The victory of the Soviet people in the great Patriotic war is the finest hour not only of the Soviet, but of the entire national history. The defeat of fascism stimulated the democratization of international relations, the rise of the national liberation movement, the entry of new social forces into the arena of world politics, and the formation of the international security system.

Cross out the results of the Victory, to bring its value to the local, limited their time means to prepare Russia the fate of the Soviet Union, to push her to the sidelines of world politics, to reverse the world-historic impact of this event on human life. Goals that are quite consistent with the dictum of the Nazi propaganda Manager Goebbels: “Take away the history of a people — and in a generation they will become a crowd, and in another generation they can be controlled like a herd”.

Is it not the same goal pursued by Western authors of school and University textbooks, scientific works, publicists, statesmen, assessing the role of the USSR in world war II? At best, it is downplayed, reduced to the fact that, according to the American President, D. Trump, Russia “really helped the US win”. The assessment of this role in the European Parliament resolution (September 2019) is far more distant from historical realities, if not directly opposite to them. It stated that “the Second world war, the most destructive in the history of Europe, was a direct consequence of the infamous Nazi-Soviet non — aggression Pact of August 23, 1939, also known as the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, and its secret protocols, according to which two totalitarian regimes, set out to conquer the world, divided Europe into two zones of influence”. The resolution was adopted by a majority of deputies representing, among others, those countries – Eastern European and Baltic-for the liberation of which more than a million Soviet soldiers gave their lives from the Nazis.

President Vladimir Putin outlined the official attitude of the Russian Federation to this document: “the Resolution of the European Parliament is a shameless lie of Nazi collaborators.” And to whom should we refer those who in the post-Soviet space generally devalue our Victory or portray it as almost a national disaster? These are the assessments typical for domestic liberals. In their opinion, the Victory was not worth the colossal sacrifices that the Soviet people had to make and that other European countries that did not offer the Hitlerites proper resistance avoided. The defense of Moscow, the defense of Leningrad, and the self – sacrificing feat of the Soviet people are viewed from these capitulant positions. Thus, the writer D. Bykov publicly calls the Great Patriotic war “the Russian civil war of the 40s”. The anti-Soviet side in it was represented, they say, “those who were going to live in a free Russia, liberated by the Hitlerites”, and who betrayed the country, following the example of General Vlasov, whose life the liberal writer hopes to publish in the foreseeable future in the series “Life of remarkable people”.

Problems related to the results of the war require an objective analysis. Therefore, they should be considered on top of the liberals ‘ chimerical ideas about war, regardless of the political situation, in a broad historical and geopolitical context, leaving aside the ideological interpretations of history that are rooted in the dogmatics of former times.

The West and Russia. Conundrums of confrontation

For many centuries, the geopolitical space of the Russian Empire, and then the USSR, was built into the existing world order with great difficulty, repeatedly breaking it with explosions of colossal passion energy concentrated in this space. Our ancestors protected Europe from the Horde invasion. Russia did not allow the implementation of the Napoleonic project of world conquest. It made a revolutionary revolution in October 1917, opening up unprecedented opportunities for the influence of new social forces and movements on international politics.

The West, which, according to the definition of the English historian A. Toynbee, “the arch-aggressor of the modern era”, repeatedly occupied Russian territories-from the Polish invasion in 1612 to the Hitlerite invasion in 1941 – causing a Russian response in the form of increased authoritarianism, “without which they could not survive”. The author concludes: “the role of Russia in history is to serve as a leader in the global movement of resistance to the global modern aggression of the West”. For its part, Russia has significantly contributed to the development of the Western world. In particular, it ensured the defeat of Hitler’s Germany, thereby ” giving capitalism an incentive to self-reform, as well as shaking the faith in the inviolability of the free market…”.

Bypassing messianistic interpretation of the Russian role in history can not be denied based solely on historical facts, that the Victory of the Soviet Union was one of the decisive factors for the subsequent development of the world, which failed to achieve Nazi Germany who made their own project of reorganization of the world order. The experience of the Nazi occupation of Europe, a significant part of the USSR, and Hitler’s plans to enslave and exterminate entire peoples are even now frightening. What kind of world would we be in for this project? And is a fundamentally different project now promised to us by the liberals obsessed with Russophobia – both Western and domestic?

But only recently-after the 90’s, for some “saints”, for the people of the damned-it seemed that the very possibility of such a thing was forever in the past. What is it? Apparently, the reasons for the unprecedented rampant Russophobia, such acute and total hostility to Russia are much deeper than social, ideological, and geopolitical contradictions. They are irrational, rooted in the darkness of the subconscious of Western society, and have been condensed for centuries into a stable psychopathic syndrome.

Relations between the West and Russia know different States

The war gave way to détente and even unions. But the confrontation-overt or latent-never left them. The West did not allow Russia to relax for long

PSYCHOHISTORICAL WAR OF THE WEST AGAINST RUSSIA

In spite of the humiliating peace of Tilsit (1807) and the assurances of Napoleon’s heart to Alexander I, France a few years later invaded the territory of its ally and captured Moscow, to which Russia responded with the Patriotic war of 1812, which ended the French hegemony in Europe. The Congress of Vienna was followed by the Crimean war; the creation of the Entente was followed by the first world war, in which the allies involved Russia against its national interests and which for it ended in the catastrophes of revolution and civil war. Behind the German-Soviet non – aggression Pact-Hitler’s aggression, behind the Gorbachev-Yeltsin unilateral concessions to the United States and NATO – the collapse of the Soviet Union and the transformation of Russia into a “third world”country.

Aren’t these lessons enough? The West does not consider international law. For him, only the right of force matters. The Western mentality instinctively rejects a huge, incomprehensible country. For him, the real, living Russia, whatever it may be – tsarist, Soviet, or liberal-democratic, is not acceptable. For him, only a spiritually and politically mortified Russia, permanently erased from history, is good.

According to the European, the naturalist, historian, and philosopher N. Danilevsky noted in the middle of the NINETEENTH century, all original Russian is worthy of contempt and extermination, which “constitutes the most sacred duty and true task of civilization”. Sharing this belief, domestic fans of Western values believe that the West, Europe are the pole of progress, continuous movement forward, and the East, Asia- ” the pole of stagnation and stagnation, so hateful to modern man.” These, according to Danilevsky, are “historical and geographical axioms that no one doubts – and every Russian Orthodox follower of modern science shudders at the thought of being ranked in the sphere of stagnation and stagnation”.

Speaking about the “immeasurable gap” between the Russian and Western worlds, O. Spengler wrote at the beginning of the twentieth century: “The real Russian is as alien to us inwardly as a Roman of the age of the tsars and a Chinese of the time long before Confucius, if they suddenly appeared among us. He himself was always aware of this, drawing a dividing line between “mother Russia” and “Europe”.  Of course, I did. “No China, no Japan” said F. Dostoevsky, – can not be covered with such a secret for European inquisitiveness as Russia, before, at the present moment, and even, perhaps, for a very long time in the future… “[8. P. 12]. The great writer stared into the water. Many decades later, W. Churchill was puzzled: “Russia is a riddle wrapped in a mystery and placed inside a puzzle.”

Is it a question of riddles? Solving puzzles is quite an innocent activity. It is another matter when it is linked to international politics. In this case, the paradigm of “friend or foe” gives rise to double standards in international relations. “Our own” are evaluated by measures of good, honesty, mutual trust, “others” – by measures of evil, hostility and hatred that allow deception, treachery, any crime. All this is initially assessed as a benefit, a manifestation of Patriotic valor. This approach was demonstrated by German Nazism, which replaced morality with the ideology of chauvinism, anti-Semitism, and racism. Speaking at a meeting of SS gruppenfuhrers in Posen in October 1943, Himmler, who was in charge of all the Reich’s punitive services, taught: “Only one principle must absolutely exist for a member of the SS: we must be honest, decent, loyal to members of our own race and to no one else”.

Russian Russian expansionism, its centuries-old opposition to Russia, was stimulated not by the desire to learn the secrets of the soul and behavior of Russians, but by the desire to humiliate, subdue and Rob the Russian people. This, in fact, is the mystery of their confrontations. History has repeatedly proved: Woe to those who try to solve it by encroaching on the dignity, freedom and independence of the people of Russia. The same Churchill warned: “The Russians may seem narrow-minded, arrogant, or even stupid, but we can only pray to those who stand in their way”.

Drang nach Osten continues

The October revolution hardened the attitude of the West to Russia. Its extreme expression was Hitlerism, whose ideology and internal policy were formed within the framework of the ancient pagan paradigm “land and blood”, and whose foreign policy was based on the postmodern doctrine of the conquest of world domination. Reviving the medieval Teutonic tradition of” Onslaught on the East “(Drang nach Osten), Hitler set the task of expanding the” living space “of the Reich, which, in his words,”could only be solved at the expense of Russia”.

FROM WHOM HITLER STUDIED. HOW WESTERN “DEMOCRACY” GAVE BIRTH TO NAZISM

In the voluminous opus “Mein Kampf” he wrote: “In this case, we had to gird our loins and move along the same road that the knights of our orders once walked. The German sword should have conquered the land to the German plough and thus provided the daily bread of the German nation».

Shortly before the invasion of the USSR, the Fuhrer had told the Wehrmacht army commanders: “the Russian territory is fraught with immeasurable riches. Germany should establish economic and political domination over it, but not Annex it to itself. This creates all the opportunities in the future to fight with the continents, and then no one will be able to defeat Germany”. The solution to the “Russian question” was concretized as an alternative: “the destruction of the Russian people or the numbing of that part of it that has obvious signs of the Nordic race”.

Having conquered France and other industrialized countries in Europe in an unusually short time, Hitler believed that the economically backward Eastern edge of the continent would become even easier prey for the Nazi conquerors. After signing the armistice agreement with France, on June 25, 1940, Hitler said: “Now we have shown what we are capable of… The military campaign against Russia will be just a game on a box of sand”.

In 1940, Hitler’s strategists began to develop a project of military attack on the USSR, named after one of the German kings of the XII century. and the Holy Roman Emperor “Plan Barbarossa”. It and special additions to it provided for the lightning capture of Soviet territory (in 9-17 weeks) to the Rostov-Gorky-Arkhangelsk line with access to the Urals and the subsequent introduction of the most severe occupation regime on it: destruction of Soviet authorities; physical extermination and eviction of the local population and their replacement by German colonists; looting of the Soviet economy. The Fuhrer called the attack a “great campaign” that should not be stopped by ” any considerations of a moral or ethical nature.”

As much as I hate to admit it, the” Barbarossa Plan ” was largely implemented. The Soviet people and their army were not psychologically prepared for Hitler’s “blitzkrieg”. All the years before the war, propaganda instilled in our fathers and grandfathers the idea that any attack on the USSR would be immediately and crushing for the enemy repulsed – “with little blood, an instant blow”, and the war would move to the territory of the aggressor and with the support of the local proletariat would end in an early victory. Practice has shown the illusory nature of this idea, as well as the utopian nature of the “Barbarossa Plan”. Although during the first weeks of the war the Nazis managed to capture vast areas of the European part of the USSR, the Nazi plan failed. The blitzkrieg lasted for many years of bloody battles with millions of victims. Hitler’s adventure collapsed, ending with The act of unconditional surrender of Nazi Germany, which was signed by field Marshal Keitel.

The Price of our common Victory is high

The war interrupted the modernization of the country, the process of formation of a new type of civilization. The known statistics are far from adequate to the material losses of the USSR. But the dry numbers are also terrifying. The established damage to the national economy amounted to 30% of the national wealth, and in the areas that were occupied, about two-thirds. During the war, 1,710 cities and towns were completely or partially destroyed and burned, 70,000 villages and villages, over 6 million buildings, 25 million people were made homeless, almost 32,000 industrial enterprises and 36,000 communications enterprises were destroyed and looted, and more than 100,000 were destroyed. collective farms, state farms and MTS, more than 4 thousand railway stations, 40 thousand health institutions and 126 thousand schools, educational institutions, museums, libraries and theaters. Post-war reparations only partially compensated for these losses.

Numbers by numbers. And who – even with the accuracy of a million-will say how many of our compatriots from the multinational USSR really died in this damned war? And another sacramental question: to what extent are the other countries of the Western world involved in the war? Very high, if not decisive.

HOW MANY COUNTRIES PARTICIPATED IN THE ATTACK ON THE USSR IN 1941

Of course, it is impossible not to recognize the significant role in the fight against the Nazi occupiers of American supplies of military equipment, medicines, food and other materials under lend-lease. But extensive archives of reliable documents, numerous memoirs, and authoritative research by domestic and foreign scientists clearly show another thing: without the multilateral support of the liberal-democratic West, the Nazis could not have started a world war and occupied almost the entire Western part of the European continent. It was the ruling circles of these countries that allowed the rise to power of fascist and authoritarian regimes in Italy, Germany, Spain and a number of other countries. It was they who encouraged Nazi expansionism with the Munich deal with Hitler. The same circles, rejecting Moscow’s proposals to organize an international front to fight Hitler’s aggression, forced Stalin to conclude a non-aggression Pact with Germany.

At the time, Churchill was surprised not by the Soviet victory, but by the fact that German troops were able to reach the Volga. It would have been really surprising if the Wehrmacht had acted alone. But almost all Western countries were behind it. Military formations took direct part in military operations against the red army Italy and,Hungary and Finland and Slovaks and Croatia and Spain (“Blue division”), Legionnaires of France and other countries. The entire economy of occupied Europe worked for armament, food and other equipment of the Wehrmacht. Officially neutral Sweden provided its Railways for the relocation of heavy weapons and military units in Germany. About 40 % of German armament was made from Swedish iron.

The us position formulated by the Senator, later President Truman, on the day after the German attack on the USSR is well known: Russian Russians should be helped if the Germans are going to win, and if the Russians are going to take over, we should help the Germans — and let them kill each other as much as possible!”.

On the eve of World War II, American corporations made a significant contribution to the development of the German military industry, in particular, Standard oil — 120 million, General motors-35 million, ITT investments amounted to 30 million, and Ford-17.5 million dollars. Ford was one of the largest manufacturers of trucks for the Wehrmacht, and General motors was one of the largest manufacturers of bombers and jet boosters for Luftwaffe fighters. One of the main organizers of the war economy of Nazi Germany, Hjalmar Schacht, President of the Reichsbank, Minister of economy, during the Nuremberg trial, in an interview with an American lawyer, said that these and other American companies throughout the war collaborated with German military corporations, and “if you want to charge the Industrialists who helped rearm Germany, you must charge yourself.” According to his testimony, “even the Coca-Cola company has established the production of the Fanta drink in Germany”!

We won. The whole world then recognized that the decisive role in the defeat of fascism belongs to the Soviet Union. Churchill, who called “to stifle Bolshevism in its cradle”, said: “No government could have resisted such terrible and cruel wounds inflicted by Hitler on Russia. But the Soviets not only survived and recovered from these wounds, but also dealt the German army a blow of such power as no other army in the world could have inflicted on it”.

The victory of the Soviet Union radically changed the world order, which for centuries was based on hostility and violence, turning the vector of its development to peaceful cooperation of States and peoples. Drang nach Osten, however, did not end in may 1945. “Plan Barbarossa” in a new format and under other names remained in service with the West.

Already in March 1946, the same Churchill opened the fronts of the “cold war” with his speech in Fulton, stating that the Communist threat was hanging over Europe: “the iron curtain was lowered Across the entire continent.”Beyond this line are the capitals of the ancient States of Central and Eastern Europe… All of them are objects not only of Soviet influence, but also of growing control by Moscow… Communist parties, which were small in number in all these Eastern European States… they try to achieve totalitarian control in everything”.

A few days later, on March 14, 1946, in an interview with Pravda newspaper, Stalin replied: “Mr. Churchill and his friends in England and the United States present a kind of ultimatum to non-English-speaking Nations: accept our domination voluntarily, and then everything will be all right – otherwise war is inevitable. But Nations shed blood during five years of brutal war for the freedom and independence of their countries, not to replace the rule of the Hitlers with the rule of the Churchills.”

The war called “cold” lasted for decades-until the end of the 80’s. It deformed the world order established by the Yalta, Potsdam, then Helsinki and other international agreements on “peaceful coexistence” and detente. How did it end? The collapse of the Soviet Union, the world socialist system, and as a result – a global geopolitical catastrophe. The threat of war – now thermonuclear Armageddon-is again looming over the human race.

A new era has opened before the peoples, when, according to the famous German historian and publicist M. Sturmer, modern technologies are fundamentally changing the theory and practice of peaceful coexistence. A “President Donald trump blithely and thoughtlessly rants about nuclear weapons” and does not attach importance to arms control, thus destroying the diplomacy of the last superpower. This is an era when “the bipolar power system of the cold war is outdated, and multipolarity does not guarantee any security.” And so on: “when time literally splits at the seams, when cyber warfare has no beginning or end, then attack and defense become indistinguishable from each other. When a ray weapon reduces the alarm time to zero, then missile defense becomes a factor of strategic ambiguity from a strategic fantasy”.

The world has become more dangerous than it was in the years before the Great Patriotic War or during the cold war. Now every careless, adventurous movement in the foreign policy of world powers is fraught with risk nuclear disaster. In fact, these movements are the new Eastern policy of the West: the expansion of NATO at the expense of Eastern European and Baltic States, the construction of military bases near Russian borders, refusal to negotiate nuclear disarmament, attempts to involve Russia in a new arms race, etc.

Drang nach Osten continues, of course, in a modified form

Its leadership center moved from Berlin to Washington. It is in the United States that projects of aggression against Russia are being planned – the new Barbarossa plans. Thus, the Harvard project, developed by United States in the 70s of the last century, provided for the collapse of the USSR, the dismantling of the world socialist system, and the “liberalization” of the Warsaw Pact countries. In General, it was implemented by the beginning of the XXI century. In its development, another Houston project was put forward, which provided for the expulsion of Russia as a world power from the international arena, its collapse and the attitude to its regions as separate independent States.

The program “Eastern partnership”, adopted at the Prague summit of the European Union in may 2009. It is based on the need to establish special, independent relations between the EU and Ukraine, Belarus, Moldova, Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan on the basis of common interests and unity of values. Its implementation means subordination to the interests of the West of a significant part of the post-Soviet space and its opposition to Russia , in other words, “Ukrainization” of these countries on the model of Russophobic policy nationalist ruling elites Kiev’s.

The Eastern policy of the Western European States has become just one of the local branches of Washington’s global strategy, which, according to the economist M. Delyagin, did not allow the United Europe “to become an independent geopolitical entity, closed it in its own regional locality, thereby causing its decay.” And the US-managed block NATO uses Eastern European countries to incite hostility to Russia. This, the analyst concludes, deprives Eastern Europe of strategic prospects and turns these abandoned limitrophs into a promising space for various geopolitical games and confrontations, but doomed to degradation.

The entire liberal army

Perhaps the most radical supporters of the revision of not only the results, but also the causes of the Great Patriotic War were liberals of all stripes in the post-Soviet space.

Following Western historical interpretations, they demonize the entire Soviet history, leading it into the channel of their phantasmagoria. So, Deputy. the Chairman of the Parnassus party, who considers himself a “historian”, A. Zubov assures that after the October revolution, for the first time in history, a strong terrorist expansionist regime was created in the country, which not only destroyed one hundred million people in Russia and other countries and deprived up to two billion people of their property, but also caused the rise to power in the 1920s and 1950s. various totalitarian / authoritarian regimes — from the fascist ones in Italy and Germany to the BA’athist ones in the Arab East-and also contributed to the outbreak of the Second world war.

The numbers Called are fictitious, the estimates are chimerical. The attempt to identify the Soviet and Nazi regimes as equally totalitarian is also completely untenable, which has long been a popular method of anti – Soviet propaganda, which then flowed into a fierce Rosso-and Russophobic campaign. Hitler’s and Stalin’s regimes are fundamentally different in their social nature, ideological and political content, and methods of implementation. In order to make sure of this without moving away from the topic, it is enough to delve into the real circumstances of the war and compare the situation of total terror on the territory of the USSR occupied by the Nazis with the situation of improving national life in the zone of Soviet occupation in post-war Germany.

The ideology and politics of Nazism were based on aggressive chauvinism. In contrast, Soviet policy was based on democratic ideas and principles of international relations. Of course, the USSR, first of all, defended its own interests, hoping to ensure its security and prevent German revenge. Stalin put forward the concept of creating a single, democratic, neutral state in place of the defeated Germany: “the Hitlers come and go, but the German people remain”. The Soviet allies in the anti-Hitler coalition rejected this proposal, intending to end Germany as such by dividing it into small state entities, depriving the Germans of national identity through ideological and psychological violence, and reducing the German population through mass forced sterilization.

In the end, the victorious powers came to a compromise, dividing Germany into zones of occupation; the repressive projects of the Soviet allies were replaced by denazification programs. The Western countries, despite the attempts of the USSR to build their relations with them on the basis of the principles of equality and peaceful cooperation, continued their traditional “Eastern policy” with the aim of dismembering Russia and ending it as a world power. “They need a Russia dismembered, naively “freedom-loving” consenting to dismemberment and imagining that its good is in disintegration, – the philosopher I. V. visionary noted in 1950. Ilyin. – … They think that Russia, split into many small States … will stop hanging as an eternal threat over its “defenseless” European and Asian neighbors”.

Did the seer expect that after half a century there would be forces in the country significant enough to turn its development on this path? In the period of Gorbachev’s perestroika and in the following years, the turn was made by liberal reformers, according to another philosopher, A. Zinoviev, “who introduced themselves into the Communist ideology and the system of state management in order to discredit them in the eyes of society.

Liberal reforms resulted in the revival of an authoritarian form of government

The responsibility for this is borne by the liberal reformers themselves, because they tried to rebuild Russia according to liberal recipes made in American universities that are alien to its traditions.

Back in 1918, N. Berdyaev called “the word” liberalism “damaged”, which has long lost “all charm, although it comes from the beautiful word “freedom”. A century later, A. Zinoviev sharpened this idea, defining the essence of liberalism as “personal egoism”, in the implementation of which” freedom “is achieved by the” strongest”, and simply – the meanest, turns out to be a complete lack of freedom for other people, normal, honest, and therefore defenseless. Is it not for these reasons that President Vladimir Putin has withdrawn from the liberal idea, which, in his words, “just completely outlived its usefulness”?

Rejecting, of course, all these assessments, liberal reformers see the objective reasons for their failures in the peculiarities of the history and geography of Russia, the mentality of its population. What exactly are their arguments? For many hundreds of years, the country has known no other form of government than autocratic, the habit of which has grown into the consciousness and psychology of Russians, turned into an idiosyncratic attitude that suppresses the national sprouts of democracy and rejects any of its inoculations from outside.

THE SIXTH COLUMN OF PUTIN’S RUSSIA

“The country is not captured by Putin, the country is captured by an absolutely gray amorphous mass of people,” the economist V. Inozemtsev at the annual Congress of representatives of the radical opposition in 2018 in Vilnius. Therefore, ideologists who share such views have been promoting the idea of subordination of Russia to external rule since the Civil War, which, in their opinion, is only able to root democracy in the country.

This idea was tested by the Fuhrer in the occupied territory of the USSR. But unsuccessfully, although, according to A. Zubov, who has already been quoted, “a huge number of people, no matter how scary it sounds, preferred Hitler to Stalin”. It is hardly necessary to refute this arbitrary assessment, which contradicts countless historical facts. Its subtext is easy to read: if one villain is preferable to another, even greater, then how not to prefer the kind, democratic uncle Sam and his Russian fans to any political figure whom the liberals will call “the successor of Stalin”. The point is not in the assessment itself, but in its motivations, which come from liberal accusations of the Putin regime’s restalinization and evasion of neoliberal reforms under the leadership of leaders acting in accordance with the interests of the West. If such leaders were found during perestroika and post-Soviet transformations, their successor rejected the role assigned to him, which caused a response in the form of a course towards the “anti-Putin revolution”.

The current regime In Russia, despite significant flaws, prevented the collapse of the country, brought the post-Soviet chaos to a certain order, and limited external influence on the country’s internal and foreign policy.

The President who succeeded Yeltsin inherited a country ravaged by liberal “reforms”, with a half – dead industry and an inefficient army-in a state comparable to the post-war devastation. Then, in the most difficult conditions, with the fierce resistance of Western opponents, the Soviet Union was able to restore much of the economy in just a few years-about the time that the liberals were able to break it up. The form of external governance, even if indirect, imposed in the 90’s through an alien model of development, was unacceptable for the country.

How realistic are the renewed hopes of liberals that any of these forms can overcome the resistance of the historical traditions of Russia, which is so vast and so diverse in natural conditions, national-ethnic and religious composition of the population? Is it reformable in principle, – asks a Professor at the City University of new York, A. Yanov. Today, according to him, “Russia, which did not take place” in the course of post-Soviet reforms, looks like an “impostor”. After the Bolotnaya revolution, ” rally activity has exhausted itself.” The Professor reproaches the liberal opposition for not acting “with a slogan that can interest all the various regions of Russia” by limiting its activities to Moscow.

The idea of radicalization of regional protests has long been outlined in the projects of liberals. A certain “political expert” on the Internet expresses it like this: “large fires start with a small fire. In the same way, an uprising against Putin’s rule can begin locally in one peripheral region… and then abruptly spread to the whole of Russia.”

All such scenarios assume external support for protest movements similar to that provided by the West Kiev Maidan, “color revolutions” in the Arab and other countries. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the main source of the revolution’s exports moved from Moscow to Washington, and Russia became one of the first victims of this export in the 1990s. It is quite logical Therefore Kasparov, when he openly declared at one of the congresses of his associates in Vilnius that the liberals “will be happy for any defeat of Russia, any failure or tragedy, based on the principle, “the worse for you, the better for us”. The real “blue dream” is not just a defeat, but a “geopolitical defeat”.

The ideological origins of this position go back to the doctrine of the world liberal revolution, which was theoretically justified by the American philosopher F. Fukuyama in his book”End of story and last person“.

He interpreted the end of the cold war as the end of the ideological and political history of mankind in the course of the universalization of Western liberal democracy and the establishment of a new world order based on it, which leaves humanity no alternative but neoliberalism. Using this ideological background, neoliberals try to portray the Victory of the Soviet people in the great Patriotic war as a minor event in world history, which is long overdue to be archived.

Any attempts of this kind are unscientific and anti-historical. In the past, they ideologically stimulated the “cold war”, and now, as its actual continuation, the Russophobic campaign unleashed by the West, “in all the various spheres of which, let us recall Danilevsky, the same spirit of hostility prevails, taking, depending on the circumstances, the form of distrust, gloating, hatred or contempt”.

Is it correct today to link the immediate results of the war with what happened decades later in a completely different world situation? It is hardly necessary to prove that without the Victory of the Soviet people, the modern world would have been different – it is possible that it would have been as it appeared to the Nazi ideologists.

Of course, over the past decades, the world has undergone tremendous changes, including such unexpected ones as the collapse of the Soviet Union and the world system of socialism, which destroyed the post-war world order and once again brought humanity to the brink of a nuclear missile disaster. All the more so is the historical role of the Victory not only as an epochal symbol of the country’s defense power and the strength of the spirit of its people, but also as a real factor in the trend of world development that is aimed at strengthening global peace and international security.

The post GREAT PATRIOTIC WAR: VICTORY IS SACRED AND IRREVERSIBLE first appeared on Global Policy.

The presentation of the lecture is structured as follows:

1. My understanding of the geopolitical situation in the world and in the country, taking into account the impact of global trends on the development of political and military-political crises in the post-Soviet space and in Russia. Strategic and tactical goals of the USA and the so-called “new world order” headed by them on the territory of Eurasia.

2. Forecast aggravation of the confrontation between Russia and the West in the post-Soviet space, and primarily in Ukraine, in the framework of the West launched a program of “reformatting” of this space with its further fragmentation and deprivation of the remnants of sovereignty and independence.

3. Tasks, strategy and tactics of the Russian Federation in the struggle for its own self-preservation and sovereignty in the conditions of the West’s actual refusal from peaceful coexistence within the existing realities.

I warn you in advance that everything I have to say further reflects only my own point of view and does not claim to be “the ultimate truth”.

GEOPOLITICAL CONFLICTS IN THE FORMER SOVIET UNION

1. The geopolitical situation in the world and the plans of the Western bloc

First of all, I would like to point out that in my analysis of the development of geopolitical processes in the World I rely solely on facts. No statements, ideological concepts and peaceful speeches of Western politicians and political scientists are of any importance to me and are considered solely as propaganda. In modern Western politics, concepts such as honor, trust, responsibility and decency have long since lost all meaning. Turned into an empty phrase. It is impossible to say that in previous eras they were decisive, but in the post – Christian era, in which there is still a leading in the world political arena Western (conditionally Euro-Atlantic) world, cynicism and hypocrisy of its leading representatives have long crossed any boundaries. But facts are stubborn things. And their sequence indicates ,in my view, is immutable: after the defeat of the USSR in the “cold war”, political subjection and the economic plunder that emerged on its ruins the state entities, the Euro-Atlantic bloc led by the U.S. began the global conversion of the World by its own curves and exclusively for their own use are very far from considering the interests of the “performativity” areas.

– Characteristic features of such “reformatting”: absolute subordination of the entire economic and political organization of the regions to the needs of the United States. If you resist these needs-pressure and interference in internal Affairs up to a military invasion and complete defeat.

“Zakalivanie” Western world order, a clear delineation of the World into “metropolis” (US and its closest allies) and the “periphery”, where does the rest of the land. The need for such a distinction arises from the acute shortage of vital resources (primarily biological) predicted for the next decades.

“Habitat eating” by a constantly and uncontrollably growing humanity, still fragmented geographically, culturally and economically, requires an unconditional response. However, the response that seems to have been developed by the Western civilization centres to the problem is discouraging for all Nations, peoples, cultures and States that have not been fortunate enough (or Vice versa) to be in the “domain” of Euro-Atlanticism. Put simply, all of them (and Russia in particular) no alternative is proposed to disappear. To disappear as independent centers of national-cultural, economic and civilizational development, having transferred all governing functions and the rights to similar construction to the uniform world center constructed on the basis of the Anglo-Saxon civilization which has died in Bose. (Deceased because the so-called” universal values ” and other newfangled inventions of the last 2-3 decades are extremely far from any traditional national and cultural interests, including Anglo-Saxon). It is only within this “domain” that the continuous growth of consumption for a limited number of “consumers” is planned to be maintained at the expense of the “periphery”, where, on the contrary, the needs and the number of “consumers” itself should be reduced naturally. What do I mean by “natural contraction”? More about this later, but for now let’s just examine some facts.

Let’s go back to 50-70 years ago-to the era, as it is customary to say now”, “bipolar world”. In 1945, joint efforts defeated German Nazism and Japanese militarism, after which the World almost immediately moved to a confrontation between the recent allies – the “Eastern” and “Western” blocs. We will analyze the practice of both blocs – the creation of satellites around the world and their economic and political support. Let’s leave aside the USSR-the country where most of us were born, has already gone down in history. Let us turn to the United States. So: defeating Germany and Japan, the United States first subdue their economy and foreign policy, but from direct looting refrain. On the contrary, the economy of defeated opponents receives powerful financial injections within the single capitalist market and is rapidly recovering, so much so that it begins to represent competition for the industry directly to the United States. The standard of living is growing and the population of the defeated countries successfully occupies its place among the so-called “Golden billion” of people receiving the maximum social benefits on the planet.

Look further. Hot conflicts within the framework of the cold war erupt one after another. Korean war.The US and its allies support South Korea not only by military forces, but also economically.After the war, South Korea is rapidly becoming an industrial power, the standard of living of the population is growing rapidly, during the life of only one or two generations is the transition from feudal-backward Japanese raw material colony to advanced knowledge-based economy.In this series, we can recall South Vietnam, which during the military confrontation was not given a chance for political survival, but where the United States also relied not only on military assistance, but also on the economic development of its satellite. In my opinion, it is acceptable to name a number of other States and entire regions that, in the context of the struggle for hegemony between the socialist camp and the Western bloc, have developed in the most favoured nation regime and achieved impressive results in the development of the economy and social sphere, without changing, at the same time, neither the basic political structure nor the cultural and religious foundations. Israel,Saudi Arabia and other countries with natural resources or cheap labor–all of them,being under the “military-political umbrella” of the United States and its allies, in the second half of the 20th century.developed rapidly, dynamically both economically and socially.Up to 90-ies.

And then the Warsaw Pact collapsed and the USSR followed. They collapsed as a result of internal contradictions and direct betrayal of the elites,who ceased to believe and follow the dominant ideology and, in return, perceived the Western “values” in their purely materialistic-hedonistic, consumer understanding. The capitulation was so rapid and complete, and the trophies are so huge and varied that for two decades provided the “Golden age” of the United States and Europe. Continuous economic growth, accompanied by a rise in consumption, continued until 2008 and its fruits were used not only by the” winners”, but also by numerous” foreign players ” (in particular China). Due to the inclusion of huge territories and resources in the system of capitalist economy, there was a rapid transition to the post-industrial economy in the United States and a number of other leading countries of the Western world. However, it’s not about that.I want to draw your attention to the fact that the registration of the United States and NATO as the only world military and political hegemon almost immediately led to a change of approaches to the defeated. It is no secret that for all Russian and many other so-called “reformers” expectations of “unselfish help” in reformatting the economy and domestic policy on the part of the United States were almost a postulate. The most rational of them believed that if there is no help, then to counteract the entry of the former Soviet republics into the “European part of the Western domain” no one will – you just have to fulfill the conditions – and all by itself will be formed, after 5-10 years everything will be “like people”.

However, even those who are in the “domain” formally allowed (as the former CMEA countries, already included in the EU), got a “hole from the bagel”, and not the coveted social Paradise. The “free lunch” naturally led into a trap. Hungary, Bulgaria and Poland, as well as the Baltic countries, which have achieved real independence from the USSR, to immediately become satellites of the United Europe and take in its economy the place of the market and the supplier of cheap labor, still relatively “lucky”, despite the significant decline in living standards and increasing economic and social degradation. But first came under direct attack by NATO Yugoslavia-was the place where the” New Hegemon ” for the first time tested in practice updated approaches to the defeated. The country is defeated and divided, but no one is in a hurry to help her. And even the formal American ally – ” liberated “Kosovo”, stripped from the Serbs, and remained a” black hole ” on the body of Europe. Criminal ulcer. No one is going there is nothing to restore, and to restore order. Free? Well, now and live as you want, even eat each other raw materials. We have solved our problems with your help – and now we do not care about you. A clear demonstration of the famous saying about the Sheriff and the problems of the Indians.

Over Yugoslavia was followed by other victims: Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya. In each of these countries, different scenarios of military defeat were involved. Iraq, as a state, was swept away by a coalition led by the United States through a direct land-based large-scale military invasion, Afghanistan was occupied with the active support of local tribal militias, and in Libya, NATO used only aircraft and special forces, not even trying to occupy the territory. However, the consequences of the invasion were common to all three major military operations. Iraq is virtually eliminated as a single state – after a decade of American occupation, it has become one continuous battlefield for the militias of Sunni Islamists, Shiites and Kurds. On his land continue to fight the American PMCs and the Iranian “Islamic revolutionary guard Corps”. The country has a social catastrophe, chaos, famine and epidemics, mass emigration and cultural savagery. Only in the oil fields in the lower reaches of the Shatt al-Arab relative calm provided by the same PMCs. But the US before now did not care. Key resources under the control of the set, and the “problem of the surviving Indians of the Sheriff do not disturb”. Afghanistan… during the years of American occupation, the country’s economy has seen the highest growth in only one area — the production of drugs has increased tenfold. With all the consequences.

The war is not over, the confrontation between the Taliban and tribal militias will certainly lead to a resumption of hostilities immediately after the withdrawal of the main occupation forces.As the country was ravaged and destroyed, and remained at the same level – the invaders have not invested in the real sector of the economy is nothing. But the most remarkable example of the “new strategy” is Libya. The country was simply bombed in the early middle ages and forgotten about it. Now they all are fighting against all over the quickly diminishing resources, and social disaster causes the inhabitants of westernized coastal cities to shed crocodile tears for “the curse of the dictatorial regime”. Even to control the oil fields of the United States and its allies did not show interest. Why? Is it really just because of Gaddafi’s seditious thought about the introduction of the” Golden Dinar ” as an alternative to the us dollar? Maybe, but the main thing, in my opinion, is the other thing.

Let’s look at the other consequences of the prolonged “Arab spring”, which the US sponsored and morally supported everywhere. Let’s go West to East. Tunisia-the revolution was somehow calmed down, but judging by the large-scale terrorist attacks, this is a temporary phenomenon. About Libya already said. Egypt-repeated bloody clashes and two successive coups (the first by the Islamists, the US welcomed, and the second by the patriots – the military-condemned) caused serious damage to the economy, provoked bloody inter-religious conflicts and, despite the success of the national military authorities in restoring order, sowed the seeds of a split in society. And this despite the fact that the Egyptian authorities since Sadat were listed as loyal allies of the United States.

Now Syria. The country writhes in agony. Even if President Assad is able to retain power, the full control over the entire territory of the country can only dream of. Inter-ethnic and inter-religious carnage, a bloody nightmare, famine and repression are widespread and no humanitarian assistance is enough to compensate for the damage done to a small extent. The U.S. and its allies now, not even a hint of interference. What for? The goal has been reached! To anything to spend resources for finishing off the enemy who can still make the contribution to the maximum prolongation of the conflict. Let the Kurds kill the Islamists and the Islamists kill the alawites… and as many as possible. Truman at the time all formulated very clearly – in the days of World politics have not been so hypocritical to call the bombing “humanitarian operations”. Now Yemen. Another victim of the “struggle for freedom and democracy”. The war swept the whole country and approached the borders of Saudi Arabia. She is forced to react,and the US and the case is not.

From the “Arab spring” it would be logical to move directly to Ukraine, where another” revolution of dignity ” inspired by us puppets gathers its bloody victims every day. But we will leave Ukraine for later.

First, I would like to summarize all of the above and formulate some conclusions, as well as a hypothesis about the causes of the destruction of the traditional world order, urgently produced by the authorities of the “Western world”(in fact – the United States and its closest allies). The reasons stem from the message that the planet Earth is not able to provide the increasing appetites of the “Golden billion”, which due to various circumstances were hundreds of millions of “extra” mouths. These mouths need to be cut. At the same time, it is necessary to reduce by any means the excessively bred population of “raw colonies”. After all, people tend to consume resources not only in the countries of the” domain”, but also where the resources come from in the specified”domain”. If there are fewer people in the colonies, the “surplus product” will begin to arrive to the recipients in a larger volume. The main thing that worked “pipe”, and its personnel should be minimum necessary – no more. But to destroy people on their own, first, economically expensive, and secondly, is fraught with severe psychological trauma for performers from among the “Sahib”, which can lead to unwanted excesses.»

“Therefore it is necessary to create conditions when “savages” will destroy themselves. And to do this, just need to bring down and bring to complete degradation of the entire infrastructure, including power. And not to allow its recovery. Let’s Take Syria. For example, if Bashar al-Assad begins to defeat the Islamists of ISIS and Jabhat al-Nusra,he will be quickly”bombed “on charges of” human rights violations”. But since now the Islamists grew–bombed over “terrorism”. The war must continue! The longer the better. Saudi Arabia has ceased to listen to the opinion of the United States and helps the “bad” Egyptian authorities to suppress the Islamist rebellion? The United States immediately restore relations with the worst enemy – Iran in the peak imagines himself the Saudis. And they look indifferently at the development of events in Yemen, demonstrating that they are now satisfied with any option.

“Divide and conquer!”- nothing new to invent is not necessary. In my opinion, the United States applies similar tactics to Israel. The country has become too committed to its own national interests and wants to follow them without regard to Washington. So far, the Jewish state does not go beyond the critical framework, but the ongoing political pressure on tel Aviv on the issue of countering Islamist militants in the Gaza Strip is very symptomatic. Apparently, the Israeli Jews fell into the category of “extra mouths” in the dwindling “Golden billion” and their turn will soon come. Two things are still saving Israel-the lack of its own natural resources and a powerful army, which the US considers as a possible tool for carrying out its own tasks in the region. It is also worth noting the reasonable restraint of the government, not hurried to pounce on bloodless neighbors.In addition to the stated reasons, the actions of the United States on the global “demolition” of the historically established world order have another purely Mercantile basis associated with excessive amounts of circulating around the world unsecured American currency and huge public debt. “How much rope does not curl all the end will be.”

A few more years, even if 10-15 years will pass before the US will have to declare a state default and” forgive “all debtors all bales of” green paper ” and all its debt obligations, which the last 2 decades paid for the real supply of resources.Further, the US will announce that” this will never happen again ” and will release new dollars and new securities.What is necessary that once deceived partners began to accept them in exchange for real values? It is necessary that the world was a permanent chaos and that against this background, the United States and its closest allies looked like a kind of “shining Avalon”-the only island of real stability and unshakable order. And then “thrown” once suppliers, reluctantly, will still be forced to direct their resources along the old route. After all, there will be no other consumers. And in order not to be deceived again, and they will move to “avalon”, not caring about all the religious, national and cultural roots. That, perhaps, ever to fall in the near subservient to the already established world of the financial elite. Thus will be naturally eliminated all real and potential centers of competition–all the money and their owners will focus in the “domain”, and “periphery”, gradually degrading, finally become a “territory of the pipe”, interspersed with carefully protected national parks,where the children of the elite and its servants will be able to admire the thickets of mangroves and age-old cedars, as well as live elephants, tigers, polar bears and crocodiles, which, otherwise really threatens the complete extermination of the hungry and feral aborigines surrounding “failed States”. About this, incidentally, almost a hundred years ago already wrote A. Tolstoy. Who has not read “the Hyperboloid of engineer Garin”, I recommend it. There Garin dreams of just such a world order.

What I want to see in the post-Soviet geopolitical space of the US and its allies? The answer follows from the previous postulates. Want to see the PIPE. On which resources flow, they are directed and controlled from the moment of production to the moment of consumption. This desire is the material cause of the conflict between Russia and the United States (with their satellites). Whatever our Russian elite of the period of the 90-ies, but it can not be called purely anti-national. In their own way, some of those who came in 1991. to the power of people understood the activity as useful for the country and its population. Blatant historical and political (economic) illiteracy put “blinders” and President Yeltsin and many of his associates. It seemed to them that in the interests of the West, Russia’s integration into its structure on the rights of a Junior, but a real partner. It was assumed that the West will not only “take”, but also something “share”, and even if you do not share anything, it is still economic prosperity and social guarantees with a high standard of living will be provided by fair trade in resources with a sharp reduction in government spending on defense, as” unnecessary ” in a long-term strategic Alliance with the former enemy. It is because of this “starry-eyed” setting (“We’re you voluntarily surrendered? Well, put us on our feet, like Germany and Japan!”) from 1991 to 1999.

Russia obediently followed the political and economic interests of the “winners”, thoughtlessly and immediately fulfilling all their requirements and recommendations. And if from the voluntary political subordination to this installation under President Vladimir Putin began a gradual departure, which came in 2014. until the complete gap, the economic it continues to this time. However, a gradual understanding of the fact that no one in the United States and the West as a whole intends to consider Russia otherwise than as a disenfranchised raw material appendage has led to a course adjustment. Russian claims, which at first sounded like timid wishes to “show respect”, came across counter claims of the conditional West. After all, as the Russian elite grew understanding of ignoring “partners” the most intimate and vital interests of the country, the”West”, on the contrary, showed more and more appetites towards the remnants of economic and political sovereignty of Russia. Let’s try to draw a diagram of what it looks like in the eyes of the international (i.e. Western) financial and industrial oligarchy of the modern Russian economic system. As “PIPE”. No further.

Through the pipe are resources controlled by the West sector of the economy. In the opposite direction there are limited investments and, mainly, a stream of cut green paper in payment of the delivered. A significant part of this flow then returns back to the West in the form of investments, deposits, etc. (in the eyes of most of our homegrown oligarchs, the West has already become an “Avalon”, where they dream to embed themselves forever). However, unfortunately, much of the money and resources remain in Russia. On it are “burdens” – population (140 million people) with his social security private large army with expensive nuclear weapons, air force and Navy), the remnants of the science, space, education, health, etc. They are, however, regularly destroy and finish, but the rates are still low. The state apparatus eats a lot, again. Industry, which did not have time or too lazy to buy and bankrupt. If all this is a “burden” to carry and keep around the “pipes” only by service personnel (for Margaret Thatcher–50 million in the former USSR) then the “return” pipe (efficiency) will increase very significantly. Perhaps–at times. And the released vital components (not only and not so much even oil and gas, and clean fresh water, forests and related bio-resources) can be directed to the benefit of the “avalon population”. Dispose of “extra natives”, by the way, you can, to pit them, for example, with the following dangerously growing enemy, falling under the” reduction ” – with China. But more on that below. And let as a result of “utilization” on ruins of Russia there will be at least hundred small “encumbrances” in the form of mini-States, all of them will be absolutely under control and at case any of them it will be possible “to lead to humility” quickly, cheap and effectively, as unfortunate Libya. Part of these mini-States, being “away from the pipe” will become deserted and feral, but who cares about the natives?

Let’s move on to Ukraine, as the most important and “hot” point on the whole territory of the post-Soviet space. What are the similarities and differences between Ukraine, for example,15 years ago defeated Yugoslavia or modern Tunisia? The similarity is in the technologies used under the direct patronage of Western (primarily American) special services. Taking advantage of the failure and total corruption of the local sub-elite (which themselves and nurtured more than two decades), to arouse popular discontent and (under the leadership of the same sub-elite) to send it to self-destruction. To provoke an acute social and economic crisis and internal instability. Goals? It is simple to primitiveness. In the economic sphere: to destroy industrial production tied to the Russian market and integrated since the Soviet times. One shot “kills two birds with one stone” – destroys competition to Western corporations in Ukraine and undermined (by the destruction of production and supply of components) high – tech (primarily military) production in Russia. In the political sphere: to put a blade in the face of an openly hostile source state and a” model “for internal turmoil to the” Russian sub – heart”.

We have to state with regret that the US has already successfully solved both problems. Ukraine as an independent state by its own oligarchy laid itself in a coffin. No matter how the events unfolded, the changes are irreversible. The country is doomed to disintegration and degradation, and the people – to depopulation and mass emigration even in that hypothetical case if the military victory in Novorossiya and even in even more fantastic option of a victory over Russia is won. Ukraine can save itself only in one way – an immediate return to a state of close friendship with the Russian Federation, and even better – with its membership or, at least, in the Union state. But so far it also sounds fantastic. And the reason for this fantastic lies not in the policy of Kiev, and in the position of Moscow. Ukraine as an instrument is only its importance for the United States and its allies. Tool “disposable” – which after use is not a pity to break or throw in the dirt. Goal–Russia. The last Eurasian country, close in culture and origin of the majority of the titular population to the European civilization, which retains the potential for its own sovereign economic and political development. And quite weakened as a result of the geopolitical collapse of the last century. In the governing structures of which there are too many people and groups, still considering the “Washington regional Committee” as the only and natural legitimate authority. All predators, when attacked, choose a weaker animal, not able to resist. Now USA and allies, unbeknownst to ourselves past the peak of their own power and, for a number of reasons (which touch in the context of this topic does not make sense) also rapidly weakening requires more than just the “victim” and a “prize” that would allow them another 5-10 years to ensure prosperity. Resources, brains, just working hands, and perhaps – even as the same “one — time tool” against the next strategic enemy-China. This requires little-not getting involved in a global war (the loss of which is still unacceptable), to ensure the re-transition of power in Russia in the hands of full puppets (candidates in such a dime a dozen).

And the role of Ukraine in this process is gradually becoming crucial

Having failed or not decided to support Yanukovych (he did everything possible for his overthrow), Moscow was faced with a choice – to reconcile with the loss or fight. The choice was, as they say,”between bad or very bad.” However, reality has surpassed all expectations. The “intermediate” option was chosen: “neither two nor one and a half”. As often happens, he was the worst of the worst. On the one hand, Russia did not passively wait until it was finally humiliated and expelled from Sevastopol, when all the partner enterprises working for its military-industrial complex were liquidated within the framework of “bringing to European standards”. But and go until the end of, too, not come around. Folk performances of the Russian population of Ukraine received the support of untimely, insufficient and indecisive. Defeat the enemy while he was extremely weak and virtually helpless, did not dare.

Events went on the usual for the United States and the West: on the path of negotiations and concessions. As they say “step forward-two steps back”. The same thing happened in the 90s in the former Yugoslavia, where the decisive and successful actions of the JNA over and over again “stopped” subsequent diplomatic agreements until the moment when the enemy became so strong that he could win a military victory. To continue the topic I will not – it is not time it was covered. I believe that you are well aware of such a recent history. In fact, Russia is involved in a heavy bloody conflict, and the fact that Russian troops are not directly involved in it directly on the territory of Donbass, does not play a decisive role. Starting with the Crimean events in the eyes of the whole world (the worldview of which, unfortunately, is formed mainly by the Western media), Russia is represented by the aggressor. And even the attempt of” honorable retreat “demonstrated by” Minsk-1 “and” Minsk-2 ” was not accepted by the enemy and was not met with understanding. Ukraine, armed with the US and NATO, is continuously preparing for war. As an example of the upcoming actions in the Ukrainian blogosphere openly discussed the operation of the Croatian army to destroy the Serbian Krajina, whose defeat was so rapid that YUNA did not have time to intervene. Why does the Kiev regime need a new escalation of hostilities? If Poroshenko came from the real interests of Ukraine and its people, then for anything. According to common sense, he would have to cry with joy, concluding the Minsk agreement, allowing him to keep the Donbass in the country and stop the suicidal war for the state. But for the United States, which managed (as they believe) to lure Russia into a strategic deadlock-trap, such a solution is impossible. They need a war and they will achieve it by all means. Even if Russia “closes its eyes” to the military destruction of new Russia, inevitably followed by an escalation in the Crimea. With that, Ukraine’s military victory over Russia for the United States is not particularly necessary, because it is unreal. Long, stupid, indecisive war, constantly and gradually expanding and more and more bloody-that’s the goal. The West will arrange even the expansion of new Russia beyond the Donbass-if only the front remained. The longer it is,the better. And will remain at the same level–too not bad.

Victory in this war, see Anglo-Saxons, not in the form of tank columns with yellow-Blakytny prapor on red Square, and by analogy with February 1917, when, tired of the protracted and futile war then Russian society more recently (in 1914) enthusiastically singing “God save the Tsar!”under the balcony of the Winter Palace, with no less enthusiasm supported inspired from the outside and led from the inner circle of the King conspiracy and rebellion, the consequences of which are well known to all of you. The only thing that now does not suit the West, so it is a complete and rapid military victory of Russia, the defeat and surrender of the anti-people and puppet Kiev regime, the liberation of new Russia, the liberation of Kiev and the conduct of Ukraine really free elections. They are afraid and try to prevent methods of “carrot and stick”. That threatening expansion of sanctions, enticing their unprofitable cancellation and return “to the European family”. Unfortunately, we can say that this time-tested tactic is still, judging by the actions, not solved by those who determine Russia’s policy in the Ukrainian direction. Although, it may be that the prospect of finally being ” outlawed “in the eyes of the international financial oligarchy of many” liberals ” in the country’s leadership is more frightening than the repetition of the catastrophe a century ago.»

The post GEOPOLITICAL CONFLICTS IN THE POST-SOVIET SPACE first appeared on Global Policy.