Role of Russia

[Keit]

Antony sounds very much like he could get grants from all the Western NGO's because his posts sound like the usual script - maybe you should get something in return for your opinions, Antony; it's known in Armenia sarcastically as "grant eaters" (approximate translation).

Yeah, I surely hope for Antony that he is on the payroll, because otherwise this round of "trying to stir a pot" in pretty transparent way is going to turn out to be a thankless job.

 

[Antony]

Ennio,
My bias is called life in Russia and For Russia. Please read the information on the domestic issues or communicate with people living here.

SeekinTruth
If someone says something that contradicts the view/perception and approach of the majority towards an issue -labeling and personal accusations starts to appear. Better try to explain reasonably the contradictions on the matter.
If people draw themselves a beautiful picture in mind, based upon wrong judgement, it is very difficult to ruin it even in the light of objectivive facts. That's why, i believe, we are here for- to be open minded and to Work through the wishful thinking in order to get to the Truth.

Keit,
Have you driven from Belarus to Russia? Have you noticed the difference in the surroundings? Can you explain how come the small country - Without oil/gas/other resources - managed to look much more prosperous even if only from a shop-front view (by the way-not only:)?!

 

[Siberia]

prices on food and necessities have skyrocketed (meat- at least 30%, fish - up to 200%!!!, milk products - up to 100% etc.)

Maybe it's a good time to forget milk and fish and go keto? ;)

So the question I am trying to get across here- is how that "internationally" fancy looking President is managing to behave in international arena as a rightful leader, while domestically buggering up everything?

Just two facts for you to consider: in 2000 (when Putin became the President) Russia's military strength ranked 46th in the world. In 2014, it's the second in the world after the US. The second. Not according to some local media, but according to the international ratings. Nuclear weapons were excluded from the rating, by the way.

And the second fact: Russia's golden reserve has tripled since 2005 according to Bloomberg (not a pro-Russian source for sure). Which means that Russia gradually converts its dollar reserves into tangible assets.

But the real strength of Russia is not in gold or weapons: it is in the Russian spirit, which is compassion and help. In case of emergency Russia always comes to help: with Ebola, floods, earthquakes, etc. Over a million Ukrainian refugees now reside in Russia, and they receive their shelter, food and other necessary aid. Ukrainian children now study in Russia free of charge. This is the role of Russia: to share knowledge, to help others, to unite people. And Russia is not alone on this path, many other nations actively participate. And the more people join in, the better future our planet may have. OSIT

 

[Antony]

Siberia,
I am on keto/paleo for quite some time! Dramatic changes indeed!

Not good examples.
Military-comparing with 1990s and 2010s we started to buy more weapons. But the quantity of new items is very small. The problem is that all major military tech is still of Soviet times. Take tanks, planes, ships - nothing conceptually new was invented for 15 years - modernization is a slogan here. ICBMs, the ones that are still feared by the US and Co. are Soviet's made. Almost 20 years can't finish Bulava(( Ukraine's crisis have struck hard - a break up in production cooperation has put at risk a lot of our projects. According to plan all vital technology should have been moved to Russia by 2010. - Nothing has been done. Another, more scary thing - we lost a lot of production chains, did almost nothing to restore, so made ourselves dependent on western imports. Mistral ships - is the most "famous" Serdukov's deal. Is he in jail for the huge robbery and destroying army's structure?! Who appointed him? :) Do you honestly believe that nobody knew what he had been doing? i won't go into more details here-it is my area of interest and I can continue for ages.

Reserves. I have mentioned here earlier that our financial system is knotted with US Fedreserve. Reserves are stored abroad mostly in dollar/euro paper. Even after Crimean events and sanctions and the rest of warlike oratory with the west we do NOT withdraw funds from there http://lenta.ru/news/2014/10/17/bills/ Quite the opposite - since spring we ARE buying more US obligations!!! One more thing - our reserves are less than our debt roughly 500 against 700 billion$. Absurd or a good and independent financial policy?!

 

[Ennio]

Ennio,
My bias is called life in Russia and For Russia. Please read the information on the domestic issues or communicate with people living here.

This is a pretty vague response. It is clear that Russia has many serious domestic issues, like any country. The point is that they probably would have been in far worse off shape had Putin not stepped in.

And you did not address what I said about non-RT journalists covering Russia, Putin and the events there. You are not asking for knowledge or open to the very notion that you may be strongly and non-objectively biased for whatever reasons. Your cup is full and it seems like you are just giving lip service to being open-minded.

What facts can you draw upon to show that Putin has been more detrimental to Russia than constructive? Did you see Siberia's last post? They are good examples. The quality of life for most Russians has been raised. Putin/Russia are also trying to raise the quality of life for other countries via BRICS with smart business alliances, which will thereby effect the lives of literally hundreds of millions of people to get them out of the stranglehold of the 'almighty dollar'.

 

[Keit]

You are not asking for knowledge or open to the very notion that you may be strongly and non-objectively biased for whatever reasons. Your cup is full and it seems like you are just giving lip service to being open-minded.

Yeah, it's pretty clear that Antony is BS-ing us. Quite interesting to observe, actually. Wonder why he got activated again.

 

[Antony]

Keit,
Is it a style of communication of getting personal and not answering questions which may have a right to exist given the facts? According to your logic I may well call someone a paid pro-Putin activist....(there are a lot of those in Rysskiy Internet).


Ennio,
I read a lot of materials with different views on a lot of topics. In this thread i have given a lot of different facts on various aspects and raised logic questions that few wish to honestly answer. Could that be a bias (as you called it) of perceiving only the information that fits the picture I described above? It could be very difficult sometimes to admit a misjudging on someone's part based on false perceptions.

Some just go Putin, Putin, no matter the arguments and inconsistencies of his deeds. I presume that most of the people here are serious researchers and may be just a little bit of analysis will strive them for Objective Truth.

 

[Siberia]

You are not asking for knowledge or open to the very notion that you may be strongly and non-objectively biased for whatever reasons. Your cup is full and it seems like you are just giving lip service to being open-minded.

Yeah, it's pretty clear that Antony is BS-ing us. Quite interesting to observe, actually. Wonder why he got activated again.

"Activated" is the exact word. In Russian there is a medical term "осеннее обострение", couldn't find an English version for it. It means that people are especially vulnerable in Autumn: lack of vitamin D to cause depression (or aggression), suicides, etc. Maybe this is the case or maybe it's a permanent state. Anyway, staying outdoors, practicing EE, cold protocol and moderate exercises may be of good help.

 

[Siberia]

Reserves. I have mentioned here earlier that our financial system is knotted with US Fedreserve. Reserves are stored abroad mostly in dollar/euro paper. Even after Crimean events and sanctions and the rest of warlike oratory with the west we do NOT withdraw funds from there http://lenta.ru/news/2014/10/17/bills/ Quite the opposite - since spring we ARE buying more US obligations!!! One more thing - our reserves are less than our debt roughly 500 against 700 billion$. Absurd or a good and independent financial policy?!

Antony, do you know what the word "obligations" means? It means the US debt to Russia, and it doesn't matter in what currency it is denominated. It is the sovereign debt (i.e. obligation to pay) of one country towards the other. The USSR collapsed when it failed to pay its debt. The same may happen to the US, if one day they fail to pay theirs.

Here is the map for you from Wikipedia:

Those are the reserves of foreign exchange and gold. Not too bad, isn't it?

 

[Yozilla]

Some just go Putin, Putin, no matter the arguments and inconsistencies of his deeds. I presume that most of the people here are serious researchers and may be just a little bit of analysis will strive them for Objective Truth.

Hi Anthony...

I can understand that Putin isn't the best person to lead Russia - for you... Do you have any alternative individual who would do better job - who would may be the ideal leader? Since you have noticed so much flaws in Putin's policy, it could be assumed that you would do so much better job than Vladimit P; maybe you should involve yourself in politics on "higher" levels - rather than forum level?

 

[SeekinTruth]

Yeah, Antony is definitely BS-ing us like Keit said. His claims about Russia's military strength, for one, is total nonsense. Look at NATO's assessment of Russian military capabilities for the last few years. They are privately very scared of it. (Any informed person would NOT be fooled by their public swagger). Their war games for different scenarios SCARE the militarily competent and literate commanders. Russia already easily kicked NATO's butt in the 2008 Georgia proxy war. And Russia's military is totally on a different level now than in 2008, according to the US and NATO assessments - THAT is what alarms them so much. If it wasn't so, there would already have been a military attack on Russia. They know they can't win, that's why they haven't directly attacked. If you take all things into consideration, Russia has the most powerful military in the world - ESPECIALLY air defense including missiles and fighter jets (THAT tells how much BS Antony is spewing). This is common knowledge, Russia's missile systems are about a decade more advanced than anything in the West - the West has NO current defenses against Russia's most advanced missile systems. Again that's why there's been no direct war with Russia. The only advantage the US Empire has against Russia militarily is their huge Navy, which is only useful for terrorizing far away "third world" countries that can't defend themselves. Russia's military is for defending Russia and her interests, not trying to dominate the world - so Russia doesn't need such a Naval force as the US Empire. But, again, the West's Navy is just sitting ducks against Russia's defenses - they'll by large be sunk in any direct conflict within the first week or two of hostilities and they know it by their own (West's) war games and analysis.

The gold and foreign currency reserves of Russia are another of the most obvious nonsense Antony spewed. These two issues are NOT controversial. Russia is in MUCH better shape than the hollow West (which will likely collapse worse than USSR in the next couple of years). Also, not only have China and Russia been by far the largest purchasers of physical bullion in the last few years, they vastly understate their reserves officially. All the blatant manipulation of precious metals by the international banksters (again not a controversial claim - quite common knowledge at this point, almost mainstream, even) is just a great buying opportunity for Russia and China at "discount" prices to vacuum up all available physical gold which they've been doing at a frantic rate.

I know people who travel to Russia and the ex-Soviet space and have lots of friends there. One example is a friend of mine who is a top professional cellist who travels the world to play at concerts. Besides the internet sources from which I get information, he's given lots of personal accounts in Russia, Georgia, etc. in the last several years. During Saakashvili's years in Georgia, for example, when the Western propaganda was at it's loudest about how great Georgia had "progressed", he told us what a nasty fascist state Georgia had become from personal observation and talking to many friends and acquaintances.

Another easy way to assess Antony's "objective assessment" is his tone about the network and the Work. I mean are we to be fooled by his claims about knowing more about objective research and the Work than this forum? Really? What have you done in the way of the Work and researching and networking here, Antony? Besides making grandiose claims and superior attitude and using many words you clearly don't understand the meaning of?

 

[Niall]

So what do we have today despite of public claims that we don't care about sanctions and after the small portion of them were imposed on us? Banking/financial system is on a brink of collapse (I doubt that even with budget's support it will stay afloat in the long run), our currency has fallen almost by 30% since spring and is continuing the fall almost uncontrollably against the dollar/euro since spring (considering that we are mostly dependent on imports-the consumers spending ability is shrinking respectively), prices on food and necessities have skyrocketed (meat- at least 30%, fish - up to 200%!!!, milk products - up to 100% etc.), petrol price is rising- now around 1$ per liter (even when the world market's price is falling - is not it absurd for oil producing country?!), car market - decline by 30%, GDP's dynamic is negative. Forecasts following this trend are catastrophic. As Putin said that if the oil price will decrease to 80$ a barrel - the world's economy will collapse (nice try to blame the international markets for the ugly domestic economic Failure).

This "ugly domestic failure" is the result of 'ground rules' set by the Western Powers That Be, assisted by the portion of the population that - as Chinese media described the Hong Kong agitators - have a "fetish for Western authority"; the 'Fifth Column', Putin calls them. They will go out of their way to either see things as portrayed by Western authorities; or, worse, actively assist with 'creating facts on the ground', so that they can turn around later and say, 'See? I told you this would happen!'

They're essentially 'Authoritarian Followers', as described and studied by Bob Altmeyer. While their self-narratives provide a public image of being 'independent, anti-authoritarian truthseekers', once you strip away the inconsistencies, factual errors, subjective interpretations and so on, you're left with a worldview that is more or less identical to that which the dominant global authority wants everyone to believe. In our time, that's the Western/Washington worldview.

And they're often incredibly dedicated to upholding that worldview. It still astonishes me how the Optimates' Cato chose to commit suicide rather than accept that Caesar's vision was - objectively - the best direction for all humanity to take.

I think that this is understood, to some extent or another, by the Russian reformers. As long as we live in an 'open global society', it's child's play for the Western authorities to hold Followers everywhere in their sway. In this respect, China has the right idea by restricting Chinese access to Western websites. That's not going to work in the end, of course, because psychopathy infects populations in many different ways; the only successful defence mechanism against oligarchic/psychopathic predation - that we have thought of so far - is immunization through mass education about the disease.

So the question I am trying to get across here- is how that "internationally" fancy looking President is managing to behave in international arena as a rightful leader, while domestically buggering up everything?

I think some Venezuelan forum members asked a similar question of us: 'How come all you people support Chavez when he's destroying our country?' We tried to explain that Chavez and his people were doing the best they could - given the conditions they're working in - for ordinary Venezuelans, but I don't think it made the slightest difference to their rigid perception of Chavez, 'Chavismo', and the broader global picture. They wanted to discuss it, but only with a view to 'saving' us by trying to make us 'wake up' to their reality.

So, as things stand, discussing this with you is like beating a dead horse

 

[Joe]

The short answer, Anthony, is that the Russian economy is being screwed over by the Anglo-American empire. If you want to blame someone for Russia's lack of economic progress, you need to look West.

 

[SeekinTruth]

Another amusing thing about Antony and this thread is that not only is it useless to talk facts to him about Russia and the world situation, he opened this thread in the Questions For the C's section of the forum. So this is supposed to be a question to the C's of the Role of Russia. But he doesn't take on board all the things the C's have said about Putin and Russia in the last several months either.

 

[Siberia]

Read this interview today, which partly covers such attitudes as those of Antony's, and other issues discussed in this and related threads. Sorry about the quality of translation, it's mostly machine-made, just a bit edited, emphasis mine.

It's the interview with a Serbian professor, Serge Trifkovic. Here is the Russian version. Very curious "the common new England" term used by the author.

The New England is emerging in our world

- You have repeatedly said that the current crisis in the relations between Russia and the West is not a consequence of the Crimean precedent, and is exclusively systemic. Why is it systemic?

- In my opinion, in the relations between Russia and the West, there are two key issues that have not disappeared after the fall of the Berlin Wall, the collapse of the Soviet Union and the disintegration of the Warsaw Pact.

The first lies in geopolitics and reflects the logic behavior of the great maritime powers, in particular Great Britain in the XIX century and the United States after World War II. It was explained by the great geopolitical thinkers - Scottish geographer Mackinder Helford and Dutch-American political scientist Nicholas Spykman. They treated the global geopolitical order as follows: in the world there is a certain continental force controlling the Eurasian Heartland, and sea power, which is trying to take control of the Rimland - area surrounding the Heartland. The "Great Game" between Russia and Britain in the second half of the XIX century and the policy of containment during the Cold War (designated by George Kennan in his famous "Long Telegram" sent in 1946 and expressed in the Truman Doctrine in 1947) and there is actually a struggle for Rimland, later received the name "anaconda strategy". USA is trying to control and possibly strangle Heartland through a network of allied and vassal states along its borders. This, incidentally, explains the logic of NATO enlargement, despite the promise of the Secretary of State James Baker. There is no other explanation – it is the use of Spykman’s "anaconda strategy". West denied even the right of Russia to have legitimate interests in its immediate periphery.

The second reason is connected with the problem of perception. Western political elite as a whole is experiencing a cultural antipathy to Russia, considering it though as civilized, but certainly not a European country. Even during the Crimean War in the mid-XIX century the British began to develop a narrative, in which Russia was positioned as an evil, dark, dangerous colossus with character more Asian than European, which must be deterred, better yet, beaten, displaced eastward, into the depths of Eurasia. This narrative in its various forms used by the whole XIX century, including the Russian-Turkish war of 1877-1878, when Russia's attempt to take control of the Bosporus and the Dardanelles, and to create a Greater Bulgaria led to mass anti-Russian campaign in the European media.

It is interesting that the Russophobe rhetoric was not as widespread in the communist period, as it is prevalent now.

- Why?

- Because the apparatus of the western media has always been full of supporters of leftist beliefs. And their correspondents in the Soviet Union in 1930 - the first among them the correspondent of The New York Times, Walter Duranty - convince their own population that the trials over the "enemies of the people" were a model of legality and transparency. When Arthur Koestler published a political novel "Darkness at Noon", he was ostracized and criticized by intellectuals on both sides of the Atlantic. It took considerable time to understand that Stalin's Soviet Union is not the most progressive leader of mankind, who they so desperately sought. Some of them then turned to Mao, the other - to Ho Chi Minh, and others - to Che Guevara and Fidel Castro.

However, this process of enlightenment took some time, so the quasi-utopic search for the ideologically attractive alternative of a mundane materialistic life in the West in the 1940s, 1950s, and partly in the 1960s took the Soviet Union away from a kind of "discourse of prejudice" and emotional negative stereotyping.

But the today’s Russia is trying to rediscover their roots, identity and spirituality, which is clearly unacceptable to the Western left-wing political and academic elite. The traditional values advocated by this new Russia (family, religion, national culture) are truly conservative. Not accidentally, Patrick Buchanan in the United States and a number of well-known conservative political scientists claim that in terms of cultural and social policies, Putin was a major conservative than many American politicians who consider themselves to be conservatives. Buchanan even published an article "Putin - one of us?" In this regard, the Russian conservatism is dangerous to the West because it is much more attractive than the modern nihilism now functioning in the United States and Europe.

Geopolitical factor and cultural antipathy created a "perfect storm" - a combination of motivation and justification of the aggressive policy to achieve what Zbigniew Brzezinski called in his "Great chess game" "the desired model." It is not about the suppression of some ambitions of Russia and diluting its foreign policy, and a fundamental change in the country from the inside, it assumes a regime change in Moscow. It seemed that the Americans were able to achieve this goal in the 1990s, but in the end the project failed, and Russia is successfully transforming their society. Yes, there are problems with the demographics, modernization and diversification of the economy, but in general, Moscow has reason to look with optimism to the future, they are even more than the United States and the EU.

- So, now the United States refused their policy to encourage regime change?

- No, it was and remains the ultimate goal of American foreign policy with regard to Russia. Washington stuck to it, even during the "reset." For example, when the former Ambassador Michael McFaul was on his way to Moscow, he gave an interview to an American radio station and said he wanted to promote "deputinization" of Russia. This is a very strange statement for a diplomat who is sent to work in the country.

But McFaul is just one of the many so-called Russian experts, who believed that any investment in the so-called democratic sector (non-governmental organizations, human rights watchers) will bring serious dividends. This belief appeared to be wrong, but the ambition is still present. Such hopes are maintained and promoted by an entire segment of the Moscow intelligentsia, who hate their country and feel more at home in London rather than in Moscow. These people convince their Western interlocutors that if American sanctions will lead to a serious economic crisis in the country, followed by the realization that Russia suffered a geopolitical defeat in Ukraine, then the situation may change. The Russians, they say, are not inclined to forgive their leaders a defeat: just like Nicholas I died a broken man, despite that ten years before the Crimean War he seemed to be at the zenith of his power. Lets also recall what happened to Nicholas II because of his losses on the Eastern Front. Even Stalin in the first weeks of the Barbarossa plan had a nervous breakdown - a serious defeat of the Red Army could lead to loss of control over the situation in the country. Khrushchev was replaced not only because of his agricultural policy, but also partly because of the defeat in the Cuban adventure. Brezhnev had his Afghanistan, which caused a crisis of legitimacy of the Soviet leadership in the eyes of the population.

However, such thoughts are wishful thinking. I doubt that the challenges of the West on Russia in connection with Ukraine, can somehow magically transform into a script that will satisfy the United States. If there is a further deterioration of relations, it’s not the pro-Western liberals who will benefit, but the ardent Eurasianists. Putin is not one of them. He is rather a "forced Eurasian", and is not a priori opposed to the EU and the West. However, it is possible that if the United States will continue the current line, the Russian president will start implementing a strategy that will eliminate the phrase "our Western partners" from the lexicon of Russian leaders in the years to come.

The price of political correctness

- You spoke about the policy of containment, which is carried out through the conflict and tellurocratic thalassocratic powers. But can we say that the Heartland was China, and Russia became a Rimland, who is fighting for China and the maritime powers?

- It could be said so, if Russia continued its trend of weakening, which existed during the reign of Boris Yeltsin. In this case, its ability to formulate goals and policies in accordance with the strategic plan would be weakened, and indeed Russia would become the object of policies of the United States and China competing with each other. Fortunately, this did not happen, and there is an obvious synergy between Russia and China (the same would be possible between Russia and Germany if Berlin was able to escape from the claws of the Atlantic world). The combination of Russian resources and space, the Chinese population and economic power, could for the first time in many decades give Heartland a key difference in the world, spoken of by Mackinder a hundred and ten years ago.

- But do the United States not possess the resources and tools in order to prevent such a scenario?

- The Americans may go overloaded. On the one hand, they are planning to re-orient their foreign policy in East Asia: it was stated by Obama two years ago during a trip to the region. On a visit to Japan, Malaysia, the Philippines, he said, to the surprise of many, that he supports the territorial claims of these countries to China. At the same time, the escalation of crisis in Ukraine may simply lead in the long run to the fact that the United States do not have the resources to save the Ukrainian economy, while training and equipping its Western population to return Novorossia to the country, and at the same time to maintain the endless war in the Middle East and the continuation of the policy of containment of China. In the long term it can cause a serious conflict: for example, on the Korean peninsula. Obviously, in the same way, the Chinese will not stand idly by the possible collapse of the North Korean regime and the country's integration with South Korea (similar to the GDR joining the Federal Republic of Germany).

Another problem of Washington is that they were not aware of the impossibility of the existence of a global empire with such degrading monetary policy. The situation with the current staff is very reminiscent of the decline of Spain under Philip II and his successors in the end of XVI - early XVII century. The influx of tons of gold and silver from South American mines had a catastrophic impact on the Spanish economy and contributed to the development of factories, the manufacturing sector in Germany, the Netherlands and even in England. In Spain, it caused inflation, which undermined the country's economy.

Yes, now the United States due to the status of the dollar as the reserve currency may continue to print money, but the country, the national debt which is $ 18 trillion and total debt (if we take into account the local authorities and administration) comes to 100 trillion, may not be held for a long time. Especially if other countries will start selling American bonds, and income from the sale of new bonds will be lower than the cost of servicing this debt.

- However, the fall of Spain Philip needs the growth of the Elizabeth of England. Is there anything in this world, “the England” and this “Elizabeth”, who can challenge “Spain?”

- There are many in the world who are dissatisfied with the American policy, because its ideological justification was taken from the new post-modern ideas, which are dominated by "the opinion of the international community leaded by the exceptional nation." Oddly enough, it is very reminiscent of the Soviet Brezhnev doctrine of limited sovereignty, applied in 1968 as an excuse to the occupation of Czechoslovakia. However, the difference is that the Brezhnev doctrine concerned only the socialist camp and its action did not extend west of the Elbe. And the position of the US-led international community, united by the shared values, are not limited by geographical boundaries, it is global in nature.

So, the dissatisfied have already united into a kind of "collective England." Suffice it to recall the recent gas agreement between Russia and China, trying a number of powers to undermine the status of the dollar as a reserve currency through mutual trade in national currencies, the desire of the BRICS countries to at least start the substitution associated with Washington international financial institutions (for example, through the creation of an equivalent of the World Bank). Thus, the counterweight to American hegemony will be no single country, but some broad loose coalition. One cannot speak of any formal military pact, of course, because for example, China and India have a number of geopolitical contradictions related to border areas. Nevertheless, they will be able to develop a common approach to solving common problems.

However, it should be remembered that in the stage of decline powers are beginning to behave extremely dangerous. Thus, Spain launched the Armada and entered into a suicide Thirty Years War, after which it ranked only fifth maximum among the great powers of Europe. A similar thing happened with Austria-Hungary: entering into a period of decline, it went for broke, in 1908, annexing Bosnia and Herzegovina, as well as putting forward an ultimatum to Serbia in 1914, after the famous assassination in Sarajevo. And the American elite is not going to acquiesce to a decrease in the role of the United States, it is ready to create and escalate crises around the world. It is clear that at least in the short term, they will succeed - see, for example, the Ukrainian scenario. They found the Russian security services by surprise (I still cannot understand how the Russians could miss the Maidan and repeat their mistakes of a decade ago). Washington also managed to undermine the economic relations between Europe and Russia without much harm to itself. They have created a Russophobian narrative in Ukraine, which until today was the prerogative of Galicia, and did not extend to Poltava and Dnipropetrovsk. People out there who felt themselves Ukrainians, not necessarily at the same time identified with neo-Bandera discourse of the western part of the country. Finally, the United States revived NATO, and now no one asks, why do we need an alliance. Obviously, to confront the big bad bear in the east!

But the problem is that in addition to external challenges to American hegemony there is an internal, from which it is not so easy to dismiss. In recent years, there is a rupture of historical and cultural ties in the American society. A society atomized into a set of racial and ethnic groups, who live nearby, but not together. Despite the ideological rhetoric about "diversity" and "tolerance", in reality it leads to a polarization of society, where the idea of a common destiny and common values disappears.

- Because of the notorious political correctness. Until the late 1960s, when the old WASP-controlled most elite institutions in the political, academic and cultural life of the country, there was a clear and unconditional policy on immigrants who arrived in the United States all immigrants should assimilate into society. The United States were dominated by the idea that newcomers must not only accept the concept of the "melting pot", but also to see it as something positive. But then there have been fundamental changes. The struggle for civil rights in the mid-1960s, immigration reform, which began Lyndon Johnson - all this boomerang on Americans' traditional cultural heritage and the idea of the "melting pot."

Destructive social processes contributed to the flourishing of the leading institutes of the country's cultural ideas of Marxism. The old formula of existence of society "proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains" and "owners of the means of production, which are expropriated added value" has been replaced by the division on the basis of race, gender and orientation. Thus, the proletarian replaced legged African-American lesbian and capitalist plutocrat - heterosexual white male. And in the end it turned out that the most important person in the same Thomas Jefferson are not his idea of federalism or diplomatic mission in Paris, and the presence of his slaves. The idea that we should be ashamed of his past, has penetrated even to school, resulting in the study of the history of the United States turned to the study of the history of slavery and the struggle of gay activists against their discrimination, as well as the study of the injustice of the authorities in respect of the non-white population. All this is a serious blow to the idea that everyone should try to conform to the standards and achievements of Western civilization, to exalt it and to live according to its established laws. At the same time manifested dysfunctional nature of the African-American community, which is chronically unable to get out of the vicious circle of the ghetto, in spite of all attempts sensible forces within the community to raise a sense of equality, to rise above the subsidies and dependence on them. This disease eventually led blacks to drug and alcohol abuse, as well as a number of other dysfunctional behavioral norms. Finally, the influx of illegal immigrants from Mexico and Central American countries finally finished off the situation and began the process of fundamental transformation of society. And not only in Los Angeles, but also in Illinois and Massachusetts - where twenty years ago the American public to look more or less complete and the "American" in nature.

There are, of course, immigrants who have obtained integrated. This is particularly true of immigrants from East Asia. However, they are integrated only in the professional and economic terms, and outside working hours prefer to live in their ethno-linguistic enclaves. Generally, the problem of America is that there is extremely difficult to conduct a real debate on race and immigration issues – it is enchained with political correctness.

- How to Moscow should respond to American policy to stimulate crises? In particular, the Ukrainian question?

- Russia should not be engaged in some kind of palliative steps, and to work for regime change in Kiev. In particular, by helping and financing the political forces which, if not pro-Russian, then at least are not a priori anti-Russian (they are still dormant, do not seek to express their position, fearing for their own survival).

Yes, it is a complex policy, but Russia has no options: letting happen Maidan, now it has to develop measures to reduce the damage, which can only be achieved by removing psychopathic authorities in Kiev. These people act irrationally, they play in favor of the construction of national identity (which does not consolidate the nation and at the same time is based on hostility to Russia) and do not pay attention to the issues of economic recovery, which require equidistant from the EU and Russian policy and social stability. As long as these people continue to rule Ukraine, there will be no stability or freedom on the southwestern boundaries of Russia.

In addition to the policy of regime change in Russia, there are other means of pressure. For example, economic, through which you can delegitimize and discredit Kiev mode. So, after the signing of the Association Agreement between Ukraine and the European Union Moscow has every right to impose on Ukrainian goods import duties and thereby protect its market from the re-export of European goods. In addition to this, Russia should take a tough stance on the contract for the supply of gas. Yes, it can lead to certain Ukrainian games that took place in 2006 and 2009, but Europe was well aware who is responsible for these games. And it's time to play Russian energy policy so that Europe pressed on Kiev and forced it to behave more responsibly. Perhaps the hardships of this winter, which promises to be very cold, cool some hot heads in Brussels and force them to live a more rational policy.

- Strategy, of which you speak: regime change, support rational forces - still too complex and ambiguous. May contribute to the collapse of a Ukrainian state? Obviously, the national project mono-national state based on the principles of anti-Russian, went bankrupt. If they do not want to change, you can let them disintegrate into the Western Ukraine and the Novorossia?

- I am afraid that in such a scenario Russia will lose not only the Western Ukraine. Even if Moscow will be able to extend Novorossia and get access to the Crimea, it is obvious that the rest of the Ukraine - and the West, and Central - joins NATO. From the point of view of Russian national interests would be better to have an unstable and divided Ukraine, non-NATO, rather than a significant part of this area, stabilized on Bandera ideas and allow the alliance to expand by another five hundred kilometers to the east. NATO on the Dnieper will be a kind of knife aimed at Russia's underbelly. So that the Russian authorities should carry out a very thin policies: on the one hand, deal with Ukraine as a de facto failed state, and on the other - do not give the process to reach its logical conclusion.

- And what should happen for the West to acknowledge the annexation of Crimea by Russia?

- In theory, they have long had to admit, because the United States have already set a precedent with the occupation of Kosovo in 1999 and the subsequent recognition of the unilateral declaration of Kosovo's independence in 2008. However, as correctly pointed out in his article, Billy Crystal and Robert Kagan, a feature of hegemony is the ability of the hegemon to decide what is a precedent, and what is not. And they say that the Crimea is a completely different story. In some ways they are right, each case is unique, but those are obvious double standards. Thus, the devolution [transfer of the central government to local authorities - Ed.] is acceptable for the UK and Spain, as they remain within the orbit of the United States. At the same time, Bosnia should be centralized, since the Dayton agreement should be considered only as a temporary experiment, the country needs a well-functioning state power. Devolution - a great idea for Serbia in the form of granting more rights to Vojvodina and Sandzak, but it is unacceptable for the Eastern Ukraine. And the subject of Kosovo, as noted by Hillary Clinton, has become obsolete.

Thus, it is obvious that the West will never recognize Crimea as part of Russia, and will use this question as a kind of "ace in the hole", which can be pulled out at the right time. At the same time, if the West will be able to consolidate the position of a coup government in Kiev, then the Crimea could become a small consolation for the loss of the whole Ukraine. This should not happen.