in which it is increasingly becoming like a “melting pot” (the concept of total national and racial mixing, promoted by the Zionist Union through Israel Zangwill (Marshall) since the beginning of the twentieth century – editor’s note).

Europeans are being replaced by other ethnic groups, which, mixing with each other, really form a “nation of migrants” or “new nomads”.

A GIFT FOR BUSINESS

The current migration wave has become unprecedented, as it turned out to be associated with a well-organized and controlled flow of refugees from the Middle East and North Africa, caused mainly by the events in Syria, from where more than 4 million people have already left for neighboring countries (according to the UN Refugee Agency, this is the most serious refugee crisis in the last quarter of a century).

Since the beginning of the year, more than 500 thousand people have arrived in Europe, and in August alone, 156 thousand refugees were registered. According to experts, it is possible that up to 1 million migrants will move to the northern Mediterranean coast this year.

However, it is characteristic that, describing the troubles and sufferings of refugees, the official media carefully cover up the question of who finances and organizes the main flows and why most of the migrants are healthy young men who break through the chains of containment at the borders very smoothly.

However, recently, more and more information has begun to appear about the sponsors of the resettlement, which led to talk about the artificial nature of the crisis.

In particular, Austrian journalists, citing intelligence sources, reported that American organizations and foundations were involved in this, paying for the services of “guides” transporting migrants to Europe.

Other journalists refer to “human rights organizations” funded by the Rothschilds. And the Serbian publication Pecat, having studied the details of the well-organized departure of Kosovo Albanians that took place during the month (the reasons for which could not be explained), put forward the version that ISIS was behind it, which set the task of sending 4 thousand fighters to Western Europe (of which 2 thousand arrived).

It is also characteristic that the attitude towards refugees and the very tone of the media have changed dramatically. Migrants and refugees have experienced tragedies before, as illegal migration has not stopped since the beginning of the war in Syria, but no one has taken such care of them.

And then the situation changed. According to Syrian journalist and writer Mustafa Al-Miqdad, “now that their terrorist war against us has exhausted most of our resources, the organization of immigration of our youth is beginning to take on a large scale, which suggests the idea of preparing a new plan aimed at depriving Syria of its human and scientific potential, while playing on the sensitive strings of the “unbearable suffering of migrants” in the face of European and Western public opinion. …

THE NUMBER OF REFUGEES FROM THE MIDDLE EAST

They may even adopt special rules that apply only to “Syrian migrants.”… The last step, which, indeed, will deprive Syria of the age group that can defeat terrorism and rebuild the country; and this means continuing the militant Western policy by other means, but pursuing the same goals in the event of the failure of their ongoing operations to destroy, destroy and expand terrorism.”

It is truly significant that while the media is shouting about the weakness of the Brussels bureaucracy, about the Europeans’ fear of an influx of refugees, European big business is not hiding, but even openly admits that this influx has become a real gift for it, or a “wonderful surprise”, as one of the experts put it, which allowed them to get cheap labor in anticipation of the agreement. about TTIP. As A. Rahr wrote, “now the refugees will be carried in their arms.”

As a result, the overall picture of what is happening began to emerge more and more clearly, revealing the dual strategy of the European ruling class in the “migration crisis”: to concentrate useful economic migrants in the center of Europe, redirecting radical elements, the so-called “sleeper agents” of ISIS, to Eastern Europe.

The main benefit from this was received by the German business community, which unanimously supported the admission of migrants.

For example, the president of the Federal Association of German Industry (BDI), a participant in the Bilderberg Club conference, businessman Ulrich Grillo, said at the end of 2014 that Germany has long been a country of migrants and should remain one.:

“As a prosperous country and because of Christian love for our neighbor, our country must afford to accept more refugees” (by the way, it was Grillo who condemned German industrialists for sympathizing with Russia, saying that the interests of businessmen should give way to economic sanctions and that the position of the German economy on the most important issues of foreign policy has always been an important factor in international relations).

He is echoed by German Economy Minister and Vice Chancellor Sigmar Gabriel, who said that the influx of migrants would help Germany cope with an aging population and a shortage of personnel in a number of industries.

“If we can quickly educate those who come to us and get them to work, then we will solve one of the main future problems of our economy – the lack of skilled workers.”

In an interview with the German public television channel ZDF, he pointed out that over the next few years Germany will be able to accept at least 500,000 refugees annually (“I have no doubt about it. Maybe we can accept more refugees.”) Indeed, Germany is expected to accept between 800,000 and 1 million refugees this year alone, which is four times more than in 2014.

It is significant that Angela Merkel, calling the influx of migrants to Europe overwhelming and pointing out that this process will change Germany, at the same time promised to speed up the asylum procedure and allocate additional funds to help refugees, calling on other countries to do the same.

According to German analysts, in 2030, Germany will need 6 million jobs in areas such as hospitality, logistics, healthcare and care for the elderly. The BDI also points out that with an unemployment rate of 6.4%, 140,000 engineers, programmers and technicians are missing in the country.

There are 40,000 places left unfilled in the vocational training system, which involves most of the country’s enterprises. And the Prognos analytical center indicates that if nothing changes, the shortage of workers will increase to 1.8 million by 2020 and to 3.9 million by 2040.

There are also forecasts that by 2030 the German economy will face a shortage of 10 million workers. Meanwhile, the vast majority of arrivals are young people with their whole lives ahead of them, and many Syrian refugees are middle-class, well–educated and clearly striving for self-realization in a new place.

Under these conditions, the €10 billion that Germany is going to spend on accepting refugees in 2016 (due to a budget surplus of more than €21 billion) does not represent such a heavy burden here.

As for their integration into the workforce, it is planned to expand The Job of my Life program, which has been in operation since 2013, designed for job seekers in the EU, with language courses and craft studies. Already, as Grillo points out, at the local level, an increasing number of companies are opening their doors to new arrivals. The business has prepared a list of proposals to speed up the recognition of professional and educational qualifications and offers to finance language learning.

DISTRIBUTION OF MIGRANTS BY EU COUNTRIES

The Germans themselves are mentally prepared. According to a ZDF survey, 54% of Germans supported refugees in July, compared with 60% in August. And according to Spiegel magazine, at the end of August, half of Germans wanted Germany to accept even more refugees.

TO WHOM ARE THE TOPS, AND TO WHOM ARE THE ROOTS OR THE ORDER IN GERMAN

As the refugees arrived in Europe, the media actively treated the Europeans in a spirit of tolerance and hospitality, not disdaining to go even to falsification (as in the case of fabricating a photo of a Syrian child washed up on a Turkish shore).

The European Commission has never tired of reminding us of our moral duty, the Geneva Convention and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU.

Jean-Claude Juncker distinguished himself with special eloquence when he delivered a heartfelt speech in the European Parliament about Europe as a “stable harbor and a place of hope,” concluding with a call to unity, which the parliamentarians applauded.

As a result, the European Parliament called for putting solidarity at the center of union policy and creating “a harmonious and effective EU-wide asylum system in order to distribute asylum seekers fairly.”

And then the prose began. Stating the moral duty of all 28 countries for the admission system, A. Merkel and the Swedish Prime Minister demanded a division of responsibility. This plan was proposed by Bonn and Paris, which was announced by Jean-Claude Juncker and approved by the European Parliament.

It provides for the distribution of 160,000 refugees (120,000 from Italy, Greece and Hungary, and 40,000 already present in Europe) between 22 countries, with Germany accepting 26%, France 20%, and Spain 12%. At the same time, the quota system should be mandatory (“we don’t need poetry,” Juncker said), and financial sanctions can be applied to countries that refuse to accept refugees.

This plan is presented as an urgent measure, after which a “permanent reconciliation mechanism” will be developed. It also announced the creation of a special fund in the amount of 1.8 billion. the euro in case of future crises.

However, by adopting this plan, Germany hedged its bets in order to protect itself from radical elements. In the midst of the “migration chaos,” European Commissioner for Energy Gunther Oettinger said that the German constitution should be amended to speed up the decision on both granting and denying refugee status.

At the same time, the second option will apply only to migrants from the so–called “safe countries”, which include those where there are no military conflicts: all EU countries, Ghana, Senegal, as well as the Balkan countries – Serbia, Macedonia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Montenegro, Albania and Kosovo. At the same time, people from the Balkans, including Albanians, make up 40% of the refugees who arrived here, and, accordingly, they will either be rejected or sent home. But Syria and Iraq are classified as “dangerous” countries.

The issue of quotas has brought Germany and France together, but has provoked opposition from members of the Visegrad Group who have no experience hosting refugees and do not want to host the specified number of refugees.

But Germany has enough ways to put pressure on its neighbors. On September 13, she introduced passport control at the border with Austria, suspending her participation in the Schengen agreement, which made an impression, especially since the German Interior Minister said that this would affect all borders of the country.

As a result, the issue of quotas was postponed for consideration at the Extraordinary Council of Ministers of Internal Affairs and Justice on September 14, but no agreement was reached there either.It will now be the subject of consideration at an emergency meeting of the European Council, which is scheduled to take place on October 8.

* * *

Analysts and experts are scaring the public by making gloomy predictions about the future unity of the European Union.
Meanwhile, on September 12, a well-known ideologist of mondialism and follower of the ideas of Coudenhove-Kalerga, a member of B’nai B’rith and the Representative Council of Jewish Institutions of France (CRIF), an unofficial adviser to N. Sarkozy and F. Hollande’s Jacques Attali gave an interview to the Belgian newspaper Le soir.

In an interview in which, expressing his satisfaction with what was happening, he welcomed the upcoming mixing of nationalities and races and stated that the main thing was yet to come: “You only saw the announcement of the film “Migrants”.

Seasonal migrants will follow, followed by others. From the moment we recognize that freedoms are fundamental, freedom of movement becomes the first of them.”

“These people will turn Europe into the world’s first power.… It is normal that what is happening to migrants will lead to the construction of a more united and powerful Europe.… Their arrival is an unimaginable chance, as it is changing the European demographics.”

The post CREATORS AND BENEFICIARIES OF THE MIGRATION CRISIS IN EUROPE first appeared on Global Policy.

It has to be stated that distortions, subjects in the wrapper of pseudo-historicism, sometimes seem convincing to some people, therefore, the importance of the struggle on the ideological front should not be underestimated. As practice has shown, the historical truth must be defended, otherwise we risk losing in the information field. Who is behind historical revisionism? What goals do revisionists set? Olga Chetverikova, Candidate of Historical Sciences, Associate Professor of MGIMO, answered these and other questions live on KM TV. On the air of KM TV the program “Conference” and I, its host, Dionysus Kaptar.

Today we have a guest Candidate of Historical Sciences, associate professor of MGIMO Olga Nikolaevna Chetverikova. We will talk about such a problem as revisionism of the results of the Great Patriotic War. Hello, Olga Nikolaevna.

WHY ARE THEY REVIEWING THE RESULTS OF THE GREAT PATRIOTIC WAR ?

Dionysus Kaptar: Hello. Not so long ago, the holiday ended. The 65th anniversary was celebrated very grandly, loudly, but the problem, nevertheless, remained the same as it was in previous years. Every year, practically, the same forces say the same thing – they try to undermine, let’s say, the role of our country, our Soviet Union in people’s minds. They are trying to throw mud on our successes at the front, and then our successes in the post-war reconstruction of the world. We are monitoring this topic carefully. We had experts who talked about what was happening on the fronts, and I would like to talk to you about the diplomatic side of the issue. It is about what happened after the war, and whether the problem is really as serious as some experts say, whether revisionism really raises its head.

O.Ch.: Indeed, you know, I would like to say that the problem is extremely acute now, and we can say that this is only the beginning of a serious, deep revision, a deep revision not only of the results of the Second World War, but we are talking in general, we can say, about a change of ideological guidelines. The fact is that this problem, it is multilevel, it includes many aspects, but I wanted to highlight only two aspects, these are geopolitical and global. I would like to start by recalling this famous phrase of Brzezinski, who expresses the essence of American geopolitics in relation to Russia, which is that “the new world order that is being built now is being built without Russia, in spite of Russia and on the wreckage of Russia.” That’s the key phrase. That is, in the order that Western elites are creating now, Russia is not envisaged as something independent, a whole. By this very active expansion, which is carried out (financial, economic, political, ideological), Russia is considered as an object and in no way as a subject of any policy.

D.K.: What is the expression of revisionism? In what theses? Specifically, what is revisionism expressed in – you see, the fact is that we are being integrated into Western civilization, that is, into this new world order, as, I say again, an independent whole, so now, as you know, the policy of rapprochement with NATO, rapprochement with the Vatican is being implemented very actively (this, by the way, all links of the same chain). And in these conditions, when there is such an active embedding of us into structures completely alien to us, a total restructuring and breaking of our consciousness is necessary. That is, it is necessary to remove some fundamental, leading, reference points that justify our geopolitical thinking. In this regard, it is necessary to present those forces that have traditionally been associated with expansion in our geopolitical consciousness: NATO is a military expansion, the Vatican is an ideological expansion, they are presented today as allies, as friends. Therefore, it is no coincidence that on May 9, a parade with the participation of NATO troops took place on Red Square.

D.K.: Your assessment.

O.Ch.: I’ll give it to you now. Naturally, my assessment is harsh and negative – the participation of NATO troops. And this is a very important stage, a very important milestone, first of all, very symbolic for breaking our consciousness. The same significance will be the crowning achievement of the Vatican’s rapprochement with the Russian Orthodox Church, with us, that is, with the heretical church, the meeting of our Moscow Patriarch with the Pope, which is being prepared by the West, for them it will have the same significance. As for the direct participation of NATO troops. I must say that this plays (as I have already said) the role of a milestone, an important stage. Why – because for us, May 9 is Victory Day in the Great Patriotic War, it is the Victory Day of our people in the war that began on June 22, 1941.

D.K.: Do you think that the NATO troops on Red Square are a kind of blurring of our victory?

O.Ch.: Of course, of course, this is a blurring, because this time we were celebrating not the victory in the Great Patriotic War, but we were celebrating the victory in the pan-European war that had begun…

D.K.: In World War II.

O.Ch.: The Second World War, after all, ended in September 1945, so we celebrate the Second World War in Europe, which began on September 1, 1939. That is, we celebrated the day of the pan-European victory over Nazi Germany, and our victory, it seems to be eroding, that is, it is a victory for Europe and Russia. This substitution has already occurred – we have already celebrated not Victory Day in the Great Patriotic War, which is very important, it was a mix-up. Meanwhile, preparations are very active in the West – it is such an implicit, one might say, but very consistent, very purposeful preparation for the formation of a completely new view of the results of the Second World War. And what happened last year, I mean the resolution of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly, which equalized the role of the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany in unleashing the Second World War, is the first very important step, because what it has done, what it leads to – the fact is that if we are assessed as the perpetrators of the Second World War, so we have no right to win. Right? You can already absolutely put it that way.

D.K.: But it is unclear what arguments they operate with.

O.Ch.: Now we will come to this, too. So, since we have no right to win, and Russia is the successor of the Soviet Union, that is, accordingly, we are responsible for everything that happened in the Soviet Union, we are the successors of the Soviet regime, and the Stalinist regime is part of the Soviet regime, so, accordingly, all those claims that will be made and they are already preparing for the Stalinist regime, we will be responsible for all this. That is, the soil is being prepared.

D.K.: And financial as well. Definitely. And this is one of the most important elements, that is, the ground is being prepared so that we do not have the right to fight against the revision of the results of the Second World War, which is being carried out at all rates. This is a revision of territories, borders, and this, of course, is also a financial contribution that Russia will have to pay. In fact, that is, since we are equated with Germany, the Soviet regime is equated with absolutely the same position as the Nazi regime, so, accordingly, preparations are underway to recognize on a general legal scale – this is very important – at the legal level the criminal nature of the Stalinist regime, and, accordingly, the Soviet regime. That is, its criminal nature, its non-legitimacy.

D.K.: This is the main goal of the revisionists?

THE INVISIBLE WAR: LEADERSHIP AND RESOURCES OF THE GREAT PATRIOTIC WAR

O.Ch.: Sure. That is, to make a kind of different version of the Nuremberg process in order for this regime… This year, what we had – the 65th anniversary – it seemed that we needed to remember, we need to remember Nazism, neo-Nazism and everything else. What they remember is the famine that Stalin allegedly arranged, and the Stalinist regime (this is very important), he was condemned, PACE condemned that the Stalinist regime was guilty. Katyn – is the Stalinist regime guilty? Guilty. That is, preparations are still underway to condemn the Stalinist regime as not legitimate. A lot has been written about Katyn – this is, of course, a terrible thing, because in fact the reaction to Katyn is like a Holocaust in Polish for Russia, that is, historical guilt is being driven into us for what we did not carry out, but for this historical guilt, for this fact we will have to pay, respectively, and politically, and financially. And at the same time, again, the question of the responsibility of the Poles for the extermination of 80,000, according to the most conservative estimates, of our Red Army soldiers captured during the Soviet-Polish war, 210,000 were captured, 120,000 were taken away and placed in concentration camps, and exactly 80,000 of them were exterminated in Polish camps.

D.K.: This is already a proven fact?

O.Ch.: Yes, there are documents, but the Polish side just completely ignores it. Katyn is presented as the main crime of the twentieth century, I say again that they drive an inferiority complex into us, although there are documents, there are studies, I turn you to the book of the Swede, to his materials that are available and available, where this problem is perfectly described. Those documents, supposedly the newest ones, which have now been thrown on the Internet, are all old falsified documents from 1992. All this has also already been described. So the West is preparing such a radical reassessment, rethinking. In this regard, I want to say that they even have a formula that they are beginning to implement on a general scientific, general educational scale, it is called “to form a unified understanding of European history.” This is the official approach of the European intellectual elite to the Second World War, which will be taught in schools and institutes.

D.K.: To everyone, to the whole European Union?

O.Ch.: Yes, that is, it is an official position, outside of which everything else will be considered as something marginal, having no right to exist. Corresponding to this point of view is Russia, it is responsible for the criminal regime, and accordingly, all Russians, Russians, they are the heirs of criminals and must pay for this idea. This is a strategy.

D.K.: This is what they want to prescribe in textbooks, according to which children will be taught, and in a couple of generations we will get a new generation completely.

O.Ch.: Naturally, the textbook we already have, which is there, in the West – in fact, the role of Russia is either completely scanty, or it is presented as an occupier who came here, defeated Nazism, but came here as an occupier.

D.K.: Who is the main “skirmisher”? This is Britain, Italy… Which countries?

O.Ch.: Now we are moving on to the most important aspect, the second one I am talking about – the ideological one. The fact is that behind all this there is actually one very important process, which, again, is going on secretly, but it is going on very intensively. We are talking about the rehabilitation of Nazi ideology as an ideology that justifies the right of elites, a certain part of the elite, to establish control over anything – over territory, over resources, over people, over human consciousness, and, I say again, in fact, this is the main, main trend today. But precisely due to the fact that the rehabilitation of the law is being secretly prepared, an ideological justification is being created, the right of these elites to rule, the West is very actively hiding, or rather, it does not hide, it does not put it on a prominent plan, as if it ignores, glosses over the fact that, firstly, we did not fight with Nazi Germany, we were at war with Europe, which was under Nazi control, under the control of Nazi Germany. It was actually a single whole – an economic, political, ideological mechanism. The Third Reich was really going against us, that is, the whole of Europe, we were at war with it, with Nazi Europe. And the second very important point that is hidden is who really prepared this Nazi regime, who ensured the rise to power of the Nazis, who ensured the prosperity of Nazi Germany.

ANGLO-AMERICAN OWNERS OF MONEY AS ORGANIZERS OF THE SECOND WORLD WAR

Naturally, Anglo-American financial circles are behind this. A lot of literature has been written on this topic, relatively a lot. At least – Heim “Trade with the enemy”, this is Sutton’s book “Wall Street and the rise of the Nazis to power”, this is a book that recently also appeared with us, the drug “How Great Britain and the United States prepared the Third Reich”, this is the book “Secrets of the Federal Reserve”. They show very well, quite reasonably, with documents, based on open sources about who and what and how exactly the Anglo-Saxon and Anglo-American financial elite, the banking elite, prepared this whole project. That is, we can call the project – “Nazi Germany” – exactly as a project of the world financial circles. We need to pay the main attention to this now, we need to talk about it, and we need to bring it to the center of all research in general. Because, I think, since they bring our responsibility, which does not exist, into the international legal plane, then we should not take a defensive position, and constantly be in the role of a whipping boy, who will, you know, report every time for what he did not commit, and we should go on a large-scale offensive and indeed, to raise the question of the responsibility of those forces that ensured the rise of the Nazis to power, which gave rise to this terrible World War II, and, accordingly, the Patriotic War, and their responsibility.

D.K.: Are the same forces behind revisionism now that created the Nazi project?

O.Ch.: Of course, absolutely the same forces. The two specific structures that we are pointing to are the Bank of England and the Federal Reserve System. It comes from them, and absolutely all the threads stretch from them, and it is no coincidence that the last meeting at which the decision was made on Hitler’s coming to power, where the banker Schroeder, the main financial structure, and, by the way, in the presence of the Dallas brothers, played a key role. A very rarely mentioned fact, a hidden fact, is that the Dulles brothers, one of whom will then create, will be an active participant in the Bilderberg Club of 1953, which currently, as is known, unites the Western elite and which is responsible for making key strategic decisions on the development of the world economy and world politics.

D.K.: Absolutely all the same forces.

O.Ch.: Therefore, by the way, now in the Western, in the German press, in science, in scientific literature, it dominates what they are trying to do – they are now actually trying to rehabilitate Nazism, putting all the blame on Hitler and his entourage. So to say, yes – individual character traits, individual personality behavior – everything else is legitimized. Why this is being done – the fact is that at present the Western elites have already actively begun to create this new world order, which they have been talking about for so long. The specific reason for this was the very economic crisis that was deliberately unleashed in the fall of 2008, and in fact the development of events currently reproduces the very scheme and logic of events that preceded the Second World War.

D.K.: That is, one second – unleashed this crisis, the same thing the Fed and the Bank of England?

O.Ch.: Naturally, the Central Reserve System played a key role in this. It means that everything follows the same logic – the Great Depression of 1929-1933, social unrest is growing, then the rise of totalitarian regimes to power and total war.

D.K.: What is all this being done for now?

O.Ch.: Why this is being done – here, I am specifically reading out to you the positions of representatives of this elite. Rockefeller is the author of the idea of private power: “Something should replace national sovereignty,” he says, “and this is the idea of private power.” That is, excuse me, we are talking about the fact that at present, when they are already preparing this new project, a new world order, we are talking about the fact that national state sovereignty itself is subject to destruction, because it is simply unthinkable in this scheme. Therefore, as Rockefeller said, the private power of transnational elites must be opposed to national sovereignty. And so, back in the late 1990s, they were told the following phrase: “We are on the threshold of global change. All we need is a large-scale crisis, and then the people will accept the new world order.”.

D.K.: Where did he say that? Immediately a question…

O.Ch.: It was he who spoke at the trilateral commission, this is one of his speeches, it was recorded. D.K.: Can I find out where this information came from? How did it get leaked? O.Ch.: It was given by several sources. This, in particular – you can see my article “Modern Catholicism in the transition to a globalized world order“, which was published in the magazine “Russia XXI century”.

D.K.: It’s just strange – such information, in theory, should not be widely available. Why do they actually disavow themselves?

O.Ch.: The fact is that they do not disavow, they prepare, you know, informational and psychological ground. We are talking about the fact that there is an active preparation for the fact that national state sovereignty in modern conditions, when everything is so interconnected and when, so to speak, nothing can be done within the national scale, it is already ineffective, it does not work. Therefore, this is just an ideological preparation, it is not some kind of secret and a project that is being hidden.

D.K.: Just such propaganda.

O.Ch.: Naturally, I say again, this is preparation for the adoption of this project, so the stronger, the more terrible the shocks, the more conditions are created in order to justify the need for a single supranational interstate government. Absolutely everyone is talking about it. Sarkozy talked about it, Blair talked about it, Jacques Attali wrote about it in his latest book, which is called “What after the crisis?”, so we can translate it, in which he also criticizes this financial speculative system, which means that speculators are such and such, they are cracked to pieces, all this is criticized and it shows the whole fraudulent nature of the creation of the financial system. But the way it ends, it ends up saying that a supranational government is needed that can control absolutely everything, since it is impossible to do this on a national scale. Here he says: “I’m afraid that when…” – and when they say “I’m afraid”, they express their plans – “… that such a mistake…” – that is, the mistake of 1929-1933 – “… will happen again, we will first fight, we will kill 300 million, and then reforms will follow in the world the government…”

D.K.: 30 million.?

O.Ch.: 300 million, of course, including China, that’s all the little things for them. In his latest book, he already openly says that “… in any case, a military conflict is imminent, which will lead to very serious consequences, because only after that the elites will understand that it is necessary to create a world government.” That is, everything is already quite frank. And the last meetings of the Bilderberg Club, about which information is already reaching, and in particular, the most recent meeting was in 2009, which was described by Time – but again, Time cannot allow information to leak just like that, right, so for some reason it is necessary – he wrote that in the spring last year, a meeting of the richest people in the world took place, these are Rockefeller, Gates, Warren Buffett, George Soros, Michael Bloomberg – the mayor of New York, media magnate Turner, and what problem did they discuss – the problem of overpopulation of the Earth, that the problem of overpopulation, too many people live, and we want to solve it. There was a discussion behind closed doors, but still this information about what they discussed, it came out. It is characteristic that before this meeting Ted Turner gave an interview in which he said that the cause of global warming of the Earth, the climate problem, which is also turning into a key problem today, is too large a population. Therefore, it is necessary to reduce the population by 2/3 and bring it to 2 billion. human. He said, “There is too much human material.”

ENDGAME. THE GLOBAL ENSLAVEMENT PROJECT

D.K.: Olga Nikolaevna, let’s fix it, it’s just that a lot of theses have been expressed by you. Do I understand correctly that the world elites themselves are preparing a big major provocation, as if plunging the planet into a crisis, not even as it were, but in the literal sense, and not only into this crisis that is now underway, but something even more terrible awaits us, and then, under the guise of saviors, they will they come out and reformat the world political space in the way that is beneficial to them? Right?

O.Ch.: In fact, yes.

D.K.: In this case, revisionism is part of this general program, and Russia, to some extent, it turns out, lies like a barrier in the way of these plans?

O.Ch.: Russia is the only one who can apparently resist this, due to the fact that there are ideological, spiritual foundations and supports that do not integrate in any way, do not fit into this ideology, into this worldview of the new world order. Therefore, now they are striking the main blow precisely at our ideological foundations, in order for us to accept this new world order and this civilization, which is being created as completely natural, as inevitable, as without alternative. That’s the thing. And they are embedding at all levels, even breaking the main and basic, our thinking, which has deep roots, whether we want it or not, naturally, in the foundations of Orthodox, Christian, truly Christian. Because if we talk about today’s modern Catholic Church, there is very little left of Christianity there.

D.K.: What can Russia then oppose to these forces? In particular, if we talk about revisionism.

O.Ch.: You know, this is a very difficult and long question. If we talk about revisionism, then, as I have already said, we have no right to be in retreat all the time. Because when we are in retreat, we get the impression and the feeling that we are really to blame, and, by the way, with Katyn – when this happened, apparently, we thought that this would be the end of it, we recognized everything, but this just caused a very powerful Russophobic wave in Poland. Russian Russians, as one of the Polish researchers, or rather, writers, said, that we were always told that they were Germans, it was forbidden to say that they were Russians, and now that they have finally admitted that this is the case, they will now begin to say, now for every descendant of the victim, Russians will be children executioners. That is, it is claimed, this thesis. When we are in such a retreat every time – naturally, they do not like the weak, and here the thesis is that they hate the weak Russia, but they are afraid of the strong – in this case it will only worsen the situation and create the ground for further this ideological expansion, when there will be no more supports. Therefore, our task is to go out and play an independent role, not to be an object, but to be a subject of politics both ideologically and ideologically.

D.K.: How can this be achieved if there are such powerful forces on the other side that you are talking about?

O.Ch.: Firstly, in the international arena, to act from our positions, from the positions of our interests, and not from the position of adapting to those interests that are constantly imposed on us. Because on this board we play black all the time, not white.

D.K.: And without half the figures.

O.Ch.: Yes, already without half the pieces, there are probably a few pawns left. Therefore, the situation can be changed when there is political will, probably, and many are already talking about it, and when we know, when the strategy is clear to us, then we connect the appropriate necessary forces in order to implement it all. Because the methods we use, they are conditioned by the goals we set. Now, since we have no goal to justify, to give the whole truth (now we are talking about the Second World War), methods are not involved. As soon as such a goal is set, then, accordingly, all schools, both scientific and educational, they will work in this direction.

D.K.: Were such goals set in Soviet times? Somehow I don’t really remember – I studied, let’s say, back in the Soviet period, at the end of the Soviet Union, and for some reason we were told almost nothing about either the Bank of England or the Fed in schools. They were silent about it somehow.

O.Ch.: You know, this was partially discussed. By the way, there is a wonderful “History of Diplomacy” six-volume book, which was written in the 1960s and 1970s. There you can find this material, how in the 1920s and 1930s there was active cooperation between American, British and German capital, both before and after the Nazis came to power. It is there, look through it, there are sources, but it did not seem to come to the fore. As for the Eastern countries, since they were our allies, since we created friends and the Warsaw Pact, it was impossible to talk about much of what was in reality, in particular, about the fatal role Poland played in unleashing the Second World War, since it was an ally. And what has surfaced now, in particular, the already published documents of the FSB on the role of Poland in the preparation, together with Nazi Germany, of aggression against the Soviet Union, of course, it was impossible to talk about it then. Now they are talking about it, but again, it is not that it does not exist, it is ignored, you see, it is pretended that it does not exist. Although all these documents just say that Poland played an active role. In particular, even the fact that when Germany withdrew from the League of Nations in 1933, Poland represented it in the League of Nations, not to mention all those joint projects that they developed, how they divided the Soviet Union, what role Poland had to play in the future providing sabotage and intelligence work against the Soviet Union – it’s all not showing.

WHO HITLER STUDIED WITH. HOW WESTERN “DEMOCRACY” GAVE BIRTH TO NAZISM

I’m not talking about her role in the Munich partition of Czechoslovakia, after 1938 – it was also impossible to say – and accordingly, as she hindered, she did everything to ensure that no agreement was concluded in 1939, when negotiations with Britain and France were already underway, this is also well known. Therefore, right now, I think, is the most favorable time to give all this material, all these sources that exist, because it just turns out a strange thing – in the West they are going on the offensive, and they refer to the fact that we are hiding documents that could expose, although at the same time, on the contrary, those documents are just hiding, a huge layer, which, if we open it, everything will appear in a completely different form.

D.K.: They expose the West just.

O.Ch.: Why, for example, are archives concerning the Second World War banned and classified in both England and the USA? Here they demand to declassify all archives that relate to hunger, allegedly the device of hunger – well, then declassify your archives of the Second World War, so that it becomes clear that…

D.K.: By the way – one moment – do you know the situation with the fact that a significant part of Mussolini’s archive was stolen, his correspondence with Churchill?

O.Ch.: Yes.

D.K.: And this, by the way, is also a question – were these documents found later?

O.Ch.: They are, of course, stored in these secret archives.

D.K.: They were stolen just during the 40s, but they were never made public?

O.Ch.: Naturally, they were not made public. As well as a lot of documents have not been made public, they are classified, they can be made public only after several decades.

D.K.: It is very interesting to read Mussolini, what could he have written to Churchill and why it should be kept secret, the question immediately arises, suspicion – was Churchill standing for Mussolini, no matter how seditious it sounds.

O.Ch.: Naturally, especially considering the active financial ties between the USA and Italy, and England and the USA. Why, for example, did Italy become the only country that was mowed down, not touched, actually reduced the debt to other states, England and France, which they had to pay after the First World War? This is $13 billion that the United States has already provided state loans to Western European countries, and Italy was the only one that had these conditions extremely relaxed. The others all paid the entire bill.

D.K.: Apparently, they were given such an indulgence for some serious services.

O.Ch.: Apparently, yes. As for other states, it was all woven into this system of indemnity, which Germany had to pay, over which, with the help of the Dulles plan, the Americans were able to establish total financial control over the economy using all these financial mechanisms.

D.K.: In general, if you pull this thread, it will turn out, as it probably follows from your words, that almost all the key states of the West will be smeared in the so-called Nazi project, and it turns out that this is the core of the European Union.

O.Ch.: Yes, that’s right.

D.K.: And it turns out that to raise this topic in our country – I now understand why it’s scary. We will have to break off economic and trade relations, in fact, with these countries.

O.Ch.: And complete continuity, especially pronounced… Although, you see, this is no longer a secret, there is already a lot of this information about the activities of the trilateral commission and the Bilderberg Club, why is this still treated as something conspiratorial and so on? This is by no means conspiracy theory, these are real projects, these are real plans.

D.K.: Don’t you think that the term “conspiracy theory” itself is such a moronizing term, discrediting any mentally normal person who is just trying to understand the undeclared springs of politics. So in order to discredit him, such a normal, sane person, they label him a conspiracy theorist. Do you agree with this?

O.Ch.: Absolutely right, of course. You know, it’s like in politics – “conspiracy – conspiracy” – a well-known conspiracy is being prepared so that it does not go the way that is directed against the ruling elite, and she is preparing a conspiracy within this conspiracy. It was the same with conspiracy theory. Often the authors of many conspiracy theories, such as completely senile ones, are just those people…

D.K.: My own people. Agents.

O.Ch.: Those people who work for that force to bring this idea to the point of absurdity. As you know, if you want to discredit, bring the idea to the point of absurdity. So it is brought to the point of absurdity. Meanwhile, serious, calm research that is based on documents, facts and sources, they are simply ignored. And therefore, it is no coincidence that both Sutton’s book and the book of Munes, who worked for several years at the Library of Congress, was in the library himself, checked every document from the creation to the secrets of the Federal Reserve System, where he talks about their role in World War II, these books too, and by the way, were not translated

D.K.: Who is this person, what position does he hold?

O.Ch.: He is an American researcher, now he is already a professor. Then he could not publish his book, four publishing houses refused, his friend, a friend, who had the appropriate funds, published it to him. Then, for example, when this book was published in Germany, its entire circulation was liquidated, it was never translated in our country. That is, I think it is necessary, if we go on the offensive, to raise the whole layer of real, this scientific and historical, and not just the one that the neoliberal part of historians suggests, we now have an emphasis on this wing, and the whole layer that speaks about the real role of the ruling circles of the West, and then we will really see this complete continuity, and then we will understand this double standard that is so characteristic of international European and American politics in everything and everywhere. Against this background, of course, you understand, the role of exposing the Stalinist regime is the Stalinist regime, it should be, so to speak, that bogeyman, against which absolutely everything should be cute, that is, attention should be focused on this.

D.K.: This is their goal, the revisionists.

O.Ch.: Yes, and all the little things will suck – everything else does not exist. Even Katyn is the “most terrible” crime of the twentieth century, against which everything pales. So is the Stalinist regime – even the Nazi regime should fade on it.

D.K.: So they will serve. I want to fix it. That is, this is not your point of view, you are not asserting this, you are quoting revisionists. O.Ch.: Naturally, of course, I am setting out their strategic plans. It is no coincidence that in this book, “Russia in the twentieth Century”, a two-volume edition edited by Zubov, it is already openly stated there that the Stalinist regime and Stalin, of course, are worse than Hitler.

D.K.: The second edition, actually at the end of the “Gorbachevshchina”. This is the 80s, the beginning of the 90s – there came to completely absurd, Russophobic statements, and now it turns out the second round.

O.Ch.: Yes, the second round, but they already want to integrate it into educational programs.

D.K.: Olga Nikolaevna, unfortunately, I must state that our broadcast is ending. What can be summarized, what is the main conclusion from your conversation, from your thoughts can be drawn – probably the one that Russia should advance ideologically.

O.Ch.: Naturally.

D.K.: God grant that the authorities will listen to you. Olga Nikolaevna Chetverikova, Candidate of Historical Sciences, Associate Professor of MGIMO, was in our studio.

The post WHAT IS BEHIND THE ATTEMPTS TO REVISE THE RESULTS OF THE GREAT PATRIOTIC WAR ? first appeared on Global Policy.

Both are untrue. About the rifle, “on three.” Everything was exactly the opposite. In total, about 10 million Mosin rifles were produced from 1891 to 1918. It is difficult to say how many of them were produced from 1918 to 1924, but the production does not stop. By 1941 in the arsenals of the red army, there were at least 12-15 million rifles. Under?????? Red Army on 22 June 1941 about 5.5 million people. Add here more than a million automatic rifles SVT, at least half a million automatic PPSH, a large number of machine and hand machine guns. Once it becomes clear: what-what, and small arms in the red army lacked.

But much more interesting the second myth

About the overwhelming superiority of the red army over the Wehrmacht in the number of literally everything. So can, are right liberal historians, and fought we mediocre? Look at numbers.

By June 1941 on the border with the USSR Wehrmacht had in three groups of armies and army “Norway” 127 divisions, two brigades and one regiment. In these troops there were 2 million 812 thousand people, 37099 guns and mortars, 3865 tanks and assault guns.

Note that increasing the number of divisions if done right gives a noticeable advantage, with an equal number of troops, and it is essential. But this force Germany is not exhausted, and that’s about it “forget” to mention the liberals.

Together with Germany in war with the USSR prepared to join Finland, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania and Italy.

Finland: 17,5 divisions with a total number of 340 thousand 600 people, 2047 guns, 86 tanks and 307 aircraft;

Slovakia: 2.5 divisions with a total number of 42 thousand 500 people, 246 guns, 35 tanks and 51 aircraft;

Hungary: 2,5 divisions with a total number of 44 thousand 500 people, 200 guns, 160 tanks and 100 aircraft;

Romania: 17.5 divisions with a total of 358 thousand 100 people, 3255 guns, 60 tanks and 423 aircraft;

Italy: 3rd division a total population of 61 thousand people 900, 925 guns, tanks 61 and 83 of the aircraft.

That is almost a million people in 42.5 divisions, with 7 thousand guns, 402 tanks, and this almost a thousand aircraft. A simple calculation shows that only on the Eastern front the allies of the Hitler axis, and it would be more correct to call them so, had 166 divisions, numbering 4 million 307 thousand people with 42601 artillery units of various systems, as well as 4171 tanks and assault guns and 4846 aircraft.

So: 2 million 812 thousand from the Wehrmacht and 4 million 307 thousand total population, given the strength of the allies. One and a half times more. The picture is changing dramatically. Don’t you?

And than had on the Western border of the USSR to June 22, 1941?

PSYCHOHISTORICAL WAR OF THE WEST AGAINST RUSSIA

Yes, the armed forces of the Soviet Union by the summer of 1941, when the inevitability of war became apparent, were the largest army in the world. Actually hidden mobilization was carried out. By the beginning of the war, the Soviet armed forces numbered 5 million 774 thousand soldiers. Specifically in the land forces there were 303 divisions, 16 airborne and 3 infantry brigades. Troops had 117581 artillery system 25784 24488 tanks and aircraft.

It seems that the superiority there? However, all of the above-mentioned forces of Germany and its allies were deployed in the immediate 100 kilometer zone along the Soviet borders. While in the Western districts of the red army had a group of 3 million people, 57 thousand guns and mortars and 14 thousand tanks, serviceable of which was only 11 thousand, as well as about 9 thousand aircraft, of which only 7,5 thousand were serviceable.

And in the immediate vicinity of the border of the red army had more or less combat-ready state no more than 40% of this number.

From the above, if you are not tired of the numbers, it is clear that the USSR did not fight with one Germany. In the same way as in 1812 not with one France. That is about any “filled up with meat” out of the question.

And so it lasted almost the entire war, until the second half of 1944, when the allies of the Third Reich fell like a house of cards.

Add here in addition to the direct allies of the foreign parts of the Wehrmacht, the so-called” national SS division”, a total of 22 volunteer divisions. They served in the war 522 thousand volunteers from other countries, including 185 thousand Volksdeutsche, that is, “foreign Germans”. The total number of foreign volunteers was 57% (!) the number of “Waffen-SS”. List them. If it tires you, just estimate the number of lines and geography. The whole of Europe is represented, except perhaps the principalities of Luxembourg and Monaco, and that is not a fact.

Albania: 21st mountain division SS “Skanderbeg” (1st Albanian);

Belgium: 27th volunteer Grenadier division SS “Langemark” (1st Flemish), 28th volunteer tank-Grenadier division SS “Wallonia” (1st Walloon), Flemish Legion SS;

Bulgaria: Bulgarian SS anti-tank brigade (1st Bulgarian);

United Kingdom: Arab Legion “Free Arabia”, British volunteer corps, Indian volunteer Legion SS ” Free India»;

Hungary: 17th SS corps, 25th SS Grenadier division “Hunyadi” (1st Hungarian), 26th SS Grenadier division (2nd Hungarian), 33rd SS cavalry division (3rd Hungarian);

Denmark: the 11th volunteer Panzer Grenadier division of the SS “Nordland”, 34th volunteer Grenadier division “landstorm Nederland” (2nd Dutch), the Free corps of the SS “Danmark” (1st Danish), Volunteer corps of the SS “Salburg”;

Italy: 29th Waffen Grenadier division of the SS “Italia” (1st Italian);

The Netherlands: 11th volunteer Panzer Grenadier division of the SS “Nordland”, the 23 I volunteer motorized division of the SS “Nederland” (1st Dutch), 34th volunteer Grenadier division “landstorm Nederland” (2nd Dutch), the Flemish SS Legion;

Norway: the Norwegian Legion of the SS Norwegian ski battalion of Rangers SS Norwegian Legion, the 11th volunteer Panzer Grenadier division of the SS “Nordland»;

Poland: Gural SS volunteer Legion;

Romania: 103-Panzer-regiment of the SS (1st Romanian), Grenadier regiment of the SS (2nd Romanian);

Serbia: the Serbian volunteer corps SS;

Latvia: the Latvian Legionnaires, Latvian SS volunteer Legion, the 6th SS corps, 15th Waffen Grenadier division of the SS (1st Latvian), 19th Waffen Grenadier division of the SS (2nd Latvian);

Estonia: 20th Grenadier division of the SS (1st Estonian);

Finland: Finnish volunteers of SS Finnish volunteer battalion of the Waffen SS, the 11th volunteer Panzer Grenadier division of the SS “Nordland»;

France: the French Legionnaires SS, 28-I volunteer tank Grenadier division of the SS “Wallonia” (1st Walloon), the 33rd SS Grenadier division “Charlemagne” (1st French), Legion “Abbott Perrot” (recruited from the Breton nationalists);

Croatia: 9-th mountain corps of the SS, the 13th mountain division SS “Khanjar” (1st Croatian). 23rd mountain division SS “Kama” (2nd Croatian);

Czechoslovakia: Gural volunteer Legion SS;

Galicia: 14th Waffen Grenadier division of the SS Galicia (1st Ukrainian).

Separately:

Scandinavian 5th Panzer division SS “Viking” – Netherlands, Denmark, Belgium, Norway;

Balkan 7th volunteer mountain division SS “Prince Oigen” – Hungary, Romania, Serbia.

24th mountain (cave) division of the SS “Karstjager” – Czechoslovakia, Serbia, Galicia, Italy;

36-I Grenadier division SS “Dirlewanger” – recruited from criminals in various European countries.

Again, we are talking about European volunteers, not about conscription, not about prisoners, not about deserters, by the will of fate forced to exchange service with the Germans for their own lives. About volunteers consciously enlisted in the SS to fight the Russians.

And this we have not mentioned khivi, from the German Hilfswilliger, that is “willing to help”. These are volunteers who entered the service directly in the Wehrmacht. They served in auxiliary parts. But this does not mean non-combat. For example, anti-aircraft calculations for the Luftwaffe were formed from Khiva. The very diverse national composition of the troops opposing the red army, very eloquently says the national composition of prisoners of war, who were at the end of the war in our captivity. A simple fact: Danes, Norwegians and even the French were captured on the Eastern front more than they participated in the resistance to the Nazis in their homeland.

And we have not even touched upon the economic potential that worked for the German military machine. First of all, it is Czechoslovakia, the pre-war leader of weapons production in Europe, and France. And this-artillery, small arms and tanks.

For example, the Czech arms concern “Skoda”. Every third German tank that took part in operation Barbarossa was produced in this company. First of all, it is LT-35, received in the Wehrmacht designation Pz.Kpfw. 35 (t).

Moreover, after the annexation of Czechoslovakia, German experts found in the shops of “Skoda” two new experimental tank LT-38. After reviewing the drawings, the Germans decided to put the tank into service and began its serial production.

The production of these tanks was almost to the end of the war until late 1941, they began to be produced as the basis for German self-propelled guns. More than half of the German self-propelled guns had a Czech base.

The French, in turn, provided the Germans with their ship repair facilities. German submarines, storm of the Atlantic allied convoys, the so-called “Wolf packs, dönitz” was based, and undergoing repairs on the South coast of France and in the earth near Marseille. And ship repair crews arranged competitions regarding the one who will repair the boat quicker. It doesn’t look like a forced labor, is it?

So who fought the Soviet Union in the Great Patriotic War? Though it is more correct to formulate a question differently: who attacked the USSR in June 1941?

The question is rhetorical.

The post HOW MANY COUNTRIES PARTICIPATED IN THE ATTACK ON THE USSR IN 1941 first appeared on Global Policy.