THE U.S. TO MOVE AND LOSE

 

The world lives in anticipation of war. Or rather, in a state of war. The fact that it was not officially announced should not be misleading. In any case, it should not deceive the Russian World, which in the last century was four times the target of aggression from the Western powers. The First World War and the subsequent intervention of former allies with the aim of dismembering and destroying our country, the unprecedented cruelty of the Patriotic War with the Europe united by fascists, the Russian-Japanese war planned by the British cost our people tens of millions of lives. Together with the three revolutions that were organized not without aid of the Western powers, as well as subsequent civil wars, repressions and ethnic conflicts, they cost our country, as F.M. Dostoyevsky[1] prophetically warned, 100 million human lives.

A century since the beginning of the First World War was celebrated by the Western powers with a new intervention against Russia, when last year they arranged a coup d’é tat in Kiev and, in fact, occupied Ukraine transferring power to

the puppet neo-Nazi regime. The latter does not conceal its ideological continuity in relation to Hitler’s collaborators, openly declaring Bandera, Shukhevych and other fascist henchmen as their heroes. Just as the Hitlerites used them mainly to carry out massacres and punitive operations against the locals, NATO’s current stooges commit mass murders of residents on territories beyond their control and repress tens of thousands of citizens who disagree with Nazi ideology. In the methods of their action, including burning people alive, use of weapons prohibited by international law, torture and other crimes against humanity, the current neo-Nazis are no different from their fascist idols exemplary to the German occupation. It is not without reason that Ukrainian residents similize the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU), guided by the U.S. instructors, to Hitler’s Gestapo, and " volunteer battalions" to SS executioners. At the same time, the Ukrainian neo-Nazis themselves do not hesitate to make a display of the Third Reich’s fascist symbols.

An unexpected reincarnation of Hitlerite Nazis in Ukraine, as well as of the radical followers of Muhammad in the " Islamic State, " who are bringing war to the civilized world in the third millennium after Christ, put supporters of the linear model of human development to shame. After the collapse of the USSR and the world socialist system, the end of history did not occur, contrary to the opinion of the Washington’s apologists[2]. Neither socialism, nor the crisis of capitalism did disappear. The former, however, acquired the specific Chinese character and integrated the mechanisms of market self-organization, creating a new type of socio-economic relations, which P. Sorokin half a century ago prophetically called the integral system. The latter, having assumed an appearance of the global financial crisis, has acquired a global scale.

Similar to the Great Depression of the 1930s, the global financial crisis did not inflict damage on socialist economies, including Vietnam, Cuba, and the North Korea retaining its uniqueness. On the contrary, just as the USSR used the Great Depression in the capitalist countries for the purposes of socialist industrialization, China, having mastered a wide range of Western technologies, engaged itself in rallying of the domestic market in reaction to the world crisis. A quarter of a century since the USSR collapse, the renewed socialist idea once again demonstrates its superiority over the world of capital. Going up against Chinese socialism, the latter repeats the same technique used by the Western powers in the struggle against the USSR – the cultivation of archaic aggressive regimes with a militant Nazi or quasi-religious ideology with the aim of inciting them against geopolitical competitors.

As they say, history repeats itself. Of course, these are but historical parallels illustrating the complexity of the global economic development process. The only invariable thing remaining in it, according to the apt expression of the President of Russia V.V. Putin, is geopolitics. More precisely, it is the attitude of the Western powers towards Russia, with the aim of destroying which geopolitics was actually justified as a pseudo-science on international relations. Its anti-Russian essence did not change either after the collapse of the World Socialist system or after the collapse of the USSR, remaining the same as in the times of the Russian Empire. This brings up the question about the reasons for the immutable Russophobia of the Anglo-Saxon, Germanic, and, in general, the Western geopolitical school. Leaving it unanswered makes it impossible to explain either the current anti-Russian hysteria in the West, or, all the more so, to predict the further actions of Western politicians.

As our Western " partners" apparently think in terms of geopolitics, after their analysis one can try to make a forecast of their further behavior. Otherwise, we will only measure the folly of the statements coming from representatives of the U.S. authorities in " Psaki" units, without understanding the logic of their actions. And this logic certainly exists, since the American taxpayers have to pay a considerable price for these actions and, consequently, they need to know the answer to the question " why? "

Judging by the unanimity with which both chambers of the Congress vote for anti-Russian resolutions, the American establishment knows the answer to this question. Or, at least, it thinks that it knows. Would you believe that the U.S. secret services staged the Maidan with subsequent political terror, massacres and a threefold fall in the standard of living ultimately for the good of the unfortunate Ukrainians?

For an inexperienced reader, geopolitics seems to be an intricate juggling with familiar words furnished with a meaning hidden and incomprehensible to the uninitiated. Let us mention, for example, the opposition of land and sea that has become classical in Western political science textbooks. More precisely, the opposition of landlocked and seafaring countries allegedly doomed to rivalry between each other. For Russia, a country located between three oceans, this contraposition seems at most an entertaining mind game, just as the concept of the Heartland – the Middle Earth, the control over which supposedly gives dominance over the world[3]. Being geographically the true Heartland of Eurasia, Russia was vitally in need of access to the ice-free seas for international trade. For a normal, self-sufficient development, it needed both land and sea. To protect itself against greedy neighbors, it needed both the army and the fleet.

Russian geopolitics has always been substantive and was determined either by internal needs (" to cut a window through to Europe" ) or by external threats (to accept the oppressed fraternal peoples under the protection of the White Tsar). Therefore, the abstract constructions of Western political thought seem enigmatic and obscure to the Russian mind. The same applies to its practical embodiment in the foreign policy of the Western powers. For example, their obsession with Drang nach Osten invariable for centuries, an unrestrained desire to seize our lands and destroy our people[4]. It would seem that the famous biblical dictum " all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword" used to be repeatedly tested by the Western European aggressors the hard way, so that they could have calmed down by now. But over again, even in the third millennium after Christ they continue to violently violate the commandments " thou shalt not kill" and " thou shalt not steal" that He gave. Yet again, they are waging war on us relying on their multifold financial and material superiority.

However, up to now, wars with Russia have not brought great victories to the West. However, they inflicted considerable damage both on Russia and on Europe. Though it concerned not all of Europe, but its mainland, which was trodden by Russian troops time and again on their way to finish off the aggressor in its lair. As for Britain, it has always remained outside the combat operations zone, actively participating in them on foreign territory. Likewise, the inhabitants of the U.S. also escaped the horrors of two world wars, considering themselves nonetheless their winners. One cannot help wondering about the secret of the Anglo-Saxon geopolitics, which allows them for more than two centuries by now to dominate the greater part of the planet, to wage wars on all continents, and never once during this period to admit the enemy on their territory.

This question is not quite simple as it could seem. At least twice – Napoleon in 1812, and Hitler in 1940 – the adversaries of Great Britain had enough power to crush it. But they attacked Russia instead, leaving their back open to the British. Indeed, if we assume that Napoleon would have persuaded Alexander I to conclude an alliance and obtain the hand of his sister in marriage, the Great Britain would have been doomed. Instead, he got himself involved into a suicidal campaign against Moscow. After a century and a half, Hitler did repeat the same mistake. How would Europe and the world have looked today, had Napoleon bound himself with the Russian emperor by ties of kinship, and had Hitler not violated the peace treaty with the USSR? It is unlikely that Britain could have withstood the onslaught of a united Europe. Why did the two European superpowers of their time, instead of the obvious path to domination in Europe (and consequently, in the world) through conquering a small and vulnerable Britain, get involved in a hopeless war with the Eurasian giant?

We may as well ask a symmetrical question regarding Russian geopolitics that allowed the country to be drawn into exhausting wars with enormous human and material losses. Alexander I could have avoided the war with Napoleon who, for the sake of union with him, twice asked the hand of his sisters in marriage. Nicholas II could have steered clear of the senseless and fatal First World War with his cousin. Both times Russia played for Britain, and both times, it suffered huge losses. The first time it paid with the ruin of Moscow, and thereafter with costly restoration of European monarchies and upkeep of the royal courts that hated us. The second time brought death of the empire, civil war, and millions of innocently lost lives.

The British, on the other hand, both times turned up winners. As a result of the defeat of Napoleon’s Europe, Britain took control of the European market and became the " queen of the seas, " eliminating its main competitor in the struggle for overseas colonies. The First World War resulted in collapse of all monarchial empires that remained in Europe, the territory of which, with the exception of Soviet Russia, was left completely open to be developed by English capital. The British government did not even consider it necessary to dissemble its profound satisfaction with the overthrow of the Russian Tsar, who was a relative of Her Majesty. When the Prime Minister Lloyd George learned about the Emperor’s abdication, he rubbed his hands and said: " One of the war goals has been achieved" [5]. And as soon as a civil war burst out in Russia, the recent ally resorted to military intervention, trying to seize Russian territory and, together with France, Japan and the U.S., to dismember the country into zones of influence.

Of course, historians will find many explanations to all these events. Nevertheless, the fact remains that they represented a striking success of British geopolitics on the one hand, and the Russian losses from involvement in it on the other hand. This concerns other countries as well, for which a cooperation with the British turned into disasters. As was wisely noted by the Russian geopolitician Alexei Edrikhin (Vandam): " There can only be one thing worse than enmity with an Anglo-Saxon, that is, friendship with him" [6].

The brilliant analyst C. Marchetti[7] noticed once that nations behave like individuals. Just as humans, they compete, intrigue, envy and squabble under the influence of emotion. An anthropocentric view of international relations often manifests itself in a political vocabulary, when with regard to an entire nation it is said " kick their teeth in, " " kick their ass, " " fray nerves, " " punish, " and so on. If we follow this analogy, then the question arises of the importance of a system of moral values in international relations. Do they play an equally important role in relations between nations, as in relations between individuals? And if this is so, then what is the peculiarity of the British geopolitical ethics? And how is it different, say, from the Russian one?

Russian national consciousness, according to F.M. Dostoyevsky, is distinguished by a " universal responsiveness." It was clearly manifested in foreign policy, both of the Russian Empire and of the Soviet Union. Tsars responded to pleas of the oppressed peoples, accepting them as their subjects and helping in development. Russia considered itself responsible for the entire Orthodox and Slavic world, sacrificing many Russian soldiers to protect Georgia from the belligerent Caucasian tribes and free the Balkans from the Ottoman yoke. And it completely lost its head getting involved in the world war because of the Austrian threat to Serbian autonomy, and the obsession to drive the Turks from Constantinople and the straits. The USSR was waging a grueling struggle to build socialism on all the continents of the planet, helping the communist parties, national liberation movements and socialism-oriented developing nations. In the end, it got stuck in Afghanistan in order to neutralize the dubious threat of interception of control over this country by the U.S.

In other words, Russian geopolitics has always been directed toward helping the fraternal peoples. Unlike the English, who practiced slave trade in their colonies, the peoples of the territories that joined the Russian Empire were not discriminated against, and their leaders were included in the Russian ruling elite. In the USSR, the priority was given to improvement of its remote parts – indeed, the Soviet empire was the only one in the world that developed its " colonies" at the expense of the center, and did not derive super-profits from them, as was done by the British in India, China, Africa and America.

The paramount importance of ideology also manifested itself in the allied relations that Russia built in different historical epochs. During the First World War, the Russian Empire suffered excessive losses, going at the request of the Allies into an unprepared offensive to divert the German troops from Paris, and sent an expeditionary force to help the French. To give up life " for one’s friends" is as sacred for Russian geopolitics as it is for a Russian person. Millions of lives were given while liberating Europe from fascism. But Stalin could have stopped at liberating the USSR by agreeing to a separate peace with Germany in exchange for reparations and liberation of the Slavic peoples, handing the battlefield over to the Anglo-Saxons?!

The Anglo-Saxons behaved differently. While the Russians shed blood dragging German forces from the Western Front in the First World War, the British secret services were preparing a revolution in Petersburg. Pulling the Russian emperor into an alliance and into a war against Germany, the British simultaneously planned his dethronement. Entangling the Russian establishment with Masonic networks, recruiting generals and politicians, seizing control over the media, discrediting and physically eliminating influential opponents, British geopoliticians made considerable progress in manipulating the Russian nitty-gritty of politics. The assassination of Stolypin opened for them the way to prepare the Russian ruling elite to the war, and the elimination of Rasputin by an English spy – the way to revolution. All the fatal mistakes made by the Tsar were played against him as slick as slick can be. By killing the heir to the Austrian throne in Sarajevo, the organizers of the war unerringly triggered the decision of the Russian Tsar to mobilize, unleashing a ultrapatriotic hysteria through the media. Likewise, two and a half years later they provoked a riot in Petersburg and a conspiracy of the military and political elite against the Tsar, which ended with his abdication and subsequent collapse of the monarchy.

Thus far, enough data has been accumulated to confirm the critical importance of British geopolitics in unleashing the First World War by manipulating the ruling circles of the countries participating in it, as well as in organizing the February Revolution in Russia. The conduct of Anglo-Saxons was not any better on the eve of and during the Second World War. Favorably taking the seizure of power in Germany by the Nazis, the U.S.-British oligarchy continued to invest heavily in German industry, having pumped in its modernization about 2 trillion USD, in terms of modern prices.

On the eve of the Second World War, U.S. corporations and banks invested 800 million USD in German industry and financial system. An enormous amount of money at the time. Of these, the top four U.S. corporations invested about 200 million USD in the militarized economy of Germany: " Standard Oil" – 120 million, " General Motors" – 35 million, telecommunications company " ITT" – 30 million, and " Ford" – 17.5 million USD[8].

The fact that cannot but shock is that even after the U.S. entered the Second World War on December 11, 1941, U.S. corporations continued to actively fulfill orders of companies from enemy countries, maintaining the activities of their branches in Germany, Italy, and even Japan. For this purpose, it was only necessary to apply for a special permit to carry out economic activities with companies controlled by Nazis or their allies. The Executive Order of the U.S. President dated December 13, 1941 allowed such transactions and doing business with enemy companies, unless there was a special ban imposed by the U.S. Department of the Treasury. Very often, U.S. corporations had no problems in receiving permits for operations with enemy companies, supplying them with necessary steel, engines, aviation fuel, rubber, radio engineering components, etc...[9] Thus, power of the military industry of Germany and its allies was supported by the economic activities of the U.S., the companies of which received super profits for their deals with the enemy[10]. The fascist German authorities and Hitler personally obtained from the Anglo-Saxons not only economic but also political support. In 1938, in Munich, British Prime Minister Chamberlain gave his blessing for a military campaign against the USSR to the fascist beast, which had been raised with the help of Anglo-Saxon money, sacrificing to it Poland that was allied with Britain. He even personally saved Hitler from a conspiracy of German generals who were afraid to make war, preventing the coup revealed by the British intelligence by his unexpected visit to the Fü hrer.

Until opening-up of the second front in 1944, U.S. corporations continued to receive dividends from their assets in Germany, cashing in on the war. According the famous phrase uttered by G. Truman in 1941, " If we see that Germany is winning we ought to help Russia, and if Russia is winning we ought to help Germany, and that way let them kill as many as possible."

However, the U.S. did not have time to help Germany, as the Red Army was advancing too fast. They had to break the Munich Agreement and open up the second front in order to keep control over Western Europe at least. At the same time, on the initiative of Churchill, Operation Unthinkable was planned, that is, an attack on the allied USSR by the U.S. and Britain using the Wehrmacht’s remnant troops. Despite the fact that the German troops, as is known, did not put up a serious resistance against the Anglo-American troops, the rapid advance of the Red Army towards Berlin thwarted these insidious plans. Nevertheless, Yankees let many fascists remain in the ranks to prepare for a new war against the USSR. Likewise, they rescued tens of thousands of Nazi collaborators, taking them out of Ukraine to be used against the Soviet Union. They proved useful, however, only after its disintegration, to nurture Ukrainian Nazism in order to draw Russia into a new war with the Europe united by NATO.

The very collapse of the USSR involved an active participation of the U.S. secret services. It is enough to read the book of P. Schweitzer " Victory" [11], to be convinced of the fundamental role of the U.S. secret services in the USSR collapse. Again, we have to marvel at their artful and systemic approach as opposed to our naï veté and helplessness.

The reasoning that the Soviet Union collapsed under the pressure of internal problems has not a leg to stand on. The recession which first occurred in its centrally planned economy in the late 1980s, is not to be compared with the collapse of the early 1990s. Discontent of the population with shortage of essential goods and queue lines pales in comparison with a drastic drop in consumption and living standards after shock therapy in the transition to a market economy. After the Chinese economic miracle, it can be reliably asserted that if the Soviet and then the post-Soviet leadership had chosen a gradual path of successive formation of market mechanisms and creation of conditions for private entrepreneurship while maintaining state control, ownership and planning in basic and infrastructure sectors, including the banking sector and the media, then the disaster would not have happened. Not China, but the USSR would have become the nucleus of the formation of a new world economic paradigm based on the theory developed by a number of Soviet and American scientists of the convergence (combination) of capitalist and socialist economic development mechanisms premised on harmonization of private and public interests under government control[12].

However, the USSR governing bodies, including most of the leaders of the union republics, were struck by a cognitive weapon, a false understanding of the social and economic development laws imposed by Western influence agents, the far-fetched " universal human values" and " human rights, " the illusory guidelines of market democracy. A " new thinking" was formed in the heads of political leaders, which denied the existing order for the sake of radical changes for the better. The image of the latter was a rose-colored mist, while the shortcomings of the existing order of things looked distinct and seemed beyond correction. At the same time, there was a discrediting of the knowledge and historical experience holders, who were defamed as retrogrades and dogmatists. They were ridiculed, sacked, removed in every possible way from the top leadership, which was thus isolated from the knowledge holders, and its mind was opened to manipulation by Western influence agents.

Simultaneously with the disorientation of the USSR top leadership, the American secret services were preparing a strike unit of the new political force with the aim of overthrowing it. Today, at the offices of the National Democratic Institute and the International Republican Institute in Washington, one can see propaganda posters and leaflets of Yeltsin’s election campaign of 1990, which, under the guise of Gorbachev’s glorification as a modern world leader, was led by the U.S. secret services. They were creating a network of influence agents with the aim of destroying the USSR, simultaneously extolling Gorbachev for his Perestroika, the essence of which was reduced to self-destruction of the country’s governance system and a sharp increase in chaos. As soon as chaos allowed to organize a new political force, Gorbachev was put under heavy pressure by the Western leaders who enjoyed his confidence, in order to paralyze the political will and deter from using legal force to restore order. At the same time Yeltsin, fostered by the U.S. secret services and surrounded by Western agents of influence, organized an anti-Soviet Maidan at the Supreme Soviet of the RSFSR, paralyzing the activities of the Union’s government bodies. The Belavezha collusion of the leaders of the three Slavic republics, who had been pre-prepared by the U.S. influence agents, organized shortly thereafter with the support of the U.S. leadership, buried the USSR. The communist leaders of the former Soviet republics instantly flip-flopped to nationalists, engaging themselves in establishment of oligarchic dictatorships of their personal power in the new national states on an anticommunist and Russophobic basis.

With the collapse of the USSR, the Americans started colonization of the post-Soviet space, imposing on the leaders of the fresh independent states a " shock therapy" policy based on the unscientific dogmas of market fundamentalism, that proved suicidal for their economic sovereignty. And once again, the national scientific community was cut off from influencing the decision-making, its authoritative representatives were scoffed as loony retrogrades in comparison with the " young reformers" artificially grown by the U.S. experts. These latter implemented the " Washington Consensus" doctrine imposed by the U.S. oligarchy, the essence of which was reduced to dismantling the governmental economy regulation system with a view of its full exposure to the free movement of foreign capital, mainly the American one, and subordination to its interests.

Parallel to the colonization of the post-Soviet space by the Western capital, the U.S. geopoliticians strongly encouraged centrifugal tendencies, proclaiming as their main goal the prevention of the formation of a new power comparable to them in terms of influence. At the same time, in accordance with the German-Anglo-Saxon geopolitical tradition, the main emphasis was laid on the separation of Ukraine from Russia and further disintegration of the latter. Demonstrating every kind of support to Yeltsin and extolling him as a world-recognized political leader, including an invitation to the G7 club, uniting the leaders of the world’s major powers, they simultaneously encouraged separatism of the national republics, sponsoring a mutiny in Chechnya and provoking a war in the Caucasus. The leaders of the U.S., Britain and Germany hugged Yeltsin and promised him eternal peace and friendship on the one hand, while simultaneously pulling the former Union republics into NATO and supporting Chechen militants on the other hand.

Putin stopped the process of Russia’s disintegration, restored the vertical power structure, pacified Chechnya and launched the Eurasian integration process. Thus, he pitched himself against the U.S. geopolitical course in the post-Soviet space and began to be perceived as an enemy by the U.S. political establishment. Having failed with attempts to destabilize the situation in Russia, the U.S. secret services livened up in the post-Soviet space in order to undermine the process of Eurasian integration, which was perceived by the U.S. politicians as " a restoration of the USSR" [13]. In response, the EU Eastern Partnership project was launched with the aim of dragging the post-Soviet republics under the jurisdiction of Brussels as underprivileged members of associations with the EU. This project was supported by a drastic expansion of agent networks and an education of young people in the spirit of primitive nationalism and aggressive Russophobia. A chain of color revolutions arranged by the U.S. secret services raised to power puppet governments in Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia, which began with implementation of a nationalistic Russophobic policy. In all cases, this policy led to the split of society and resort to violence against other-minded people. In Georgia and Moldova, this split ended in collapse of the state, in Ukraine it led to the seizure of power by neo-Nazis and the formation of a neo-fascist regime that started a war with its own people.

It is no longer a secret to anyone that the main and only goal of the U.S. geopolitics in the post-Soviet space is the separation of the new independent states from Russia and the abolition of their independence by compelling them to enter the EU jurisdiction. This goal is motivated not only by a desire to restrain or weaken Russia. Western capital controls its financial market, the main players of which depend on foreign loans, keep their savings in offshore zones under Anglo-Saxon jurisdiction, have the citizenship of Western states and also bring up their children there. The last year slump of the ruble exchange rate, as well as pulling of the Russian economy in a stagflationary trap, demonstrated Washington’s ability to manipulate the macroeconomic situation in Russia[14].

The U.S. politicians justify their aggression against modern Russia by accusing the Russian leadership of striving for a revival of the USSR. However, the absurdity of such suspicions is quite obvious to any unbiased observer. Unlike the Soviet Union, rigidly united by the general ideology of building socialism headed by the CPSU, the Eurasian Economic Union is nothing more than a common market of democratic states with an open market economy, the difference of which from the countries of classical capitalism, if any, lies in the greater role of big capital and the lesser significance of the state. Fears of the USSR revival on the basis of the Eurasian Economic Union are far less grounded than the risks of the Third Reich’s revival within the European Union area. In any case, the EEU today has a much less bureaucratic and centralized management system than the EU, which by the degree of concentration of functions in a supranational body may be called a bureaucratic empire.

From an unbiased point of view, there is no need for the U.S. to restrain Russia, as its macroeconomic condition is being manipulated by the Washington international organizations, and the financial market – by the U.S. profiteers. Also, there is no sense for the

U.S. in anti-Russian sanctions, since Russia is not a recipient, but a donor of the Western financial system yielding to it about 150 billion USD annually. Why has the U.S. deployed a hybrid war against Russia, seeing that the exploitation of its economy brings huge profits to American capital, and many generals of Russian business voluntarily transferred themselves under American command, hiding their capitals from the Russian government in offshore areas under Anglo-Saxon jurisdiction?

It’s not a matter of restraining Russia. The stakes are much higher. This is a battle for global leadership, in which the U.S. hegemony is being undermined by China’s growing influence. The U.S. loses this fight, which provokes the aggression of their ruling elite. Its object has become Russia which, in accordance with the European geopolitical tradition, is regarded as the possessor of the mythological " Heartland, " domination over which, according to the conviction of Anglo-German geopoliticians, provides control over the world.

The world, however, does not remain unchanged. Whereas two hundred years ago the Russian Empire had the dominant influence in the world, and not a single cannon could fire in Europe without the permission of the Russian Tsar[15], nowadays the global economy is controlled by Western multinational corporations, the expansion of which is supported by unlimited issuance of world currencies. Monopoly on the issue of world money forms the basis for the power of the Western financial oligarchy, whose interests are served by the military and political machine of the U.S. and their NATO allies. After the collapse of the USSR and disintegration of the global socialist system associated with it, this power became universal, and the U.S. leadership seemed final. However, any economic system has its limits of development determined by the laws of reproduction of its technological and institutional structure.

The current escalation of international military and political tensions is caused by a change in technological and world economic paradigms, in the course of which a profound structural reorganization of the economy takes place based on conceptually new technologies and new mechanisms for reproduction of capital.

Modern studies of long-term laws of economic development make it possible to convincingly explain the ongoing crisis processes, both in the global and in the national economy. Such phenomena as hikes and drops of oil prices, inflation of financial bubbles, a decline in production in the main sectors of the economy that led to depression in the advanced countries, along with the rapid spread of new technologies and the rise of catching countries, have been predicted in advance by the theory of long waves. On this basis, recommendations were developed in the field of economic policy, and a strategy of advanced development was defined providing for creation of conditions for the growth of a new technological paradigm[16].

However, the recommendations of Russian scientists working within the evolutionary economy paradigm were ignored by the ruling elite blindfolded by the market fundamentalism doctrine. The economy went through a series of artificially created crises and lost a significant part of the national income due to the nonequivalent foreign economic exchange, degrading in the aftermath. The scientific and technical potential available in the Russian economy has not been utilized. Instead of a rise on a new long wave of global economic growth, it came off into a crisis, accompanied by a degradation of the remaining scientific and technological potential, and a growing technological lag versus both advanced and successfully developing countries. Among the latter, particular success has been achieved by China, the leadership of which has been acting in accordance with the above-mentioned strategy of outstripping development of a new technological paradigm with simultaneous modernization of traditional industries on it basis.

All the " objective" explanations for the high growth rates of the Chinese economy by its original backwardness are partly true. Partly, because they ignore the main thing – the creative approach of the Chinese leadership to building a new system of production relations which, as the Chinese economy advances to the leading position in the world, becomes more self-sufficient and more attractive. The Chinese themselves call their formation a socialist one, developing at the same time private entrepreneurship and growing capitalist corporations. At the same time, the Communist leadership of China continues to build socialism, avoiding ideological cliché s. They prefer to formulate tasks in terms of national welfare, setting objectives to overcome poverty and create a society of average prosperity, and in the future, to achieve the world’s foremost standards of living. In so doing, they try to avoid excessive social inequality, preserving the labor base for the distribution of national income and directing the institutions of economic regulation towards productive activities and long-term investments in the development of productive forces. This is a common special feature of the countries forming the core of the Asian cycle of capital accumulation, or, in our terminology, an integrated world economic paradigm[17].

Regardless of the dominant form of ownership – public, as in China or Vietnam, or private, as in Japan or Korea, the integrated world economic paradigm is characterized by a combination of governmental planning institutions and market self-organization, public control over the main parameters of the economy reproduction and free entrepreneurship, ideology of public welfare and private initiative. Given that, the forms of political organization can fundamentally differ from the world’s largest Indian democracy to the world’s largest Communist Party of China. The invariable constant is priority of national interests over private ones, which is expressed in strict mechanisms of personal responsibility of citizens for conscientious behavior, proper fulfillment of their duties, compliance with laws, and serving nationwide goals. In this context, the forms of public control can also fundamentally differ, from seppuku committed by top managers of bankrupt banks in Japan to death penalty applied to officials in China who were caught stealing. The social and economic development management system is built on mechanisms of personal responsibility for enhancing the national welfare.

The primacy of public interests over private ones is expressed in the institutional structure of economic regulation typical for the integrated world economic paradigm. First and foremost, in the state control over the basic parameters of capital reproduction through mechanisms of planning, credit, subsidizing, pricing, and regulation of basic entrepreneurial conditions. In so doing, the government not so much issues orders as performs a moderator’s role forming mechanisms of social partnership and interaction between the basic social groups. Officials do not try to manage entrepreneurs, instead they organize joint work of business, scientific, engineering communities to form common development goals and elaborate methods for their achievement. The mechanisms for public regulation of the economy are also tuned up to this end.

Of course, the cyclic regularities described above might not work out this time. However, judging by the behavior of the U.S. authorities, they are doing everything possible to cede their leadership to China. The hybrid war launched by them against Russia pushes it toward a strategic alliance with China, increasing the latter’s capabilities. Additional incentives appear for deepening and developing the SCO, which is becoming a full-fledged regional association. The EEU and SCO serve as basis for emergence of the world’s largest economic space of preferential trade and cooperation, uniting half of the Old World.

Attempts by the U.S. to arrange coups d’é tat in Brazil, Venezuela, Bolivia are pushing South America out of the American hegemony. Brazil, already participating in the BRICS coalition, has every reason to strive for a preferential trade regime and the development of cooperation with the SCO countries. This creates opportunities for the formation of the world’s largest economic association of the countries consisting of the EEU, SCO, MERCOSUR, which is likely to be joined by ASEAN. Additional incentives for such a broad integration, which would encompass more than half of the population, productive and natural potential of the planet, are given by the obsessive urge the U.S. to form the Pacific and Transatlantic zones of preferential trade and cooperation without participation of the BRICS countries.

The U.S. is making the same mistake as the previous world leader, Great Britain, which at the time of the Great Depression sought to protect its colonial empire from American goods through protectionist measures. However, as a result of the Second World War provoked by British geopolitics in order to block the development of Germany, strengthen domination in Europe and establish control over the USSR territory, Britain lost its empire along with the collapse of the whole system of European colonialism that was constraining the global economic development. Nowadays, the U.S. financial empire has become such a restraint, drawing all the resources of the planet into servicing of the ever growing U.S. debt pyramid. The amount of their public debt is increasing exponentially, and the size of all U.S. debt commitments already exceeds by more than an order of magnitude the U.S. GDP, which indicates the imminent collapse of the American, and in the future, of the entire Western financial system.

To avoid the collapse and retain global leadership, the American financial oligarchy seeks to unleash a world war. It would allow writing off debts and maintaining control over the periphery, destroying competitors, or at least deterring them. As always in such cases, in the first instance the war is unfolding for control over the periphery. This explains the U.S. aggression in North Africa, in the Middle East in order to tighten control over this oil-producing region and, at the same time, over Europe. But the direction of the main effort is Russia, because of its key importance in the eyes of the U.S. geopoliticians. Not because of its strengthening, and not as a punishment for reuniting with the Crimea, but because of the traditional Western geopolitical thinking preoccupied with the struggle to retain the world hegemony. And yet again, according to the precepts of Western geopoliticians, the war with Russia begins with a scramble for Ukraine.

For three centuries, Poland at first, then Austria-Hungary, Germany, and now the U.S. have been nurturing the Ukrainian separatism. For this, they constructed the Ukrainian nation – the Russians who hate everything Russian and worship everything European. Until the collapse of the USSR, this project did not have much success, limiting itself to a temporary establishment of the Ukrainian People’s Republic at the point of the German bayonets in 1918, and a formation of the Ukrainian nationalist organizations in 1941-1944 that were subordinate to the occupation authorities. Each time, to keep in power the Ukrainian nationalists raised by them, the Germans resorted to terror against the local population. Beginning with the genocide against the Rusyns organized by the Austrians during the First World War, and ending with mass punitive operations against the population of the Nazi-occupied Ukraine during the Second World War. Today, this tradition is continued by the Americans, who established control over Ukraine after the coup d’é tat they organized on February 21, 2014, that brought to power the puppet Nazi junta.

Discarding conventionalities, the U.S. secret services organized terror against the Russian population of Ukraine using the Nazis they raised. The Ukrainian neo-fascists, led by the U.S. curators and instructors, commit war crimes in the Donbass, and forcibly mobilize young men " to fight the Russians, " sacrificing them to Ukrainian Nazism. The latter has become the ideology of the Ukrainian regime, which derives its origin from Hitler’s henchmen convicted by the Nuremberg Tribunal as war criminals.

The purpose of the U.S. policy in Ukraine is nether protection of its interests, nor its social and economic development. This goal is reduced to use of the people artificially grown out of those Russians who were duped by Nazi propaganda and believed in their own Ukrainianness as a cannon fodder for unleashing a war against Russia, in the hope of dragging their European NATO partners into this war. Both the First and the Second World War in Europe are considered " good wars" by U.S. historians. They ensured a ramp-up of the U.S. economy due to overseas movement of wealth, capital, intellects and technologies accumulated in Europe. In consequence of these wars, the U.S. escalated to the global leader, having established hegemony over European countries and their former colonies. These days, the American geopolitics again is placing its stake on the incitement of a world war in Europe as a tested means of strengthening its power.

The aggressiveness and ultraism of U.S. politicians that seem ridiculous to many of our experts should be taken very seriously. It is aimed at warmongering, whereas the outright lies and even ostentatious folly of the U.S. speakers are intended only to disguise the seriousness of the American oligarchy’s intentions. It can maintain its global domination only by unleashing a world war. The availability of mass destruction weapons changes the nature of this war. Experts call it a hybrid war, since not so much military forces as information, financial and cognitive technologies are used to maximally weaken and disorient the enemy. And only when the latter is so demoralized that it cannot provide a worthy resistance, in order to secure the victory and make an example of the recalcitrant, military operations are called into play that savor of punitive actions rather than of combat operations.

In precisely this way, avoiding bloody military clashes, the U.S. performed the occupation of Iraq, Yugoslavia, Libya, Georgia and Ukraine. Crucial significance in the hybrid war is given to the skillful combination of financial, information and cognitive technologies. On the financial front, the U.S. has a strategic advantage, having the opportunity to emit world money and conduct currency and financial attacks on national economies of any capacity. On the information front, the U.S. reigns supreme over the world of electronic media, dominates the global movie and television market, controls global telecommunications networks. By combining monetary and financial aggression in the economy with informational indoctrination of public opinion, the U.S. can manipulate motives of the behavior of national ruling elites. A key role in this process is played by cognitive weapons, the affection of the consciousness of national leaders by a false understanding of the essence of the ongoing events and the meanings that are necessary for the U.S. aggression.

Above, we mentioned the importance of the cognitive weapons used by the U.S. to disorient the leadership of the USSR and later, of Russia. In order for it to work, it is necessary to establish trust in the enemy and to deprive it from the possibility of getting an objective idea of what is happening. The first goal is achieved through flattery, bribery and deceit. The second objective is attained by discrediting of the national expert community and its substitution with influence agents, their promotion to all power structures, the media, the higher business, cultural and intellectual sectors of society. Often, the way to solve this dual task is to draw the first-level leaders from the national communication environment to the international one with imposition on them of charming " best in the world" foreign and already prepared national experts and consultants. This method worked great with Gorbachev and Yeltsin, whose " new thinking" was manipulated by experts specially trained in the West, while isolating the reputable national scientists and experts. It also worked with Yanukovych, whose consciousness was manipulated by American advisers, and at the last stage, directly by the leaders of Western countries.

Understanding the technology by which cognitive weapons affect consciousness does not give an automatic protection against it. Even very intelligent, honest and decent persons with an extensive life and political experience can be targeted. A vivid example of its successful application is our own political consciousness, in which cause-and-effect relationships are confused. Estimates and ratings, fabricated by the U.S. institutions through the lens of their interests, are perceived as true contrary to objective reality. Objectively failed results of macroeconomic policy are passed for great achievements, and the persons responsible for the disastrous consequences of their decisions are declared by Western media to be the best ministers, bankers, experts, the most influential and intelligent people in the world. And, strangely enough, it works still. The network of influence agents deployed by the Americans continues to form a macroeconomic policy, placing Russia under the blows of the currency and financial war pursued by the U.S. And, despite the fact that the damage from the macroeconomic policy conducted under the leadership of the U.S. influence agents has already far exceeded the economic losses of the USSR from German fascist aggression, they enjoy standing trust and continue to determine the economic policy of the state.

Affection of the consciousness of the Russian ruling elite by the American cognitive weapons is paying off, weakening Russia and strengthening the U.S. and NATO.

Losing the war on the currency and financial front, where the annual direct losses amount to 150 billion dollars of capital exported from Russia to the Western financial system, and the aggregate losses are equivalent to half the production potential, Russia will not last long. Already this year, instead of an objectively possible 10% increase in production and investment we get a 5% drop, and in terms of poverty we roll back to more than a decade ago.

Indirectly recognizing legitimacy of the Ukrainian Nazi regime, we are losing the war on the cognitive and information front as well, handing the strategic initiative over to the enemy. Although, utilizing a systemic approach and relying on international law, it would have been possible to call the bluff of the Ukrainian Nazis, revealing to the Russian people living in Ukraine the truth about manipulation of their minds, and freeing the Russian land from the neo-fascist occupation regime established by the U.S.

Regardless of Russia’s position, the U.S. will lose the battle for leadership with China. This is the logic of change in the world economic paradigms, and the hybrid war unfolding against us on the part of the U.S. and its NATO allies is fully congruent with it. The system of institutions of an integrated society, created in China with account for our historical experience and combining the advantages of the socialist and capitalist systems, convincingly demonstrates its superiority over the U.S. system of oligarchic capitalism. Together with Japan, India, Korea, Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia, China is forming a new center for world economic development based on a new technological paradigm, and is creating a new world economy. Unlike global liberalization based on the interests of the U.S. financial oligarchy, the new world order will be built on recognition of the diversity of countries, respect for their sovereignty, on an equal, fair and mutually beneficial basis.

The Anglo-Saxon geopolitics is receding into the past, along with pseudoscientific geopolitical concepts designed to camouflage Anglo-Saxon or German aggression. The Chinese political system is reliably protected from attacks by cognitive weapons. The same concerns India that suffered enough from the British colonial oppression, and Vietnam that experienced all horrors of the war with the U.S. South America, which has had its share of trouble with Monroe Doctrine, has no confidence in the U.S. The Japanese will soon commemorate the 70th anniversary of the U.S. atomic bombings.

The space of American hegemony is imminently narrowing. The current ruling elites of the BRICS countries and their integration partners are unlikely to allow themselves to be run by the Anglo-Saxon geopolitics. The secret of its amazing effectiveness, concealed behind the mist of senseless abstractions and high-flown phrases, is very trite – perfidy, meanness and deception. With the exception of Europe and North America, it does not work any longer. Nevertheless, it continues to work partially in the post-Soviet space, making us vulnerable to another Western aggression. This vulnerability gives the U.S. geopoliticians the euphoria of a victory in sight, which makes them extremely self-confident and very dangerous. The Russophobia they inflame can easily ignite a new war in Europe, which will be waged to destroy the Russian World by the hands of Russian people, much to delight of the American and European geopoliticians. To withstand the hybrid war launched by the U.S., first of all it is necessary to protect ourselves from its main affecting factors, that is, cognitive, currency, financial and information weapons. It is not difficult to do this by freeing monetary authorities from American influence agents, and switching to domestic sources of credit based on a sovereign monetary policy. After de-dollarization and de-offshorization of its economy, Russia will not only gain independence, but will also be able to restore its scientific and production potential, as well as weaken the possibilities of the U.S. aggression based on use of the dollar as a world currency, which makes it possible to finance a hybrid war at the expense of the enemy.

The defense against information weapons is the truth, which consists in the fact that the U.S. geopolitics threatens the world with destructive chaos, and a world war based on an artificial reincarnation of supposedly forever dated forms of the misanthropic ideologies of Nazism and religious fanaticism, against the backdrop of moral decay of the Western ruling elite. Relying on this truth, it is necessary to intercept the strategic initiative in resolving the Ukrainian crisis on the ideological and political platform of the Nuremberg Tribunal. This will pave the way to the formation of a broad antiwar coalition of countries interested in the transition to a new world economic order, in which the relations of financial exploitation will be replaced by relations of pragmatic cooperation and, unlike liberal globalization for the benefit of the financial oligarchy, a sustainable development policy based on common human interests will be pursued.

Of course, the transition to a new world economic order would not automatically deliver the world from conflicts. The Chinese foreign policy strategy will not necessarily be humanistic, suffice it to read the famous " 36 stratagems" [18] to assess the willingness of the Chinese to apply a variety of methods to achieve their interests, including those nowhere near the usual standards of Christian morality. The illusions attributable to the ideology of a radiant communist future for all mankind are alien to the modern Chinese leadership that is building socialism with the characteristic Chinese features, the essence of which is to stiffly pursue own national interests based on the socialist ideology of the public good and the Confucian principles of responsible state government. To some extent, this philosophy resembles the Stalinist ideology of building socialism in one country. Yet, unlike the internationalism inherent in Soviet socialism, the Chinese version of socialism is oriented solely toward Chinese national interests. But at least they are pragmatic and understandable. First of all, they involve developing a medium prosperity society. For this, unlike the Anglo-Saxon geopolitics of world domination, China needs peace and active foreign economic cooperation. It completely repudiates the world war that is being unleashed by the U.S.

Although China has no historical experience in pursuing a global policy, it has a clear development strategy. Russia has the experience of pursuing a global policy, but does not have a development strategy. Without its elaboration and consistent implementation, historical experience will not help. To avoid being propelled to the fringes of not the U.S., but of China this time, an ideology and a development strategy are needed. Such ideology, representing a neoconservative synthesis of religious tradition, socialism, democracy, planned market economy in an integrated system, has been developed in a broad outline[19]. A development strategy that takes into account the long-term laws of technical and economic development has also been prepared[20]. What is lacking is political will paralyzed by offshore oligarchy.

Russia can become a leader in the process of forming a new world economic order and go into the nucleus of a new world economic development center. But it is impossible to achieve this remaining on the fringes of the U.S. capitalism. Worse still, remaining on these fringes, Russia provokes the U.S. aggression by making its economy dependent on the American oligarchy and creating for the U.S. geopoliticians the illusion of an easy victory. For us, in contrast to the Chinese winning the battle for global leadership, the hybrid war with the U.S. secret services that occupied Ukraine has gained an existential nature. Either the Nazi chimera created by them will be defeated by us, and the Russian World will be liberated from dissent, or we will be destroyed. Just as in the past two Patriotic Wars with the united West, the question is put point-blank: who beats who?

 

Section 1

WHY WOULD THE U.S.

NEED THE WAR?

 

This question taken as the headline of this part may seem strange to an inexperienced reader. The majority of ordinary people in Western countries, whose brains are constantly washed by the U.S. media, are positive that the U.S. as the leader of the democratic world stands guard over peace and international law, fights terrorists and universal evil. The U.S. propaganda represents as the latter all leaders of other countries who are out of favor with the U.S. ruling oligarchy.

Western society, devoid of historical memory, thinks with cliché s fabricated by engaged mass media in the spirit of unconditional correctness of everything that is done by the ruling elite, starting with genocide of the peoples of third countries and ending with world wars. These latter appear in common perception of Western countries as a forced need to curb universal evil, in which the U.S. rescues mankind from all kinds of oppressors. Accordingly, the global U.S. aggression unfolding before our eyes, that has already engulfed the Middle East and is unleashing a war in Europe through Ukrainian Nazis, seems to the Western average man a fight for liberation of democratic Ukraine from the imperial inclinations of the Russian president. Mass slaughter of Ukrainian citizens by

neo-fascist thugs instructed by the U.S. experts are pitched as a struggle for the freedom of the Ukrainian people, and the coup d’é tat with the transfer of power to the Nazis arranged by the U.S. secret services is passed for a victory of democracy. Taken all round, outright crimes against humanity are packaged as feats performed for the benefit of humanity, and millions believe it.

The U.S. political engineers consistently follow the traditional principle of manipulating the masses, according to which those who shape the history of a nation control its future. And history is shaped by those who rule the country at present. As soon as the generation of the last war’s veterans dies out, they begin to prepare the people for a future war. The anti-Russian psychosis created by the U.S. political engineers is effective because the generation that survived the horrors of the Second World War has already passed away. One would think that after this catastrophe, the peoples of Europe will never take up arms again. But, as the events in Ukraine have shown, the manic urge of Drang nach Osten is easily summoned by political strategists in the subconscious of European elites, who quickly forget the lessons of history. The educational system and propaganda of Euro-American exclusiveness, cultivated down the centuries, helps in this.

If you ask an average Western European or an American who won the Second World War, you will hear the answer that it was the U.S. Many of them have no clue about the role of the USSR that crushed the fascist regime. Similarly, they do not remember the liberation of Europe from the Napoleonic occupation. And one can bet they do not know anything about the heroic resistance of Ancient Rus to the Tatar-Mongol invasion, that saved the peoples of Europe from barbaric ravage in the Middle Ages. They see Russia as a backward and aggressive country, which needs to be restrained and suppressed for its own good. At the core of this negative image is a consistent falsification of history, continuously conducted for more than half a millennium. Since plunder of Byzantium by Crusaders, the continuous aggression of the Western powers against Russia has invariably appeared in historiography as a noble activity of spreading humane and progressive European values among the semi-wild taiga inhabitants, who deserve only the fate of slaves serving the European masters.

The current complex of American exceptionalism advocated by Obama has nothing new. There were times of outright racism accompanied by trade in African slaves and indiscriminate extermination of Indians, as well as genocide of peoples who were " fortunate" to be subjects of the British Empire. All these crimes against humanity have been blanked out from history textbooks, the same as the idea of the Second World War has been falsified. The methods used in the Western countries to shape common perception exclude all criticism, they present crimes against humanity committed by European enslavers solely as a charitable civilizing work, the true value of which the ungrateful natives still fail to see.

There is also nothing new in the current outbreak of Russophobia diligently fueled by the media controlled by the U.S. This phenomenon so strange to us received a great deal of attention from such authors as F.M. Dostoyevsky and N.Y. Danilevsky, and modern authors – N.A. Narochnitskaya, V.A. Nikonov, A.I. Fursov, M.L. Khazin, M.G. Delyagin. The current generation of American and European politicians was born after the Second World War and was formed during the Cold War with the USSR. The experts in manipulating the public opinion easily managed to reincarnate the Soviet threat under the guise of the Russian one. And many people sincerely believed this. Not only in the West, but also in Ukraine, where the greater half of the population only a year ago resisted the " European choice" imposed on it, preferring an economic union with Russia.

The difference between the current edition of the Ukrainian idea and its previous incarnations lies in the effective use of technologies for manipulating the public consciousness. While in the years of the First and the Second World War the Ukrainian nationalists were a marginal aggressive minority used by the foreign invaders as a punitive machine against the Russian population, today anti-Russian Nazism is embedded in the mass of public consciousness. The U.S. political engineers had to work hard and long to achieve this. Of course, they did this not for the love of the game. And not out of hatred for Russia either, although for many characters of the U.S. politics these grounds have their share of significance. The cultivation of Ukrainian Nazism and its use to foment a world war against Russia is dictated by the objective interests of the U.S. imperialism facing deadly threats to its global domination.

 

 

12345678910Следующая ⇒

Поделиться: