maanantai 20. syyskuuta 2021

EP. WHAT THE IMMORAL EDUCATION DOES TO YOUR CHILDREN - AND THE CAREFREE WAR IS NOT ANYMORE POSSIBLE



EP. A note on a current topic


The tragic murder in a Kazan school (school-shooting) stirred up the public - once again - and raised terrible, vile questions, that are still  not being solved in any way, because their solution is deliberately slowed down or postponed.

Upbringing (the moral one) has been removed from school, but it did not return to parents, parents are busy with their careers or their survival. Children sit in networks alone, and those networks are not Russian or even ethnically national in the regions. They definitely should be. 

Russian educational programs should also be available in Russian networks. You can't leave your children to the mercy of fate and to be raised by your enemies, and then be surprised that a new generation grows up crazy and does not want to have children of their own.

They say it's  selfishness. Or maybe these children just do not want to plunge their future children into the mud of loneliness, confusion and helplessness? In which they were (and probably still are) themselves??

We need to immediately reform the education system and return full-fledged moral upbringing to schools. It is necessary to introduce training programmes for parents for the upbringing of children, at least elementary and based upon moral values. By the way, the newlyweds used to be given educational books on psychology of relationships, on behavior in the family and on raising children. In the Soviet Union, I mean.

Liberal connivance to everything led, among other things, to the incident in Kazan. (A lonely killer slaughtered 7 children, 2 teachers and wounded tens of others.)

Liberal debauchery and anarchy in everything does not take root in Russia neither do capitalism. You need to shake off all this dirt, accurately define your values and follow them in everything without looking back and fearing that Russia will not be understood in the West. "F--- the West!"

The "spirit of freedom and democracy" - emasculated to the point of nothing = everything is permitted - is already sprouting in Russia, too. 

There is no real freedom in the West. No real democracy either.

There are empty shells / false models and simulacra. And the hypocrites, who hide behind them, believing, that the power in the world belongs to them by the right of birth as a "white man" or "the chosen one", and have the audacity to teach Russia and other countries how to raise their children, develop their economy or build relationships in their society and in the world. 

But they also threaten "the rebels" with sanctioning punishments to the people, if the government would dare not follow their teachings.

And that is enough already! Their opinions are false or distorted or simply vile and corrupt. These opinions change in sync with their current interests. There will be interests, there will be both acceptance and understanding. No interests, there will be, very likely, attacks and accusations. 

Or both: the new trend is - we condemn their actions or their practices, but we will cooperate with them in the areas of OUR interest. 

A fact of life. They have already destroyed their own economies, which they are now feverishly trying to revive, their culture, their morality - even those fragments of it, that were on the surface. 

They no longer have any religions or philosophies - there is only a philosophy of exceptionalism (the right to dominate, based on mysterious foundation) and total permissiveness (even unbridled promiscuity) in completely wrong directions, as well as the constant development of strategies to combat Russia, China and all those, who do not agree to obey them quietly. 

If Russia and China are so weak and wrong, why is West so afraid of their influence? Why is it so eager to weaken or destroy these unworthy rivals? Or prevent their development by any means? Rivals? Competitors?

Do they hold their peoples complete fools? And why don't they talk about other countries at all, as if they don't exist? They are completely selfish, self-centred. This is one of the ways to ostricize your enemy = to make it an outcast. Just behave like he doesn¨t exist.

India is dying of the coronavirus, no one notices. And what about Africa? Who cares? What's the difference?? Who cares about them? 

They care about Russia, because it was the first country to invent 4 (four!) kinds of anti-covid-19 vaccine with practically no side effects. While the European vaccines caused severe complications. 

And this means war of competitors for the pharma-markets. Despite the fact, that Russia has offered the world wide cooperation and its vaccines to everybody, who need it. And not for trade, but for production by licence and free distribution. And even delivered them pro bono to the countries in crisis. No one in the West said a word of praise or anything.

All this is coming to an end. The world is changing. The Pirate models are leaving. With local battles. Now they offer a corporate distribution of benefits and goods in return of loyalty and labour = that is, they transfer the rights and powers of states to the transnational corporations! 

Now all they need to do is to abandon the ethnic or national identity and cancel the state as unnecessary. As 7 billion people should be cancelled too - for uselessness - useless extra eaters.

EP.

_____________________________________________


EP. Carefree war? Forget it!

INSTEAD OF AN EPIGRAPH

If a party wants to come to power in a democratic way, it must present a program that can be supported by the majority of the population. That's what they do in a democratic society. These are the basic truths.

The Liberals in Russia have no desire to win the election. That all is just a weak imitation. It is clear that even they themselves do not believe in the possibility of support of the population. But as a virtual political force, they exist. Moreover, there is a good material (financial) support for the movement.

And here's another interesting thing. In the virtual blogosphere (not in the real life), the ratings of these liberal users are off the scale. No comment is ignored. Even things like " Thank you!", "+++", "It's like saying, ..." , etc. are accompanied by pluses (likes), and therefore raising the rating. 

I'm only interested in the goal of all this.

Someone needs to show that liberalism in Russia lives and is supported?

And the electoral results, which speak of the disastrous unpopularity of the liberal forces in Russia, are falsified?

It's all very strange!

(From the comments on the web to the question, why liberalism in Russia always fails)


The latest signals, sent by the US authorities, are perceived in Russia as insults.

Accusations in mysterious cyber attacks on the United States, without any evidence, and retaliatory threats of such attacks on Russia, which no one will notice except Putin and his special services. ???

Is it possible to do that, too??? This also frees the hands of anyone to do anything, and above all to terrorists, who can always blame Russia or the United States. Or someone else... "Highly likely..."

The scandalous report: "Russia after Putin: how to rebuild the country" publicly insults the Russian President, trying to turn him into a" lame duck " three years before the next election. Not a year, not six months, but three years before. Giving the signal to activate the "revolutionary resources and instruments"?...

The Russian Constitution was not in vain corrected by additions and ammendments, that allows the current President to run for office again in 2024. Not to stay in power, but to participate in the electorate process. This just removes the uncertainty in his position before the elections.

Second, the title of the report, made with the help of the odious opposition leader - "liberal" Gozman (very active in the 90s), whose value in the real politics = 0, indicates, that Russia has entered - already - a transit period, that Russia is "destroyed" or damaged, because it must be restored, and it must be restored according to the model of the 90s, which will remain in the history of Russia as terrible, cynical, immoral years of robbery and humiliation of all the peoples of the USSR, directly subordinated at that moment to the United States, lowering the Great Russia to the level of "a primitive Asian barbarian country, that has no idea about the real democratic structure of a civilized state."

What is this? Orwell's doublespeak? Or an appeal to criminal structures to take part in the change of the state system in Russia? Again???

Probably, yes. And may be, no. But this is definitely a repetition of the 200-year-old Russophobic myth,  "outSharped"- blunted by the frequent use (forgive my calambure). 

Which, by the way, still works perfectly in the West for those, who know nothing about Russia, believe their media, are not interested in Russia, have never been to it and have never met Russian or Soviet people in the past. This does not mean that the one, who throws this myth into the public space, does not know, has not been, has not met.

On the contrary, all those Russologists, political scientists, politologists are perfectly familiar with realities of Russia - its strengths and weaknesses. And they have been there many times. Love Russian theatre and museums. Claim to love Russia and its people.

However, at the moment, the United States itself are in a deepest political, economic, financial, and ideological crisis. Their attitude to the war (or confrontation) with Russia is ambivalent.

On the one hand  - the gut is thin = no funds. Both the US and the EU are in debt - and have too many problems at home. And on the other hand - too scary... - modern Russia has outsmarted and bypassed NATO in its super-modern weapons with no huge funding, it was forced to invent in order to defend its independence and sovereignty.

But... The United States, like Britain, are perfectly able and always  used to profit from any war. Preferably, not on their own territory and not with their own hands. Ukraine suits this aim perfectly, it can easily become such a territory and such an instrument.

They just gloat and glow from content - Russians will fight Russians! Already are in Donbass! That"s a rare delight!

Unlike "the Great Ucres" of Galicia (the pro-Polish Western part of Ukraine), Americans and Brits have not a slightest doubt about it - "Russians against Russians", "Slavs vs Slavs". 

They know very well, what Ukraine is - a joint artificial anti-Russian project of the West, sculptured out of the old Russian border territories, inhabited mostly by the Southern Russians or russian speaking minorities of Greeks, Bolgars, Tatars, Hungarians, even Italians, Romanians, Moldavians and Poles.

But the political situation in the United States and in the European West is very contradictory and explosive. 

Such a war, taking into consideration still open vast connections, would quickly cause negative reactions within countries, especially if Russia considers the United States (and the Western Europe, accordingly) a military enemy, participating in the Ukrainian war in Donbass. 

The strikes will be carried out not only on the vassals, who perform the tasks of the United States, but also on the center, that gives orders. The headquarters.

And this puts not only Poland, the Baltic States (the "tabakis") and the Ukraine, but also the United States and Britain themselves, in a very risky position.

In this scandalous report "Russia after Putin", American Russologists through Leonid Gozman (who is a Russian Jew) dare to dictate some absolutely enchanting terms for the "future Russia": 

- the end of all repressions (what does that mean? Does it mean, that Russia has no right to protect itself from the inside enemies and criminal disturbance?)

- the release of all political prisoners (what political prisoners?, common criminals, terrorists, hooligans, foreign agents or administrative officials, serving their verdicts for corruption, or the notorious opposition leaders, who violated the law on assemblies, and are well corrupted themselves?? the law is the law, wherever it is, if it is accepted - wasn"t it the favourite mantra of the "democratic" anglo-saxons? And why should they be released, if they are guilty in breaking the Law?), 

- the destruction and dissolution of the country"s own security and intelligence structures, (what? on what grounds and why? and for God"s sake, what for?)

- the scrapping of the judicial system and the system of Prosecutor's supervision, (?)

- change  in the form of government (!) from the presidential to the parliamentary (which is absolutely unacceptable and ineffective for Russia, and who is mr. Gozman to decide, what is best for Russia? shouldn"t it be a matter for people to discuss and approve by voting, democratically?), 

- lowering prices for energy resources (why? isn"t it a matter for the free market to regulate prices, or at least a matter for the exporter to decide and negotiate? and, for God"s sake, why should Russia refuse the financial income from oil and gas trade, in whose interests?) and 

- the readiness to lose some territories (really?!, so, the already lost territories are not enough, there should be more? and the "plan of dismantling Russia into easy-to-manage pieces" is still alive?) (end of quote)

As Sergey Mikheev puts it, "This is war!".

They do not even hide it - the "liberal politicians", who will come to power to change the system in Russia, claim, that they will have to use illiberal, dictatorial methods and harsh repression against supporters of traditional values and national interests. !!! Then... what repressions are they going to remove? And what side they are really on? Not their country"s?

Did their hearing blur and they could not get what they were saying?!

I think, that Mr. Gozman is well aware of the scandalous and arrogant nature of such texts, which try to dehumanize the Great Power to the level of some "Limpopo territories" and its peoples to the level of  some "wild aborigines, who are ready to sell their land and their children for plastic beads" to barbarians, who bluntly seek only  resources, slaves for work and "pleasure" and space for more robbery. 

The report sets out the terms of such deal and they are the terms of surrender. And recommendations for suppressing possible resistance.Which is controversial at best... Treasonous, at worst.

But this is good for the electorate in Russia. The Liberals have no support in the country what so ever, they are few in number and not influential at all. Mostly despised. They are just small part of the "elite party". It's all about nothing.

And now, with this  program voiced, they have lost the remnants of the elementary human respect for themselves, which was not very high before anyway. Most people in Russia treat them with contempt and mockery.

Moreover, questions are increasingly raised about their direct betrayal and treason to the Motherland. They are openly called in Russia the "fifth column of the enemy", planning the destruction of their own country.

The old debates and struggles  between the "state builders" and the "liberal westerners" are no longer relevant.

Now everyone understands, what the "Western liberals" are preparing for Russia. They took off their masks and openly marked their positions. 

The age-old dispute between patriots and Westerners in Russia is over. 

The West does not need Russia, it needs its lands and resources. 

Russia does not need the West - the western values have devalued themselves and ceased to be human, remaining in their classical form only in Russia. 

And Russia - it is a self-sufficient State, huge and disobedient to the will of others. This means that it has never been conquered. And it never will be! 

Yes, the younger generation, who did not remember or even knew the 90s, could not evaluate to the full the horror of that time and the complexity of the work done by the current President during his 20 years in power. Such things need to be explained. 

Vladimir Putin found himself in the same position as the government of the young Soviet Russia, when the country was destroyed politically, financially and economically, after the First World War, two revolutions, intervention, plunged into poverty and civil war, when the Western "friends-mentors" demanded immediate proof of the superiority of the socialist system and the country"s strength to resist the onslaught of the enemy - their own onslaught. 

At the same time, they were harmfully interfering with Russian affairs in every possible way. 

But that is what they do! "Power and Force decide everything! 

In Russia of that time it was necessary first to save people from starvation and complete destruction of economy, and then to start restoring normal infrastructures, and only after that to start forming a new people's state. (Doesn't it remind you of the 90-s? Really?)

When all this was achieved, and the country started to develop rapidly, the West used the crop failure of 30-33-s. The "friends-partners" (as they say in Russia) pumped grain out of Russia, defiantly refusing gold, causing famine in the country, using as blackmail the purchase of industrial western equipment, necessary for the ongoing industrialization, needed to prepare the country to repel the military attack on Russia, that had already being prepared. But only for the grain!

These are terrible critical situations, from which there are no adequate or safe ways out - "friends-partners-mentors" have  skillfully mastered the methods of insidious "driving" the enemy into a corner and cynical blackmailing Russia either by the life of its peoples or by the very existence of the country.

And the situation was exactly like this: every time the Soviet Russia became stronger, the following plan was created to weaken (and destroy) it. 

During the Second World War, Russia had suffered monstrous human and material losses, primarily in destroyed infrastructures and destroyed settlements and cities, as well as parts of industrial enterprises. 27 million people died (Russia lost 1.5 million in the First World War). And according to the latest research, even more.

The bids increase - the price rises. And do you think it wasn't a war for extermination? (See the works of the  Russian historian Egor Yakovlev).

After the War - the restoration began once more without any financial support from the US "Marshall plans for reconstruction" and humiliating dependence on the West. The United States had set such unacceptable conditions for granting loans for the after war reconstruction, that the USSR was forced to refuse. And that was another betrayal of the allies in War, US had promised financial support to the USSR for the afterwar reconstruction in Russia.

Once again -  long years of reconstruction, reindustrialization, regrouping and establishing the agriculture, once again - tremendous efforts to establish normal life for people, exhausted by the war sufferings. 

This is an incredible strain on people. Generation after generation of Soviet people lived in conditions of war, devastation, famine and disorder, as well as the constant danger of physical destruction in wars. This is exhausting and causes chronic fatigue not only in individuals, but in the whole nations.

And at the same time, your enemy - just yesterday an ally - is planning massive airstrikes on your cities, already destroyed by the war and Nazy Germans, and even strikes with nuclear bombs.  Unthinkable? Exactly. That was the plan"s official name.

This situation was corrected only by invention of the Russia"s own atomic bomb. 

After that, the belligerent fervor of the "former allies" subsided for decades. A "carefree" Cold war began - a war of scarecrows, a war of sanctions and economic embargoes, a war of words and propaganda, radio stations, rock music and funny news about "good" Western life, a war of facades and appearances, a war of false pictures. 

Indeed, this "carefree" one also used to slide into some very dangerous crises - like the "Caribbean nuclear" one... which was settled off the agenda by a tremendous political effort on both sides.

And so it would continue for an arbitrarily long time - the West, under the pressure of the too convincing example of the USSR, changed in a more social direction - until the implementation of joint agreements on general changes in the doctrine of confrontation to the doctrine of cooperation and further social transformations in the West. This required only constant work of statesmen. Americans and Russian, first of all.

However, something completely unexpected by the Western partners happened - after decades of "cold" propaganda and economic war Russia suddenly stopped resisting and voluntarily went over to the side of the enemy. !??

Nobody in the West had ever expected this - it was done by  Russians themselves - I'm not sure one can call them that - they were traitors to Russia, traitors to their native land, and secret enemies to its peoples. Without internal unloyalty and treason nothing like that would have ever happened. 

It was so unexpected, that people in the Soviet Union didn't even realize what had happened. No one understood. 

Anyway, with all the skepticism towards the party elites (nomenclature), people trusted their authorities and did not expect direct treason from their government.

"Country fool" Gorbachev no longer aroused people's confidence, but "Russian strongman from Siberia" Yeltsin did. They were both traitors. Two provincial climbers, who rose to power, who fought among themselves for power and recognition in the West (and for the money and financial security, of course), - none of them thought about the country, about the people, about the future of the socialist Russia. "God bless America.... and russia... " (Proclaimed Jeltzing in in the US Congress).

Indeed...

These small-town "Napoleons" thought only of themselves, becoming not only traitors to the Great Idea of the People's State, which simply needed to be carefully adjusted, carrying out thoughtful reforms and maintaining an honest dialogue with people, modifying and transforming the doctrine, but also simply traitors to their people and their country. 

The same path is followed by the modern "russian" "Western liberals", who had been at the helm of the bourgeois revenge of the 90s, then were pushed away from power and influence. Although many, including Gozman, are still fed at the expense of taxpayers = the people. 

They cannot believe that their word no longer has any weight in the state, they are eager for a second revenge, and do not hide it - they are eager to go back to the 90s. And they will not stop in front of  another betrayal and treason. 

This scandalous report also recommends them to do it - with dictatorial rule and repression of dissenters. And they are not at all confused by the illiberal nature of such actions or ignoring the human rights. Otherwise, it will not work !

To get rid of illusions and delusions, you need to understand a few simple facts 

- Russia is an existential enemy of the West - has always been and will always be; 

- capitalism does not take root in Russia, it rejects it; 

- all the claims of the West to the country are far-fetched or false, and are used only, when Russia becomes so strong that it again becomes an example of opposition to the cannibalistic regimes of the "civilized friends-partners" from the west, covered up with statements about human rights and democracy, which are simply not there, and 

- the main factor - Russia is their economic competitor. (Now this role has moved to China.)

The trust of the Russians in their invincible innere strength has sometimes turned into carelessness, and the neglect of their civil duties as citizens, in particular, to protect their country from the treachery of some part of the Russian elite. Their role and nature, not fully understood by the common people, has always played a major role in all misfortunes of Russia. 

That time had passed. I sincerely hope so.

Russian citizens should consciously understand and evaluate both Russia's problems and their own responsibilities towards it. 

Solving problems does not mean destroying the country every time or leaving it to "good foreigners". There are no good foreigners. 

And the guillotine is not the best cure for headache. 

And raising utility tariffs should not be a condition for getting a loan from the IMF.

Russia does not need to strive for fake values and the hypocritical lifestyle of the West, covering up poverty with scarce "social benefits". as they do in the West. 

If you only knew, through what humiliations you have to go to get the unemployment benefits. And now that is being rolled up, too.

Talk to the Europeans and they will tell you all about the charms of "democracy" and "human rights" in both the EU and the US. And about the kind of competition that reigns at the workplaces. 

Don't compare yourself to anyone. It is necessary that people build their own lives - in their own countries and in the world. Don't expect your government to start changes, do it yourself. And if you don"t have leverage to make them, invent some. 

Russia has always been and remains a unique, original and very complex country - the largest country in the world. It is not necessary to destroy the ethnic diversity of Russia, it is necessary to consolidate all peoples in common ideas, values and principles. And they are the same for all normal human beings.

Russia can, wants and must live in its own way, without looking back at the ostentatious "wrappers" of the West, "without being sold for lard and cakes" into slavery to the cunning "rulers of the world", who will do everything to destroy Russia and seize its riches and territories. People are not a value to them, so their speeches of "human values and rights" are not worth anything. 

The example of modern China provides some basic directions for achieving a more or less independent position, though they made the same mistake as Russia did, trusting the West and  integrating itself into the Western system - as a supplier and manufacturer of EVERYTHING. 

They thought they were dictating the terms. 

But the Western "savages" do not have contractual capacity. They can pull back from any agreement, arrangement or "understanding" unexpectedly and with no warning or negotiations. 

However, it is not quite clear how the United States will exist in a trade war with China, if all supplies from there are heavily taxed or stopped. 

The US has reoriented its economy on the principle - we don"t have to produce anything, we move production to China, we can produce and buy everything we need in China, and we will print the money, we need! 

The system is backed by a worldwide dollar reserve system of mutual settlements and trust, and the US printing press is not controlled by anyone. 

A bubble? Of course it is, but piercing it without consequences for the whole world is not immediately possible. 

Americans (as a state), by force, power and money, have secured a unique way of their living at the expense of everyone else. But not everyone is living well in the States either, there are racial problems, there are distortions in society and class biases. 

There are some severe ideological insanity and social segregation. 

Americans live in their own way and pretend to spread this way of living to everybody in the world. But it is a fake. They only try to vassalize the world under their domination. So, that they can continue living well in their own way, and everybody else would just pay for it. 

This is the root of the problem - it is a false message, given to the world.  This is again the theory of racial or national superiority. The American exclusivity.

And that's not what we're talking about.

We talk about the Spirit and the Right to Live IN THEIR OWN WAY for everyone. (Poor, rich, black, yellow, whatever! In your own way! Not forcing it on others. 

Good things can be borrowed and learnt from each other, if they fit and suit. Without threatening anyone, destroying Nature or imposing anything on anyone by force. There is no need to compare yourself to anyone else. The criteria are different. And you have a right just to be yourself and live as your land and your traditions dictate. (If they are not criminal, of course,) Nations should cooperate and correct their ways if they are inhumane. 

But people of the world have already agreed on the basic principles of coexistance in the Declaration of the Human Rights, signed by all countries in 1948. So, just do it. 

EP. 


“The Law, the Rights and the Rules” by Sergey Lavrov





“The Law, the Rights and the Rules”
by Sergey Lavrov

VOLTAIRE NETWORK | MOSCOW (RUSSIA) | 28 JUNE 2021






The frank and generally constructive conversation that took place at the June 16, 2021 summit meeting between presidents Vladimir Putin and Joseph Biden in Geneva resulted in an agreement to launch a substantive dialogue on strategic stability, reaffirming the crucial premise that nuclear war is unacceptable. The two sides also reached an understanding on the advisability of engaging in consultations on cybersecurity, the operation of diplomatic missions, the fate of imprisoned Russian and US citizens and a number of regional conflicts.

The Russian leader made it clear, including in his public statements, that finding a mutually acceptable balance of interests strictly on a parity basis is the only way to deliver on any of these tracks. There were no objections during the talks. However, in their immediate aftermath, US officials, including those who participated in the Geneva meeting, started asserting what seemed to be foregone tenets, perorating that they had “made it clear” to Moscow, “warned it, and stated their demands.” Moreover, all these “warnings” went hand in hand with threats: if Moscow does not accept the “rules of the road” set forth in Geneva in a matter of several months, it would come under renewed pressure.

Of course, it has yet to be seen how the consultations to define specific ways for fulfilling the Geneva understandings as mentioned above will proceed. As Vladimir Putin said during his news conference following the talks, “we have a lot to work on.” That said, it is telling that Washington’s ineradicable position was voiced immediately following the talks, especially since European capitals immediately took heed of the Big Brother’s sentiment and picked up the tune with much gusto and relish. The gist of their statements is that they are ready to normalise their relations with Moscow, but only after it changes the way it behaves.

It is as if a choir has been pre-arranged to sing along with the lead vocalist. It seems that this was what the series of high-level Western events in the build-up to the Russia-US talks was all about: the Group of Seven Summit in Cornwall, UK, the NATO Summit in Brussels, as well as Joseph Biden’s meeting with President of the European Council Charles Michel and President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen.

These meetings were carefully prepared in a way that leaves no doubt that the West wanted to send a clear message: it stands united like never before and will do what it believes to be right in international affairs, while forcing others, primarily Russia and China, to follow its lead. The documents adopted at the Cornwall and Brussels summits cemented the rules-based world order concept as a counterweight to the universal principles of international law with the UN Charter as its primary source.

In doing so, the West deliberately shies away from spelling out the rules it purports to follow, just as it refrains from explaining why they are needed. After all, there are already thousands of universal international legal instruments setting out clear national commitments and transparent verification mechanisms. The beauty of these Western “rules” lies precisely in the fact that they lack any specific content. When someone acts against the will of the West, it immediately responds with a groundless claim that “the rules have been broken” (without bothering to present any evidence) and declares its “right to hold the perpetrators accountable.” The less specific they get, the freer their hand to carry on with the arbitrary practice of employing dirty tactics as a way to pressure competitors. During the so-called “wild 1990s” in Russia, we used to refer to such practices as laying down the law.

To the participants in the G7, NATO and US-EU summits, this series of high-level events signalled the return by the United States into European affairs and the restored consolidation of the Old World under the wing of the new administration in Washington. Most NATO and EU members met this U-turn with enthusiastic comments rather than just a sigh of relief. The adherence to liberal values as the humanity’s guiding star provides an ideological underpinning for the reunification of the “Western family.” Without any false modesty, Washington and Brussels called themselves “an anchor for democracy, peace and security,” as opposed to “authoritarianism in all its forms.” In particular, they proclaimed their intent to use sanctions to “support democracy across the globe.” To this effect, they took on board the American idea of convening a Summit for Democracy. Make no mistake, the West will cherry pick the participants in this summit. It will also set an agenda that is unlikely to meet any opposition from the participants of its choosing. There has been talk of democracy-exporting countries undertaking “enhanced commitments” to ensure universal adherence to “democratic standards” and devising mechanisms for controlling these processes.

The revitalised Anglo-American Atlantic Charter approved by Joseph Biden and Boris Johnson on June 10, 2021 on the sidelines of the G7 Summit is also worth noting. It was cast as an updated version of the 1941 document signed by Franklin D. Roosevelt and Winston Churchill under the same title. At the time, it played an important role in shaping the contours of the post-war world order.

However, neither Washington, nor London mentioned an essential historical fact: eighty years ago, the USSR and a number of European governments in exile joined the 1941 charter, paving the way to making it one of the conceptual pillars of the Anti-Hitler Coalition and one of the legal blueprints of the UN Charter.

By the same token, the New Atlantic Charter has been designed as a starting point for building a new world order, but guided solely by Western “rules.” Its provisions are ideologically tainted. They seek to widen the gap between the so-called liberal democracies and all other nations, as well as legitimise the rules-based order. The new charter fails to mention the UN or the OSCE, while stating without any reservations the adherence by the Western nations to their commitments as NATO members, viewed de facto as the only legitimate decision-making centre (at least this is how former NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen described NATO’s role). It is clear that the same philosophy will guide the preparations for the Summit for Democracy.

Labelled as “authoritarian powers,” Russia and China have been designated as the main obstacles to delivering on the agenda set out at the June summits. From a general perspective, they face two groups of grievances, loosely defined as external and internal. In terms of international affairs, Beijing is accused of being too assertive in pursuing its economic interests (the Belt and Road initiative), as well as expanding its military and, in general, technological might with a view to increasing its influence. Russia stands accused of adopting an “aggressive posture” in a number of regions. This is the way they treat Moscow’s policy aimed at countering ultra-radical and neo-Nazi aspirations in its immediate neighbourhood, where the rights of Russians, as well as other ethnic minorities, are being suppressed, and the Russian language, education and culture rooted out. They also dislike the fact than Moscow stands up for countries that became victims to Western gambles, were attacked by international terrorists and risked losing their statehood, as was the case with Syria.

Still, the West reserved its biggest words to the inner workings of the “non-democratic” countries and its commitment to reshape them to fit into the Western mould. This entails bringing society in compliance with the vision of democracy as preached by Washington and Brussels. This lies at the root of the demands that Moscow and Beijing, as well as all others, follow the Western prescriptions on human rights, civil society, opposition treatment, the media, governance and the interaction between the branches of power. While proclaiming the “right” to interfere in the domestic affairs of other countries for the sake of promoting democracy as it understands it, the West instantly loses all interest when we raise the prospect of making international relations more democratic, including renouncing arrogant behaviour and committing to abide by the universally recognised tenets of international law instead of “rules.” By expanding sanctions and other illegitimate coercive measures against sovereign states, the West promotes totalitarian rule in global affairs, assuming an imperial, neo-colonial stance in its relations with third countries. They are asked to adopt the democratic rule under the model of the Western choosing, and forget about democracy in international affairs, since someone will be deciding everything for them. All that is asked of these third countries is to keep quiet, or face reprisals.

Clearheaded politicians in Europe and America realise that this uncompromising policy leads nowhere, and are beginning to think pragmatically, albeit out of public view, recognising that the world has more than just one civilisation. They are beginning to recognise that Russia, China and other major powers have a history that dates back a thousand years, and have their own traditions, values and way of life. Attempts to decide whose values are better, and whose are worse, seem pointless. Instead, the West must simply recognise that there are other ways to govern that may be different from the Western approaches, and accept and respect this as a given. No country is immune to human rights issues, so why all this high-browed hubris? Why do the Western countries assume that they can deal with these issues on their own, since they are democracies, while others have yet to reach this level, and are in need of assistance that the West will generously provide.

International relations are going through fundamental shifts that affect everyone without exception. Trying to predict where it will take us is impossible. Still, there is a question: messianic aspirations apart, what is the most effective form of government for coping with and removing threats that transcend borders and affect all people, no matter where they live? Political scientists are beginning to compare the available toolboxes used by the so-called liberal democracies and by “autocratic regimes.” In this context, it is telling that the term “autocratic democracy” has been suggested, even if timidly.

These are useful considerations, and serious-minded politicians who are currently in power, among others, must take heed. Thinking and scrutinising what is going on around us has never hurt anyone. The multipolar world is becoming reality. Attempts to ignore this reality by asserting oneself as the only legitimate decision-making centre will hardly bring about solutions to real, rather than farfetched challenges. Instead, what is needed is mutually respectful dialogue involving the leading powers and with due regard for the interests of all other members of the international community. This implies an unconditional commitment to abide by the universally accepted norms and principles of international law, including respecting the sovereign equality of states, non-interference in their domestic affairs, peaceful resolution of conflict, and the right to self-determination.

Taken as a whole, the historical West dominated the world for five hundred years. However, there is no doubt that it now sees that this era is coming to a close, while clinging to the status it used to enjoy, and putting artificial brakes on the objective process consisting in the emergence of a polycentric world. This brought about an attempt to provide a conceptual underpinning to the new vision of multilateralism. For example, France and Germany tried to promote “effective multilateralism,” rooted in the EU ideals and actions, and serving as a model to everyone else, rather than promoting UN’s inclusive multilateralism.

By imposing the concept of a rules-based order, the West seeks to shift the conversation on key issues to the platforms of its liking, where no dissident voices can be heard. This is how like-minded groups and various “appeals” emerge. This is about coordinating prescriptions and then making everyone else follow them. Examples include an "appeal for trust and security in cyberspace”, “the humanitarian appeal for action”, and a "global partnership to protect media freedom." Each of these platforms brings together only several dozen countries, which is far from a majority, as far as the international community is concerned. The UN system offers inclusive negotiations platforms on all of the abovementioned subjects. Understandably, this gives rise to alternative points of view that have to be taken into consideration in search of a compromise, but all the West wants is to impose its own rules.

At the same time, the EU develops dedicated horizontal sanctions regimes for each of its “like-minded groups,” of course, without looking back at the UN Charter. This is how it works: those who join these “appeals” or “partnerships” decide among themselves who violates their requirements in a given sphere, and the European Union imposes sanctions on those at fault. What a convenient method. They can indict and punish all by themselves without ever needing to turn to the UN Security Council. They even came up with a rationale to this effect: since we have an alliance of the most effective multilateralists, we can teach others to master these best practices. To those who believe this to be undemocratic or at odds with a vision of genuine multilateralism, President of France Emmanuel Macron offered an explanation in his remarks on May 11, 2021: multilateralism does not mean necessity to strike unanimity, and the position of those "who do not wish to continue moving forward must not be able to stop ... an ambitious avant-garde" of the world community.

Make no mistake: there is nothing wrong with the rules per se. On the contrary, the UN Charter is a set of rules, but these rules were approved by all countries of the world, rather than by a closed group at a cosy get-together.

An interesting detail: in Russian, the words “law” and “rule” share a single root. To us, a rule that is genuine and just is inseparable from the law. This is not the case for Western languages. For instance, in English, the words “law” and “rule” do not share any resemblance. See the difference? “Rule” is not so much about the law, in the sense of generally accepted laws, as it is about the decisions taken by the one who rules or governs. It is also worth noting that “rule” shares a single root with “ruler,” with the latter’s meanings including the commonplace device for measuring and drawing straight lines. It can be inferred that through its concept of “rules” the West seeks to align everyone around its vision or apply the same yardstick to everybody, so that everyone falls into a single file.

While reflecting on linguistics, worldview, sentiment, and the way they vary from one nation or culture to another, it is worth recollecting how the West has been justifying NATO’s unreserved eastward expansion towards the Russian border. When we point to the assurances provided to the Soviet Union that this would not happen, we hear that these were merely spoken promises, and there were no documents signed to this effect. There is a centuries-old tradition in Russia of making handshake deals without signing anything and holding one’s word as sacrosanct, but it seems unlikely to ever take hold in the West.

Efforts to replace international law by Western “rules” include an immanently dangerous policy of revising the history and outcomes of the Second World War and the Nuremberg trials verdicts as the foundation of today’s world order. The West refuses to support a Russia-sponsored UN resolution proclaiming that glorifying Nazism is unacceptable, and rejects our proposals to discuss the demolition of monuments to those who liberated Europe. They also want to condemn to oblivion momentous post-war developments, such as the 1960 UN Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, initiated by our country. The former colonial powers seek to efface this memory by replacing it with hastily concocted rituals like taking a knee ahead of sports competitions, in order to divert attention from their historical responsibility for colonial-era crimes.

The rules-based order is the embodiment of double standards. The right to self-determination is recognised as an absolute “rule” whenever it can be used to an advantage. This applies to the Malvinas Islands, or the Falklands, some 12,000 kilometres from Great Britain, to the remote former colonial territories Paris and London retain despite multiple UN resolutions and rulings by the International Court of Justice, as well as Kosovo, which obtained its “independence” in violation of a UN Security Council resolution. However, if self-determination runs counter to the Western geopolitical interests, as it happened when the people of Crimea voted for reunification with Russia, this principle is cast aside, while condemning the free choice made by the people and punishing them with sanctions.

Apart from encroaching on international law, the “rules” concept also manifests itself in attempts to encroach on the very human nature. In a number of Western countries, students learn at school that Jesus Christ was bisexual. Attempts by reasonable politicians to shield the younger generation from aggressive LGBT propaganda are met with bellicose protests from the “enlightened Europe.” All world religions, the genetic code of the planet’s key civilisations, are under attack. The United States is at the forefront of state interference in church affairs, openly seeking to drive a wedge into the Orthodox world, whose values are viewed as a powerful spiritual obstacle for the liberal concept of boundless permissiveness.

The insistence and even stubbornness demonstrated by the West in imposing its “rules” are striking. Of course, domestic politics is a factor, with the need to show voters how tough your foreign policy can get when dealing with “autocratic foes” during every electoral cycle, which happen every two years in the United States.

Still, it was also the West that coined the “liberty, equality, fraternity” motto. I do not know whether the term “fraternity” is politically correct in today’s Europe from a “gender perspective,” but there were no attempts to encroach on equality so far. As mentioned above, while preaching equality and democracy in their countries and demanding that other follow its lead, the West refuses to discuss ways to ensure equality and democracy in international affairs.

This approach is clearly at odds with the ideals of freedom. The veil of its superiority conceals weakness and the fear of engaging in a frank conversation not only with yes-men and those eager to fall in line, but also with opponents with different beliefs and values, not neo-liberal or neo-conservative ones, but those learned at mother’s knee, inherited from many past generations, traditions and beliefs.

It is much harder to accept the diversity and competition of ideas in the development of the world than to invent prescriptions for all of humanity within a narrow circle of the like-minded, free from any disputes on matters of principle, which makes the emergence of truth all but impossible. However, universal platforms can produce agreements that are much more solid, sustainable, and can be subject to objective verification.

This immutable truth struggles to make it through to the Western elites, consumed as they are with the exceptionalism complex. As I mentioned earlier in this article, right after the talks between Vladimir Putin and Joseph Biden, EU and NATO officials rushed to announce that nothing has changed in the way they treat Russia. Moreover, they are ready to see their relations with Moscow deteriorate further, they claimed.

Moreover, it is an aggressive Russophobic minority that increasingly sets the EU’s policy, as confirmed by the EU Summit in Brussels on June 24 and 25, 2021, where the future of relations with Russia was on the agenda. The idea voiced by Angela Merkel and Emmanuel Macron to hold a meeting with Vladimir Putin was killed before it saw the light of day. Observers noted that the Russia-US Summit in Geneva was tantamount to a go-ahead by the United States to have this meeting, but the Baltic states, siding with Poland, cut short this “uncoordinated” attempt by Berlin and Paris, while the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry summoned the German and French ambassadors to explain their governments’ actions. What came out of the debates at the Brussels summit was an instruction to the European Commission and the European Union External Action Service to devise new sanctions against Moscow without referring to any specific “sins,” just in case. No doubt they will come up with something, should the need arise.

Neither NATO, nor the EU intend to divert from their policy of subjugating other regions of the world, proclaiming a self-designated global messianic mission. The North-Atlantic Treaty Organisation is seeking to proactively contribute to America’s strategy for the Indo-Pacific Region, clearly targeted at containing China, and undermining ASEAN’s role in its decades-long efforts to build an inclusive cooperation architecture for Asia-Pacific. In turn, the European Union drafts programmes to “embrace” geopolitical spaces in its neighbourhood and beyond, without coordinating these initiatives even with the invited countries. This is what the Eastern Partnership, as well as a recent programme approved by Brussels for Central Asia, are all about. There is a fundamental difference between these approaches and the ones guiding integration processes with Russia’s involvement: the CIS, the CSTO, EurAsEC and the SCO, which seek to develop relations with external partners exclusively on the basis of parity and mutual agreement.

With its contemptuous attitude towards other members of the international community, the West finds itself on the wrong side of history.

Serious, self-respecting countries will never tolerate attempts to talk to them through ultimatums and will discuss any issues only on an equal footing.

As for Russia, it is high time that everyone understands that we have drawn a definitive line under any attempts to play a one-way game with us. All the mantras we hear from the Western capitals on their readiness to put their relations with Moscow back on track, as long as it repents and changes its tack, are meaningless. Still, many persist, as if by inertia, in presenting us with unilateral demands, which does little, if any, credit to how realistic they are.

The policy of having the Russian Federation develop on its own, independently and protecting national interests, while remaining open to reaching agreements with foreign partners on an equal basis, has long been at the core of all its position papers on foreign policy, national security and defence. However, judging by the practical steps taken over the recent years by the West, they probably thought that Russia did not really mean what it preached, as if it did not intend to follow through on these principles. This includes the hysterical response to Moscow’s efforts to stand up for the rights of Russians in the aftermath of the bloody 2014 government coup in Ukraine, supported by the United States, NATO and the EU. They thought that if they applied some more pressure on the elites and targeted their interests, while expanding personal, financial and other sectoral sanctions, Moscow would come to its senses and realise that it would face mounting challenges on its development path, as long as it did not “change its behaviour,” which implies obeying the West. Even when Russia made it clear that we view this policy by the United States and Europe as a new reality and will proceed on economic and other matters from the premise that we cannot depend on unreliable partners, the West persisted in believing that, at the end of the day, Moscow “will come to its senses” and will make the required concessions for the sake of financial reward. Let me emphasise what President Vladimir Putin has said on multiple occasions: there have been no unilateral concessions since the late 1990s and there never will be. If you want to work with us, recover lost profits and business reputations, let us sit down and agree on ways we can meet each other half way in order to find fair solutions and compromises.

It is essential that the West understands that this is a firmly ingrained worldview among the people of Russia, reflecting the attitude of the overwhelming majority here. The “irreconcilable” opponents of the Russian government who have placed their stakes on the West and believe that all Russia’s woes come from its anti-Western stance advocate unilateral concessions for the sake of seeing the sanctions lifted and receiving hypothetical financial gains. But they are totally marginal in Russian society. During his June 16, 2021 news conference in Geneva, Vladimir Putin made it abundantly clear what the West is after when it supports these marginal forces.

These are disruptive efforts as far as history is concerned, while Russians have always demonstrated maturity, a sense of self-respect, dignity and national pride, and the ability to think independently, especially during hard times, while remaining open to the rest of the world, but only on an equal, mutually beneficial footing. Once we put the confusion and mayhem of the 1990s behind us, these values became the bedrock of Russia’s foreign policy concept in the 21st century. The people of Russia can decide on how they view the actions by their government without getting any prompts from abroad.

As to the question on how to proceed on the international stage, there is no doubt that leaders will always play an important role, but they have to reaffirm their authority, offer new ideas and lead by conviction, not ultimatums. The Group of Twenty, among others, is a natural platform for working out mutually acceptable agreements. It brings together the leading economies, young and old, including the G7, as well as the BRICS and its like-minded countries. Russia’s initiative to form a Greater Eurasian Partnership by coordinating the efforts of countries and organisations across the continent holds a powerful consolidating potential. Seeking to facilitate an honest conversation on the key global stability matters, President Vladimir Putin suggested convening a summit of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council that have special responsibility for maintaining international peace and stability on the planet.

Efforts to bring more democracy to international relations and affirm a polycentric world order include reforming the UN Security Council by strengthening it with Asian, African and Latin American countries, and ending the anomaly with the excessive representation of the West in the UN’s main body.

Regardless of any ambitions and threats, our country remains committed to a sovereign and independent foreign policy, while also ready to offer a unifying agenda in international affairs with due account for the cultural and civilisational diversity in today’s world. Confrontation is not our choice, no matter the rationale. On June 22, 2021, Vladimir Putin published an article “Being Open, Despite the Past,” in which he emphasised: “We simply cannot afford to carry the burden of past misunderstandings, hard feelings, conflicts, and mistakes.” He also discussed the need to ensure security without dividing lines, a common space for equitable cooperation and inclusive development. This approach hinges on Russia’s thousand-year history and is fully consistent with the current stage in its development. We will persist in promoting the emergence of an international relations culture based on the supreme values of justice and enabling all countries, large and small, to develop in peace and freedom. We will always remain open to honest dialogue with anyone who demonstrates a reciprocal readiness to find a balance of interests firmly rooted in international law. These are the rules we adhere to.

Sergey Lavrov




Sergey Lavrov

Foreign Minister of Russia.



“The Law, the Rights and the Rules”



Sergey Lavrov on measures in response to hostile US actions



Joint Statement by the Foreign Ministers of China and Russia on Certain Aspects of Global Governance in Modern Conditions



Statement by Sergey Lavrov



«Global Cybersecurity and Russia’s International Initiatives on Combating Cybercrime»

Articles by this author

Voltaire Network

Voltaire, international editionFocusNews in BriefControversiesDiplomatic WireDocumentary Watch

International Law

Turkishization of occupied Syria



The double standards of the Pratassevich affair



Joe Biden on Diversion of Ryanair Flight and Arrest of Journalist in Belarus



End unilateral coercive measures now

continue



maanantai 13. syyskuuta 2021


EP. "THE BUNCH OF FREAKS, INDEED!" - HOW THE AMERICAN POP-CULTURE CONTRIBUTED TO THE DEGRADATION OF THE WORLD

 EP. Truly a "bunch of freaks"! This is what Vladimir Solovyov said about those who are trying to blacken the memory of the general, the Hero of Russia, the head of the Ministry of Emergency Situations, who died saving another person. Not yet buried! How is this possible? And who are these freaks who have forgotten about everything human? These are our children. Or - their children...

And those who are hysterically shouting about the terrible threats of Russia, and themselves are quietly preparing all sorts of nasty things for it... Aren't they freaks?

And those who left their children at the mercy of the Internet, and then are surprised that they grow up stupid and soulless? And light up from the Eternal Flame (of the War Memorial). Or become victims of pedophiles...


Our parents were also busy - constantly  -they worked and studied at the same time, often graduating from two universities, like mine, ran to exhibitions, theaters and concerts, went to the movies and regularly gathered with friends.

And they were constantly reading - in the subway, on the bus, on the trolleybus, in queues and while waiting for a doctor's appointment. Everyone had libraries at home. We had a big one. My father's friends had a huge one. 

Even the simplest people had "libraries of world literature", they were given as a reward at work and for collecting waste paper. The propaganda of the "bloody Mordor" did its job well - everyone was striving for education and awareness and read constantly.

And if not they themselves, then their children definitely read. Their children are us, who studied at school in the 60s and 70s. (And even the 70s and 80s, judging by my friends and acquaintances. They have all read the main world literature, including Russian, since early childhood.) I started reading at the age of 6.

My parents had two educations and were constantly interested in everything that was happening. Both in the country and in the world. They read newspapers regularly and also subscribed to the best literary magazines.

I don't remember what my father was wearing at all. But my mother was a fashionista, she dressed very elegantly, ordered dresses for herself at a dressmaker and even wore a hat sometimes.

She was a simple economist (at the Hermitage, after graduating the Leningrad Institute for Finances and Economy), and then an art critic-editor (at an art publishing house, after the Academy of Arts). And she pulled herself up in an intelligent society that appreciated the aesthetics of appearance.

It was the early 60s. Only 15 years since the war ended. Life was already good. Not everyone had separate apartments yet, but everyone had housing. Everyone had a job and the opportunity to study. And the opportunity to get a job after graduating.

There were products in the stores (I'm talking about Leningrad) - and they were very tasty and very cheap. The taste of milk, sour cream, cheese, cottage cheese, eggs, bread and vegetables is still present in my memory. And the sweets were simply extraordinary - the nut tubes were unforgettable. There were not enough exotic fruits and only on the market. And there were always apples in every stores.

The clothes of children and non-fashionistas were simple and practical, as were their shoes. "Fashionistas" dressed at private dressmakers.

We grew up free and without fear. We have been traveling on public transport since the age of 6 without any escort. We lived under the supervision of the elderly neighbors, but independently enough. We also met couple of times some "strange adaults", but we ran away from them terrified, not waiting for anything even of curiosity.

Of course, if our parents had given us more time, we would probably have become a little different. But they came home by 8 pm, and until that time we had to cope on our own. Everyone knew how to cook pasta and fry minced meat, make scrambled eggs, mix cottage cheese with sour cream and sugar, or make an express cake - a piece of white bread with butter and sugar. And that was enough. 

In the evening, one of the parents cooked dinner and the child listened to the conversations of the parents at dinner. All the formation of the child took place at school and among friends on the street. Good teachers became friends and sometimes replaced parents. Parents intervened when there were problems - if there were any.

The main occupations of children were games in the yard, hobbies, sports and reading. At five or six o'clock it was necessary to be at home - alone. And there was nothing to do, except for lessons and reading books. There were no mass-produced television sets yet, they appeared somewhere in 1966. Small portable ones. My grandfather had a "KVN" with a small screen and a huge lens a long time ago. There we watched everything we needed - "New Year's Concerts", "KVN-shows", news, "International panoramas".

Already in the 1968 "dealers" of foreign records appeared at school, but no one had the money to buy them. It was possible to take it for a small amount of money and rewrite it on tape. Many had reel-to-reel tape recorders with film. 

But their whole real life was spent at school, where there were interest clubs, theater and literary studios, sports clubs etc. Many  studied in parallel at a music or sports school and in art circles at museums or Art schools. Everyone was fond of literature (of all times) and theater. At school they talked about serious things.

But too active or radical people were taken into account and under control, or stopped by general condemnation at some Pioneer-Komsomol meetings.

The parents of the parents had and retained their religious beliefs. My grandmother was very religious, regularly attended church and adhered to the "circle of life of the church calendar". 

And it conditionally defined thoughts and actions for every day, holidays, fasts and even a certain food at a certain period of the year. And it made an impression with its order and reasonableness, and often also with beauty. My grandparents did not particularly advertise this commitment, but they did not hide it either. And I was baptized secretly, too. In 1959.

When I came to school, there was still astronomy and logic in programme. Until the sixth-seventh grade, all children were absolutely loyal and patriotic. After the seventh grade other influences began to seep in. In 1970, the first discos began to appear. It seems to me that this was the beginning of the end. Youth culture suddenly found itself in a vacuum, and then under direct Western influence.

The children of the intelligentsia received a classical, I would even say aristocratic, upbringing (in the good sense of the word), studied literature, poetry, music, art, history. They studied at Universities and MGIMO. Then they made a patronaged career. They did not go anywhere according to the distribution after universities, but found jobs in Moscow and Leningrad, and bred "cultural" intelligentsia and "creative" bureaucracy.

Philological education was considered a necessary minimum for good brides for young men from "good" families. They formed their own closed world, consisting of the fragments of noble families and various intelligentsia (including the old revolutionary one). And it was an incredible mixture of the old way of life, the old world of European culture, Russian classics and a constant life in the shadows and, at the same time, in the Soviet Union - a people's socialistic state.

The children of the "new bourgeoisie" = party nomenclature - also got attached to good institutions, but they often studied sloppily, confused by the bohemian lifestyle.

And the bohemian lifestyle spread through theaters, communities of musicians and composers, artists, sculptors and architects, writers and poets and just the near-bohemian riffraff that started near any community.

And all this - above the people. The Soviet people worked hard, rebuilt the country after the war, and lived a simple, ordinary, normal life. Without war. And people were happy and grateful to their rulers for that.

"На заре советской власти интеллигенция постепенно выделялась из числа образованных и одаренных рабочих (гораздо реже – крестьян) и тех представителей этой категории досоветских времен, которые с готовностью приняли новую идеологию ("идейных" и карьеристов-приспособленцев еп.). Так постепенно образовывался элитный класс, который в подходящее время, выделил из своей среды тех, кого можно было назвать «советским дворянством» — партноменклатуру.

"At the dawn of the Soviet state, the intelligentsia gradually stood out from among the educated and gifted workers (much less often – peasants) and also  representatives of this category from the pre-Soviet times, who readily accepted the new ideology ("the followers" and the career climbers-adaptants ep.). In this way, an elite class was gradually formed, and at the right time it singled out from its midst  those who could be called the "Soviet nobility" - the party nomenclature.

Source: https://osssr.ru/life/klassovye-gruppy-v-sssr-rabochij-intelligentsiya

The Soviet intelligentsia, which partially replaced the real nobility, at least publicly, but remained under its indirect influence, multiplied and flooded all cultural institutions, all editorial offices of newspapers and magazines, all publishing houses and institutions. All administrations of enterprises and factories. Very few went to teach in schools or colleges.

They were more eager for an academic career at universities and institutes, including research institutes - Science Research institutes, of which a huge number were created in all branches of science simply (among other reasons, of course) for the employment of scientific and technical intelligentsia - a huge number of specialists with higher technical and humanitarian education, many of whom wore their pants off, doing nothing, in the workplace for an excellent salary of 120 rubles. 

Every such institution was headed by a party member responsible for development, maintaining of general guidelines, correction of errors and identification of shortcomings. But such leader was either a representative of the same crypto-noble or bourgeois-party intelligentsia, or a representative of the real - new Soviet intelligentsia (party nomenclature of workers and peasants, or just career climbers). 

These two groups were in contradiction and had disagreements. Moreover, the first group tried to preserve (and furnish accordingly) the old "noble" or bourgeois way of life, dreaming of the overthrow of the Soviet system and doing everything necessary for this, including constant criticism of the Soviet system and constant small or large-scale sabotage of real decisions and measures for the development of socialism in the country with an aspiration for communism, about which, however, no one had any clear idea. 

Everyone associated it, especially under Khrushchev, with material well-being, and from the West they broadcast on all possible channels that capitalism (the new modern humane one) works better in this than socialism. 

But communism is not about that at all. This would be a fundamentally new social formation. 

The movement towards communism ended in the reign of Khrushchev. The rhetorics - slogans and the leading role of the Communist Party in the life of the country remained.

Party leaders often joined the first group of elites and ceased to perform their controlling and directing function. And most importantly, they stopped correcting possible failures and deviations from the course developed by the government of the peoples state, they represented. And were responsible for. 

And these representatives of the real new Soviet elite were actively controlled and lured, pulled into their ranks by representatives of the first group of elites. In extreme cases, they were compromised, blackmailed, or ostracized and forced to leave the post, where they were a disturbing factor and did the real work. 

But we, their children, have seen and heard from their conversations how they were being disturbed. How all constructive processes and promising projects were slowed down or cancelled. In intellectual circles one could hear how boring ideological cliches (which they spread themselves) were ridiculed and real values were emasculated (which they also debunked and subjected to sarcastic ostracism). 

By the end of the 1970s, the entire creative intelligentsia was full only of themselves, dreaming of the possibility of traveling or working abroad, solving the problems of ensuring a "decent life" for THEMSELVES. To do this, it was necessary to take a certain position in the nomenclature. And for this it was necessary to adapt, match and pretend. And to fight with competitors - and there were already quite a lot of them.

"In pre-revolutionary Russia, according to the population census of 1897, the number of intellectuals employed in the country's economy was a little more than 700 thousand people. 

Of the entire composition of the intelligentsia of tsarist Russia, the number of education and health workers was about 270 thousand people, the rest of the intelligentsia were mainly officials, judicial and legal workers, army officers, landowners and factory owners.  

In the USSR, during the years of Soviet power, a new, truly popular intelligentsia was created. Only the number of employees of science, education, health care and cultural and educational institutions is currently 4.3 million people, and the entire number of Soviet intellectuals employed in the national economy and students is almost 15.5 million people. 

At the same time, the data on the number of Soviet intelligentsia does not include a large number of workers and other categories of workers who have secondary education and study on-the-job in specialized secondary and higher educational institutions.  

The number of intellectuals in the previously backward regions of the country (the Middle Asia) has increased even more significantly. For example, in the Uzbek Republic, where there was very little of its intelligentsia before the revolution, at the end of 1956, there were already 164 thousand specialists with higher and secondary special education at work. 

Before the revolution, Kazakhstan also had almost no intelligentsia of its own, and at the end of 1956, about 230 thousand people worked in the Kazakh Republic as specialists with higher and secondary special education.

 This is an incredible achievement. No one has ever grown an elite class in any country - intellectuals = intelligentsia - an educated layer of the population to such a size. And this was fraught with dangers. Mainly because of the heterogeneity of the elite. There were too many representatives of the crypto-nobility and the former bourgeoisie in it, pretending to be the people's Soviet intelligentsia.

"The intelligentsia was not called a stratum by chance, because if you call it a class, it was not long before the appearance of a" hostile "and even" parasitic " class. This could not be allowed in Soviet society in any way. Therefore, it was a" stratum "and"people's". Of course, the intelligentsia has always been in the minority, for example, by 1976 their share in Soviet society was only 14.2% of the total population, which amounted to more than 36 million people. 

Interestingly, over the previous 40 years, their number has increased 4 times."


 This is meant since 1946 - for the post-war period of reconstruction - 4 times! There were 9 million before the war, and it became 36 million of educated people after it - the number of intellectuals after the war increased by 27 million people in 40 years. It is really incredible!

The same number is the number of people killed during the war - both civilians and military - 27 million Soviet citizens perished during the war.

"One of the main reasons for this was that it was from this stratum, in the process of building a socialist society, that the monster of the party nomenclature, who were later called bureaucrats, grew up.

Source: https://osssr.ru/life/klassovye-gruppy-v-sssr-rabochij-intelligentsiya


 Expert opinion 

Konstantin Pavlovich Vetrov

Assistant and Adviser to the Minister of State Control of the USSR, Hero of Socialist Labor, historian, Doctor of Historical Sciences. Author of many scientific papers on the history of the Soviet Union.

"So, it would seem, from the most enlightened and developed stratum of society, something was formed that undermined its foundations and became one of the main reasons for its collapse." 

 Source: https://osssr.ru/life/klassovye-gruppy-v-sssr-rabochij-intelligentsiyaИсточник: https://osssr.ru/life/klassovye-gruppy-v-sssr-rabochij-intelligentsiya


 Analyzing the reasons for the collapse of the USSR, they talk about anything, but very rarely about the real role (betrayal) of the intelligentsia and the party nomenclature - the near government circles and ruling elite - in the processes of emasculating the ideology and creating moral decay of the Soviet people, as a result of which everything else became possible - the collapse/sabotage of the economy, the political crisis of the Communist Party, artificial food shortages (or of certain important products), discontent and unrest in the streets, Yeltsin's rise to power, and the deliberate dismantling of the Soviet Union with the abolition of the state system - the Socialism - there were no objective reasons for this, except for the desire of the crypto-noble and bourgeois elite for revenge and the restoration of the class and capitalist order, and the betrayal of the party nomenclature, which had gradually turned into the party bourgeoisie.

The ideological suffocation into which the intellectual minority in Russia turned one of the most progressive and constructive anti-bourgeois ideologies in the world, was supposed to drag the loyal part of the Soviet intelligentsia to the side of the bourgeois, or at least to turn it away from the official power. Which was achieved. 

Thinking and patriotic intellectuals who thought about and analyzed the situation in the Soviet Union for 1975-80 were ousted from public discourse and compromised and pressured by internal security agencies (which indicates their active participation in the bourgeois revanchist conspiracy).

The pressure, including economic pressure, when a journalist of the prestigious TASS news agency was forced to leave his job and get hired as a stoker or butcher to feed his family, was unbearable, which pushed those who had such an opportunity to leave the USSR and build a future life in the West. 

To the credit of Russian "foreigners", it must be said that many emigrants (who had Jewish or other roots, as well as half-breeds) were sincere patriots of Russia, real intellectuals who could solve or help solve its problems, but were ousted from public discussions and from important positions, and even from the country altogether. 

My husband was engaged in the revision of Marxism-Leninism and a comparative analysis of its theoretical calculations with the implemented practices of the late Soviet Union, indicating errors and methods of their correction. And this was exactly what was vital for the correction and development of Soviet socialism. But it was neutralized and then eliminated in one way or another.

The Soviet Union was destroyed along with its powerful economy and defamed ideology. The people are demoralized, stupefied and corrupted by the political incomprehensibility of what was happening and the mass pop culture of the West, the ideology of consumption and free sexual relations, which was tearing down the" roof " especially among young people and middle-aged people. The Soviet people, as the bearer of the concept of the owner of the state and the source of power, are discredited, humiliated, and then trampled by the "new capitalists" who came to power and the crime released to the surface. 


Those who participated in the planning and implementation of the plot against socialist Russia from the Western side were not prepared for the fact that the plot would succeed. They counted on the weakening and some chaoticization of the USSR, but not on its complete collapse. 

The Russian part of the conspirators did not think much about anything. They just wanted to destroy everything, especially and forever - communism and even the desire for it. Socialism was popular in the West, its elements were actively introduced into the state system of Western countries, since capitalism had already become unviable by this time, and this was well understood in the West. But in Russia, the "wild capitalism" of the period of primary accumulation (that is, robbery) was introduced and supported in every possible way, which was especially mean on the part of the American and European advisers of the "Soviet conspirators". 

The result exceeded all the expectations of the West - they got another 10 years of relatively prosperous existence due to the plundering of Russia and due to its simple absence in the international arena. 

Socialism as a whole doctrine was discredited all over the world, communism passed into the category of debunked utopias, "dying capitalism" rhetorically won all over the world. The communist movement was finished. The left Socialists have been thrown back a hundred years. 

The precedent of the USSR was used as the main argument in proving the non-viability of socialism and its unrealizability in practice. And the victory over the Soviet Union was attributed entirely to the United States and served as the foundation for their short-term seizure of power in the world.

At the same time, the dismantling of social structures in the West, built during the Cold War under the pressure of the example of the USSR, began. The traditional society, which has been transformed into a "welfare society" in some European countries, has also been destroyed by discrediting religious institutions, reducing the educational level of the population and the quality of education for peoples, debunking family values, introducing a gender agenda, the primacy of individualism and mercantilism in everything, carefully undermining even the authority of national sovereign states (EU). And even the introduction of the theory of "downshifting" - the neutralization of the ideology of mass consumption under the guise of environmental protection, reducing / solving environmental problems - warming/cooling, etc. 

All of that - unsuccessfully.

Then - the eternal American "wars without end" - the seizure of foreign resources and the destruction of peripheral states (including Ukraine and inciting discord with Russia) - and then - the directed million flows of angry migrants to Europe (the unmotivated unheard-of aggression of Arab and black migrants against the residents of the host countries) - the problem of the aging white population of the world, the problems of degeneration and degradation in Europe, and finally, the coronavirus pandemic (on the third attempt, including Ebola). 

As a result, there is a general obvious degradation of the population around the world and its managerial elites. Global financial and economic crises. The mass discontent of the population in Europe and in the United States and an aggravation of racial and class problems. 

The polarization of the population into the poor and the "rest" (about 1%). Restriction of civil liberties and curtailment of the rights of "democratic" citizens. The stupefaction and degradation of a part of the population - especially young people.

And against this background, the revival of Russia (5-6 place in the world economy after its total crush, the first places in solving military, diplomatic and political world problems, a wild surge of Russophobia - to the point of frenzy - as before the wars), the economic rise of China (and India) and their entry into the first places in the world economy and gradually in politics. 

The agony of the United States in Afghanistan and the shameful flight from there with the chaotic, hysterical shooting of the frightened by the explosion American soldiers at a crowd of their Afghan supporters and helpers who were loyal to them, who crowded around the walls of the airport and even clung to the landing gear of American planes and then fell from there at a huge height. This demonstration of American treatment of their allies shocked the world.

In Afghanistan, the Taliban came to power, against whom "heroic Americans" fought for 20 years. Americans, who did not build or grow anything in this country except endless fields of heroin poppy.

Squabbling over vaccines, vaccine segregation even in European countries. 

The confusion of young people, who do not understand, what to prepare for and how to behave in a situation of increasing chaos and tension between everyone. And the main issue - their future, they have no idea of it. No promises, no guarantees. 

Hence, in every country there are local "bunches of freaks" that outrage normal people. But normal people are politically passive. On the contrary, the "freaks" are very active. These thoughtless or evil freaks are ready to sell anything for money - and do sell everything -  their own mother, their own country and their own future.  

Normal people do not have real levers of power that can influence the quality and content of educational programs. Normal people cannot resist the "networks of freaks" who are steadily pursuing their destructive program. 

And actually, why can't they? Yes, they can. Just look - the officials are already afraid to open their mouths - they blurt out - they will be fired! The indignant reactions of people on the web force the bureaucratic authorities to stop the contemptuous statements of officials. 

The opposition to systemic Russophobes and freaks-non-Russian comedians - has already started - they will be expelled or banned from entering Russia for from 10 to 50 years. 

All those who work in Russia against Russia on money from abroad are marked as "foreign agent" (not all of them are bad, there are also real bona fide charitable organizations). Just so that people know who they are listening to and who they are getting help from. Just in case... 

It is incomprehensible that there is a liberal and condescending attitude towards the most terrible freaks - pedophiles, who rape, mutilate and kill children. 8 years instead of 20, stipulated by the law?! Or instead of the lifelong state maintenance of freaks who have committed a repeated or multiple crimes against children??! 

What about the partial lifting of the death penalty moratorium for this category? In order to reduce the number of freaks, eliminate the danger to other children and their parents, and as a general warning to this kind of sick criminals.  

Why do the pedophile lobbies win in parliaments and dumas? Maybe we should take a closer look at these lobbyists? As well as at all the freaks, trying to destroy Russia again and the whole world of normal humans? Maybe it is time to seriously think about our own values?

EP. 13.9.2021