If oil prices, which are dragging down the Russian economy, remain at a minimum for another year, unrest may begin in the country. According to philosopher Leonidas Donskis and political scientist Laurynas Kasciunas, there is a high probability that, unable to withstand the chaos, the Russian elite will become more active, but Donskis does not discount the possibility of a general revolution.
This is the opinion of experts shared recently by the Lithuanian publication Delfi.lt.
Political scientist Thomas Janeliūnas notes that Russians will most likely try to endure the difficult period, but the authorities will most likely not be blamed for this. The Russian budget for this year includes a forecast according to which the price of oil will be $50 per barrel, but recently it has fallen to $33-34 per barrel.
Economists believe that if such oil prices continue in 2017, the situation in Russia will become even more complicated: the country is already using its foreign exchange reserves to support the economy by saving banks and companies. Next year, if the trend continues, could be a landmark year for Russia. A century ago, in 1917, a revolution took place. Due to economic difficulties, hardships, failures at the front, and dissatisfaction with the tsarist government, the latter was overthrown in February.
The head of the Center for Eastern European Studies, Laurynas Kasciunas, says he can imagine unrest among the Russian elite, but not among the Russian public. This can happen if, due to the economic situation, it is difficult to divide the “place in the sun.” “In Russia, the elite always split first and only then, as a consequence, did the masses take to the streets. So far, the masses are not the driving force that can give impetus to the reform scenario. Sanctions against Russia's actions and falling oil prices affecting the Russian economy have not reduced Putin's rating at all. Thus, the focus must be on elite groups to see if sanctions and falling oil prices will create discord among domestic elites. So, a palace coup is more plausible than the revolution scenario,” notes Kasciunas.
Philosopher Leonidas Donskis also considers this scenario more realistic: “It is difficult to say whether a revolution is possible after a hundred years: they happen very unexpectedly, spontaneously, and then are not analyzed enough. But I think that, most likely, a palace coup is possible there, a new perestroika, when the regime realizes that it cannot continue to exist without the Western world and is sliding into a state like North Korea. This is unacceptable neither for the Russian elite nor for the Russians. Having realized this, they can voice the culprits, and the Kremlin, having condemned its predecessors for adventurism and voluntarism, can choose a new political course,” says the philosopher.
Despite the fact that the palace coup and the scenario of political change look more convincing for Donskis, he does not exclude the scenario of a general revolution. “The fact that Russian society can go hungry for a long time is a myth. I don't believe for a minute in such a scenario. I am in no way saying that Russia is Western Europe: it is a different society and a different country, but it is, of course, not North Korea or the Soviet Union. This is a country in which there is a middle class and a certain layer that has already lived in a civilized manner and will definitely not agree with Putin’s stupidity in implementing the North Korean version,” the philosopher noted. According to Donskis, unrest may begin in Russia, but it will not begin in Moscow or St. Petersburg, but in the provinces.
It must be said that many other experts also predict Russia will have its own Maidan this year or next.
For example, Russian historian Andrei Zubov recently predicted that the reason for this is aggression in Crimea and Donbass.
Astrologer Vlad Ross predicted on January 1 of this year that “2017 is a key year of revolution in Russia, starting in March.”
Also that “God’s punishment will befall Russia in 2017,” Ukrainian diplomat and politician Yuriy Shcherbak.
And the ex-head of YUKOS, Khodorkovsky, came from London last December, saying that a revolution was inevitable in his homeland. But he did not name the approximate timing of this happy event.
In general, there are already a lot of good forecasts for fascist Russia and fascist Putin. Let's hope that some of them will come true soon...
Recently, analysts predicting an imminent revolution in the Russian Federation have reached a peak of activity. They scribble - they're already jumping up and down. All the colors and arguments have already been used, it’s just scary for their future career - what will they write tomorrow?.. They say that the hungry population will soon take to the streets and overthrow the government because it has dropped the standard of living in the country.
Just a minute, gentlemen. Who told you that the goal of government is the welfare of the people? TV? And do you believe him? As I understand it, analytics are written not for the general public, but for people who are interested in politics a little deeper. And these people must understand that the state’s goal is completely different.
If anyone hasn't understood yet, I'll tell you a secret. The purpose of public administration is to maintain the dominant position of the ruling elite. That's all. At the same time, the welfare of the population is not the goal of the state, but can only serve as a tool for achieving the main goal. Of course, we are talking about exploiting states, but still there are practically no others now.
Since the ruling elite cannot maintain its position on its own, it needs a certain number of reliable assistants. They must be well motivated, that is, receive good compensation for their service. In ancient times, a small gang of loyal mordovorots (prince's squad) was enough for the ruler. With the complication of the structure of society and the increase in controlled territories, more and more reliable people were needed. Among them appeared people who had never seen the owner in person. But still, any society consisted of a poor, robbed majority and a certain number of lackeys in power who received good rations for keeping the people in obedience.
Significant changes occurred with the emergence of a single world market. Now the poor could be concentrated in some countries, and well-paid guards and their master armorers in others. Thanks to this, it became possible to tell everyone the fairy tale that there are well-governed rich countries and poorly governed poor ones. In poor countries they believe this and demand that local overseers do as good a job for them as the “rich”. With the same success, residents of some run-down Moscow microdistrict can demand that the district administration provide them with salaries like the residents of Rublyovka.
Thus, well-paid supervisors from local personnel assigned “on the farm” must solve one task - to restrain the population from revolt. For this they have their own ideological support, which by all means of propaganda, from Hollywood to McDonald's, assures the natives of the fairness of the world order, and that recognition of the superiority of the white sahibs leads to an improvement in their situation. We believe in this less and less, but admit it honestly - not so long ago we firmly believed in it.
The state has all the means to prevent revolutions that need intellectuals and the social theories they create. But the state can identify all intellectuals in no time. Some of them will be bought, offering good positions in the service of the ruling elite. The rest will be suppressed. Without intellectual support, only rebellion is possible. And it will be poorly organized and a priori criminal. This means he will be depressed. How are coups and revolutions made?
The fact is that the elite is not always united. People are designed in such a way that they think differently, or simply do not like each other. The diversity of elite groups is some factor in the stability of the elite. Since different historical situations require different people, diversity makes it possible to maneuver personnel. Today the highest authorities nominate some, tomorrow the situation has changed - others will come in handy. But this also means that the position of different parts of the elite is unequal. Some are closer to the feeder, others are further from it. The struggle for proximity to the feeding trough between elite groups is ongoing, but there is some consensus in it: the people cannot be drawn into the struggle for power.
The elite knows that the people cannot be honestly informed of the goals of the struggle. You can’t say “Down with Rabinovich, let’s die for Abramovich!” No one will die for this. Therefore, plausible pretexts are used to involve slaves in a showdown between lords: “Russians against Bandera,” “entrepreneurs against the lawlessness of officials,” etc. Because otherwise it is very easy to lose control over the masses and end up being dealt to them. People who have broken free from their chains will not sort out who is from which clan, but will kill all the bloodsuckers in a row.
With the reduction of the social pie, which the elite divides, throwing crumbs to the people, the struggle between factions intensifies. The idea of dragging the people into this struggle increasingly visits the minds of the elitists, and when some parts of the elite begin to face death from lack of food, they are ready to break the taboo.
But the most deprived parts of the elite do not organize revolutions by themselves. Revolutions occur when an elite coup coincides in time with urgent changes in the structure of society. A coup can pave the way for revolution by destroying the old system. If changes in society are ripe, and the organizers of the coup were so stupid that they lost control, a revolution will occur. But it may not happen.
What is needed to organize a coup and subsequent revolution? What is needed, figuratively speaking, is a two-component explosive and a detonator. The detonator is clear. These are some kind of opposition groups with intellectual, organizational and street hooligan abilities that elite gangs always have in reserve. At the right time they can be activated and strengthened. But without social explosives they are nothing.
Social explosives consist of two components, which must be present in sufficient quantities and in the required proportions to explode. Why of the two? Because a person has not only interests (stomach), but also ideals - an idea of a fair structure of society. Therefore, economic difficulties, which are now being shouted about on all corners, when they reach a certain limit, will become only one of the components of social explosives. The second component is the discrepancy between popular notions of what is proper and the real state of affairs in society.
It seems that both components are already available. But let's see if they are in the right proportion and if they are mixed correctly? I think that the mixture necessary for a social explosion is still far from ready. Why?
Take a look at who is “suffering” the most from the deteriorating economic situation. It is quite obvious that the richer the social group, the more moans about an unbearable life can be heard from it. Those who suffer the most are those dissatisfied with the rise in price of Parmesan and Camembert and those who were forced to celebrate the New Year in Thailand instead of the Canary Islands. Those who, instead of two bottles of milk, began to buy one, for some reason support Putin and are not going to go to Bolotnaya.
Why is that? Yes, because the population was divided into two categories. For one category, one’s own ass is the center of the universe, and any attack on its comfort is sufficient grounds for calls to “drown Russia in shit.” At the same time, they themselves hope to somehow miraculously not get hurt. For these people, ideals do not exist. All their moaning about corruption only means that they were not shared with them personally or that they were not punished enough.
The second category lives poorly, but this is familiar to them, and their “pain threshold” is far from being reached. Ideals for them are not an empty phrase. They are acutely aware of the injustice of the structure of society, but reasonably argue that the revolution can become a personal tragedy for many. Moreover, not a single political organization chanting about revolution offers any image of the future. All we can hear are the old cries that we don’t want corruption, poverty, Putin, etc. What do we want? Unclear.
In short, the revolution is not coming soon. Calm down, gentlemen revolutionaries. This will happen someday anyway, but it is in our interests that it happens later than similar events in the West. It's brewing there too. Now the question is who will collapse first. Whoever lasts longer wins. No matter how disgusting you may be with all sorts of Putins and Lukashenkas, you have to wait for now.
On February 28, a very interesting document was posted on the website stratfor.com - Decade Forecast: 2015-2025
Stratfor is a company called Strategic Forecasting Inc, also known as the "shadow" or "private CIA" and engaged in the highly profitable business of collecting, assessing information and forecasting. Statfor was founded in 1996 in Austin, Texas, by George Friedman, a former political science professor who still serves as the organization's director. Today the company's audience is 300 thousand paid subscribers and over two million free subscribers.
Among them are Coca-Cola, to which they advise on the stability of the situation in China on the eve of the Olympic Games in Beijing, Northrup Grumman Corporation, inquiring about the possibility of Japan acquiring nuclear weapons, Intel, asking about the presence of representatives of the Hezbollah movement " in Latin America and their propensity to carry out terrorist attacks, the owner of the Radisson hotel chain, seeking an end date for militant Islamist groups. In addition to them, Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch, the US Marine Corps, and Georgetown University use Stratfor services. They pay upwards of $20,000 a year to get their hands on personalized, sensitive information.
However, apparently, Friedman has more serious clients, namely the American State Department, the Pentagon, and the large global financial oligarchy behind them.
It is not difficult to understand this only by putting into a single picture the connection between their forecasts and the subsequent actions of the US government and army.
So, on March 27, George Friedman published an article entitled: American strategy after Ukraine: from Estonia to Azerbaijan. In it, among other theses, the one that defined the US military strategy against Russia after the outbreak of the Ukrainian crisis sounded especially vivid. In particular, Friedman quite rightly argued that at this moment in time NATO is not capable of waging war against the Russian Federation due to the great extent of its western front line and the length of communications for the supply of food, fuel and lubricants to the warring formations.
Friedman called the solution to this issue the movement of military bases directly to the Russian borders at several points as the only possible condition for the deployment of a full-fledged punitive campaign for Russia, which is rapidly throwing off its control over the United States.
And indeed, by the end of the year the process began.
Thus, in mid-December last year, for several days the sky was closed over Zaporozhye, Kharkov and Dnepropetrovsk, and eyewitnesses testified that a large number of cargo transport aircraft of the Hercules type and others were landed at Ukrainian airports, which brought equipment there, equipment and troops, consisting mainly of soldiers from private military companies. The number was indicated approximately in the size of the division - from 10 to 15 thousand people, mostly mercenaries of the Academi PMC (until 2009 it was called Blackwater, owned by Erik Prince, carries out orders from the Pentagon). They had previously been spotted in Donetsk, and later in Mariupol. A secret NATO base was being formed in the Kharkov region: previously, much had already been transported by land, now the camouflage was discarded, and planes began to fly. Military experts indicated that some of the equipment and troops were moved from a military base in Hungary near Debrecen. Earlier, trains with American armored vehicles were spotted on the territory of Ukraine, among which Bradley infantry fighting vehicles, Stryker armored personnel carriers, and Hummers were identified.
Therefore, Stratfor publications should be taken seriously and monitored closely.
So, the document we are considering is a geopolitical forecast for the next ten years, describing the future of all continents. I will not cover it all in detail - many analysts and the media have already done this.
I will dwell on the key phrases for us and what I read between the lines. The article clearly formulates the strategic task of establishing administrative control over Russia through its fragmentation - federalization.
Here is the quote: “To the west of Russia, Poland, Hungary and Romania will try to regain the regions they once lost in the fight against the Russians. They will try to annex Ukraine and Belarus. In the south of the Russian Federation, it will lose its ability to control the North Caucasus, and destabilization will begin in Central Asia. In the northwest, Karelia will try to return to Finland. In the Far East, coastal regions will begin to pursue an independent policy, more connected with Japan, China and the United States than with Moscow. Other regions will not necessarily seek autonomy, but may receive it against their will. The main idea: there will be no uprising against Moscow; on the contrary, a weakening Moscow will leave behind a vacuum. In this vacuum, separate fragments of the former Russian Federation will exist.
This will lead to the biggest crisis of the next decade. Russia has a huge nuclear arsenal scattered across the country. The decline of Moscow's power will raise the question of control over these missiles and how to ensure that their use is not used. This will be a huge challenge for the United States. Washington is the only force capable of solving such a problem..."
Stratfor goes on to talk about the need to “create a stable and economically sustainable government in nuclear regions in order to then, over time, neutralize the missiles through non-military means.
In the final part of the study, private intelligence officers reinforce the fundamental principle of American doctrine regarding Russia:
“The United States entered the Cold War early, and at least in Europe it suffered no losses at all. This is the basis of the guiding principle of American foreign policy, brought almost to the point of automatism: if a hegemon begins to emerge in Europe, the United States intervenes as early as possible, as during the Cold War, building alliances and placing troops in key defensive positions.
Now this is being done in relation to Russia.<…>The Americans will try to build a system of alliances parallel to NATO, from the Baltics to Bulgaria, and involve as many countries as possible in it. They will try to lure Turkey into the alliance and extend it to Azerbaijan. Troops will be sent to these countries in proportion to the threats.”
The State Department understands perfectly well that under Vladimir Putin, the tasks of federalization are impossible, and all the rehearsals and runs of the Maidans turned out to be ineffective and did not find support in society. In addition, the effectiveness of the security forces ensuring physical order in the capital is undeniable.
Therefore, now the main task is the implementation of soft power technologies, which includes attempts to undermine the economy, the formation of anti-government public opinion through the media, the organization of various round tables and conferences, work in universities and pushing the authorities in the provinces to gain independence from Moscow.
Stratfor also writes about this:
“Given the structure of the federation, in which profits from exports first go to Moscow and only then are redirected to local governments, regions will receive very different amounts of this profit. This will lead to a repeat of the Soviet experience of the 1980s and 1990s, when Moscow lost the ability to maintain state infrastructure. All this will force the regions to escape from problems on their own, forming formal and informal autonomous associations. Economic ties between Moscow and the periphery will weaken.”
Now let us remember that the very first loud public statement after Yevgeny Roizman took office as mayor of Yekaterinburg concerned “the injustice of money going to Moscow and then being distributed,” and subsequently a group of citizens close to Roizman held pickets around the city under the slogans “ Stop feeding Moscow." Among the protesters, young people from the foreign agent-NGO “Golos”, led by the famous “colored technologist” Marko Ivkovic from Serbia, whose entry into Russia was blocked by the FSB in 2012, were very active.
The fact is that in Russia the vertical of power now ends at the institution of governorship, which allows municipalities to pursue policies different from the state, form their own budgets through control over the city, and, thanks to the presence of large funds, build protection for their business by law enforcement agencies and the media. When the local government reform is launched, which should extend the vertical to the cities, the described system breaks down, and American diplomats skillfully play on the resistance of the local “princelings” to the innovation.
The United States sees the key task as beating Vladimir Putin in the 2018 elections, for which the entire arsenal of available technologies will be used - marches, playing to lower oil prices, and political assassinations - it is likely to see, for example, the general director and owner of an anti-Russian " TV Dozhd” Natalia Sindeeva, shot by a bullet with Vladimir Putin’s initials stamped on it. History teaches us: most often after a strong ruler comes a weak one, and Americans are well aware of this!
An important role, according to the United States, is assigned to the young generation born in 2000, who will turn 18 in 2018, and who did not live at all before Putin. Who will they vote for?
They were not, like the author of these lines and the majority of those reading them, witnesses to bloody shootouts and car explosions on the streets in the 90s, total racketeering of all businesses, pervasive corruption, deliberate destruction of industry, agriculture, the army, witnesses of non-payment of salaries to state employees for several months. Today in universities they are told romantic stories about the “real freedom” of that era, although it is correct to call it a time of chaos and anarchy. However, in certain senses these are synonyms with the concept of freedom.
In case the United States loses the election for the next president of the Russian Federation, a special tool has been prepared: actions of disobedience will take place in the regions, and their secession from the Russian Federation will begin, which is what Stratfor writes about. Rostislav Ishchenko, president of the Center for System Analysis and Forecasting, in his article “Where it breaks, there it breaks,” rightly notes: the putschists in Yekaterinburg don’t even need to storm anything. There are already American collaborators in the municipal authorities, and the regional government will not be able to react with lightning speed - it is extremely passive and does not have political will, and its apparatus consists of officials who are “imprisoned” to sit out one governor after another.
What should be our further actions?
Firstly, we need the unquestioning unification of the country, all the people around the team of the President and Supreme Commander-in-Chief. I am sure that the course taken by Vladimir Putin is completely justified. It assumes full sovereignty in all spheres of the country’s life, the primacy of Russia’s interests as a determining factor in state strategies, productive mutually beneficial cooperation with the countries of Latin America and Asia, and their unification around Russia as a new pole of power on Earth. This course is being implemented competently, firmly and consistently, and at the same time carefully. We need to fully support him, resolutely suppressing any actions of fifth column liberals trying to separate society from the President.
Secondly, the power capabilities of the FSB, whose task is to ensure compliance with the constitutional rights of citizens and the territorial integrity of the state, and to contain anti-Russian activities, today clearly lag behind the demands of the time and the situation in the state, just as the laws that ensure their powers lag behind.
I mean such precedents as the activities of the same notorious deputy of the Yekaterinburg City Duma and friend of Evgeny Roizman - Konstantin Kiselev. The professor of the Institute of Philosophy and Law and USU visited the USA and Kyiv, gave lectures to students about the “benefits” of the Maidan and positively noted the “contribution” of Yarosh and Turchynov to the “building of the Ukrainian nation”, and even prepared an online conference with the leader of the “Right Sector” in Yekaterinburg.
In this situation, the power structures of Yekaterinburg looked completely toothless: formally, the actions of the “political scientist” did not qualify as a crime under any current article of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. If Professor Kiselyov had made direct calls for the overthrow of government and the seizure of government buildings, if he had promoted fascism, he would have been charged with extremism, but the smart and cautious deputy would never allow himself to do this. Each student, whom the liberal teacher pushed to the “necessary” reflections, had to take the last step himself and come to the required conclusion. And unauthorized contacts with foreign diplomats and Western intelligence officers, positive coverage of color revolutions, under current laws are not a reason to initiate investigative actions.
Numerous promoters of introducing “Western values” into Russia continue their work - the parties “RPR-Parnas”, “Party of Progress”, “Civic Platform”, “Yabloko”, non-profit organizations “Memorial”, “Golos”, “Sakharov Center”, who in one way or another participate in the preparation of anti-government marches and destabilize the population, undermine the image of the government, and numerous liberal media support them, distort reality, and sow panic. Their activities must be stopped.
If we take the United States of America as an example, as liberals demand, then after the September 11 terrorist attacks the powers of the authorities were expanded. Maybe it's time for us too? Vladimir Putin has been waiting a long time for public opinion to mature. We already have the full “set” - preparation of color revolutions, political assassinations, corruption and coalition with the Americans at the local level. There are quite enough signals to action.
In fact, if we want to successfully resist destructive forces, then at a minimum we must be no weaker. If our intelligence agencies give in, we will lose the fight, and the CIA has historically always been stronger, virtually unrestricted in its work and generously funded.
New legislative initiatives are needed, including the introduction of definitions of fifth column activities into the Criminal Code. Together with public institutions, it is necessary to determine adequate measures of deterrence and punishment.
Well, the third, main conclusion for today is that we need to think now about forming a new generation of patriotic politicians at all levels of government. The United States, on the contrary, is already trying to place its people at key points. They need to be ousted, but personnel are needed, and they need to be selected and trained.
Relying on political success only on Vladimir Putin, firstly, puts a huge burden on him, and secondly, creates a threat to his personal security. It is necessary to put a Putin in each region and municipality, and then any attempts to overthrow the President will lose meaning - because his course at each level will be clearly planned and steadily continued.
Our main motto should be: “Today we are all Putin.”
Russian experts talk about the US readiness to use the March 18 presidential elections as a “historic chance” to put pressure on Russia.
Washington is preparing to interfere in the elections and plans to use a wide range of tools, including information hoaxes, psychological operations and opposition financing.
The purpose of these manipulations is to delegitimize the electoral process in Russia. This is stated in the report “Invasion. US interference in elections in the Russian Federation during the presidential campaigns of 1996-2018” by Andrei Manoilo, a member of the scientific council at the Russian Security Council.
The document states that Washington has already tested various methods of influencing the results of the Russian presidential election campaigns in 1996, 2000, 2004, 2008 and 2012. According to the author of the report, the United States has leverage in Russia that influences political processes in other countries.
Recently, the United States has stepped up its efforts to interfere in the internal affairs of the Russian Federation since President Vladimir Putin came to power. This activity of the United States is due to the fact that Russia has begun to “become identified as an independent player in the international arena, claiming sovereignty in internal political issues.”
“US official circles perceive this as a threat to their own hegemony in the world. Information and economic influence on Russia at the external and internal levels is becoming a significant task for Washington in ensuring its own global leadership and strategic dominance,” the report states.
Manoilo explained that one of the US methods is information warfare, which is a psychological impact on the broad masses of the population.
At the same time, the United States and other Western countries are actively working with the Russian opposition. As examples, he cited the visits of Grigory Yavlinsky to the British Embassy in Moscow, as well as the trip of Russian presidential candidate Ksenia Sobchak to the United States, where, according to his assumption, certain financial resources could have been transferred to her.
Note that the document highlights the following impact strategies:
Stake on network communication (VKontakte, Facebook, Twitter),
Targeting popular opposition leaders (Alexey Navalny, Ilya Yashin),
Relying on the spontaneity of protests and their radicalization,
For his part, Chairman of the State Duma Committee on Information Policy Leonid Levin said that “we need to take a broader look at the work of the United States and Western countries with our information space. This is not only about foreign media.”
According to the expert, about 30% of Russian media structures interact in one way or another with US government agencies and the George Soros Foundation. The liaison and coordinator is the US government agency, the Broadcasting Board of Governors, or BBG.
Let us remember that the Soros Foundation finances “independent” media and NGOs that contribute to the formation of civil society. It is from there that Radio Liberty and Voice of America are financed. Along with BBG, the Center for the Exchange of News in Russian, opened in 2016 (headquartered in the Czech Republic, financed by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands) and the Riga Center for Strategic Communications (NATO structure), opened in 2016.
The British Strategic Communications Laboratory operates in the same vein, which, together with the UK Ministry of Defense and the Pentagon, implements a program for training specialists in counter-propaganda and supporting “digital activism.”
Alexander Domrin, Professor of the Department of Theory and History of Law at the Higher School of Economics, added that in the current circumstances, a lot of work from Roskomnadzor is needed and recalled that in the United States, since 2002, the Russian Democracy Act of 2002, H.R. 2121, has been in force, according to which Washington supports “agents of change”, allocating $20 million a year to them.
It is worth adding that some US senators accused the Russia Today TV channel and the Sputnik agency of interfering in the elections. Russian Foreign Ministry official Maria Zakharova directly called the State Department’s statement regarding the Central Election Commission’s refusal to register Alexei Navalny in the elections as direct interference in Russian affairs.
On this occasion, Zakharova asked a question on social networks: “and these people have been indignant for a whole year about Russia’s alleged “interference” in their electoral process?! This statement by the State Department, which I am sure will not be an isolated one, is a direct interference both in the election process and in the internal affairs of the state.”
Zakharova on her Facebook expressed surprise at the State Department’s words about “strict measures” by the Russian government towards journalists in Russia.
According to her, “which specific department and how is it applying “strict measures against dissenting journalists”? The funny thing is that this is now said by the same people who just wrapped RT and Sputnik in a foreign agent wrapper, are poisoning Russian media around the world and are investing huge amounts of money in “countering Russian propaganda,” calling everyone with whom they disagree with that name.”
The US authorities never tire of accusing Russia of interfering in elections, although in the 20th century they intervened in the democratic process in other countries much more often than others. The Swiss publication Watson writes about this.
Let us remind you that it is the United States that is responsible for 81 of the 117 recorded interventions in foreign elections. “However, Russia’s actions may seem like a bold move only at first glance, since the interference of foreign states in democratic elections has a long tradition,” the journalists emphasize. “From 1946 to 2000, Russia/the Soviet Union and the United States tried 117 times to influence the outcome of democratic elections in different countries: or, in other words, on the outcome of every ninth election."
On June 8, 2016, a scientific expert session on the topic: “Is a revolution awaiting Russia?” was held at the Central House of Journalists, organized by the Center for Scientific Political Thought and Ideology ( Sulakshin Center).
As part of the round table, which took place in the form of a scientific brainstorming session, an analysis of the dynamics of the development of modern Russia was presented, as well as a medium-term forecast for the next 5-6 years; the participants of the event were presented with a scientific monograph “Is Russia awaiting a revolution?”
General Director of the Center for Scientific Political Thought and Ideology, Doctor of Political Science, Doctor of Physics and Mathematics, Professor Stepan Sulakshin delivered a scientific report “The problem of Russia’s transition to the post-Putin post-liberal historical stage”, putting forward a key thesis: “a peaceful, legal “revolution” in Russia, as its decisive renewal, is the formula and requirement of the time!”
Stepan Sulakshin explained what the transition might consist of. In his opinion, a completely recognizable and specific type of political regime has developed in Russia and is self-reproducing, which will historically be designated as Putinism, and the country is sliding towards a full-scale crisis.
Putinism is extremist liberalism, cosmopolitanism and the destruction of civilizational identity in the country, corruption and privatization, turning the country into a “rogue country.” In addition, this is also an archaic raw material export economy, widespread degradation of almost all the potential of the country’s statehood, factors of its success and sustainability, a path to collapse in the geopolitical “graveyard.” “The political regime and its practices, the model of the country, are unreformable. They can only be replaced,” Stepan Sulakshin is convinced.
The results of research by the Sulakshin Center have shown that the likelihood of a “color” revolution in Russia is very high, it is being prepared and led to it primarily by the authorities themselves. And if nothing is done, then after several years of degradation the processes will become explosive. Therefore, today society needs to understand what awaits it and prepare for what will happen. According to the Center's forecasts, the country faces a revolutionary test. This will happen soon - at the turn of 2020. There is a way out of the current situation, which can change the gloomy prospects - this is a new constitution of the country.
The “Center for Scientific Political Thought and Ideology” has developed a draft Constitution of Russia, based on the success and viability of the country. The country needs a healthy, real ideological opposition force, that is, a second force, and not a liberal Russian-phobic government and a liberal Russian-phobic “opposition,” Stepan Sulakshin is convinced. The Center sees such a new force in the “New Type Party.”
The analysis shows that the scenario of revolution in the country is very likely. And Russia can approach it from two sides: on the one hand there will be the government, the fifth column and the geopolitical enemy, and on the second side there will be the historical inevitability of the inclusion of the social “immune system” of the country and people.
The question is how radically the basic structures of the country should be rebuilt. Some people think that the costs of a decisive transition give rise to too significant new threats and risks, to the point that this is a service to those who would like to destroy our country. Others are confident that the programmed scenario of the country’s death is irrevocably being realized. And the main role in this scenario is played by the current government - regardless of whether it understands it or not.
Vardan Baghdasaryan- Deputy Head of the Center for Scientific Political Thought and Ideology, Doctor of Historical Sciences, Professor in his scientific report spoke about the “World Revolution. Current challenges of the upcoming Russian transformation."
“Against the backdrop of a series of “color revolutions,” which in reality are not revolutions, but a variant of a new type of war, revolutions themselves are reduced in public discussion to technologies of the struggle for power. They are perceived as something absolutely negative. Maidan and Tahrir are mixed with the Great French and Great October Revolutions. In fact, revolutions are a historically indispensable condition for development. Development, in contrast to growth, involves a change in the essential characteristics of the system. In this sense, we can talk, for example, about the Christian revolution, through which the transition from the ancient model of life to the medieval one took place. Today the world is in a state of systemic crisis. And the topic of revolution, as a way out of the current impasse, is again on the current agenda.
Historically, revolutions could once be carried out on the scale of a nation state. At that time, connections with the outside world did not yet play a decisive role, and this was possible. Currently, creating separate islands of systemic transformation is becoming increasingly problematic. Therefore, we can talk about either a global systemic transformation or the creation of an alternative world-system. For this there must be a global, world-transforming movement, a new International, the International of the future humanity.
National liberation revolutions raise the question of national forces coming to power instead of the colonial administration and compradors. This is certainly an important task, but it is not sufficient. Included in the system of colonial relations, the revolutionary state will be re-colonized. In a social revolution, the posing of a question is a change in the system of social life. But this is not enough. A system transformed on moral principles will inevitably degenerate if a person does not meet its level; the revolutionary spirit will be defeated by conformism and consumerism. And hence the main question about the revolution, which is not indicated in traditional classifications - the anthropological revolution, the transformation of man,” says Vardan Baghdasaryan.
“The legal aspects of the scientific discourse about the revolution in Russia” were told by the head of the legal group of the Center for Scientific Political Thought and Ideology, Ph.D. Alexander Gaganov.
In his speech, he noted that a scientific discussion about the revolution in Russia can and should be carried out within the framework of current legislation. The speaker drew the attention of those present to the fact that beyond the scope of the law there are calls for illegal and violent actions, such as terrorist and extremist activities, as well as the planning of such actions, the distribution of roles and other preparations for committing crimes.
At the same time, the concept of extremist activity is very broad and includes such acts as public calls for a violent change in the foundations of the constitutional order. The key feature, without which there will be no crime, is the violence of the proposed changes.
Blogger Alexander Rusin(Amfora) noted in his speech that “the mentality of the Russian people is such that they always wait for initiative from above, instructions, commands. “They know better at the top,” the people reason and patiently wait for the tsar and the boyars themselves to begin to change something,” Rusin explained. “Of course, the patience of the people is not unlimited, but it is much greater than the patience of the elite, and most importantly, the people cannot organize and make decisions as quickly as representatives of the elite.”
According to him, two probable scenarios for a change of power in Russia can be distinguished: “a palace-apparatus coup and the subsequent revolution from above, which will consist of a change in course, political structure and economic model of the country, and a palace-apparatus coup, then the loss of power by the organizers a coup as a result of a struggle for power or incompetence, then a revolution from below.”
At the same time, he emphasized that if a coup occurs, it is not its organizers who are to blame, but mainly those who are in power now. “They should have carried out deep systemic reforms over the past years, which they did not carry out,” the blogger clarified the reason for this state of affairs.
A writer and public figure expressed his views on this problem Alexey Kungurov. “The collapse of Putinism is not a question. The only question is what will follow next, and there are only two options: revolution, that is, a crisis transition of society and the state to a qualitatively new form of existence, or degradation, that is, the irreversible destruction of the existing system without transformation into a new one,” the blogger said, emphasizing that “Degradation is something that is happening now, and has been for a very long time.” - Degradation is a generally comfortable process. After all, it’s much more pleasant to sit back and eat away your grandfather’s inheritance than to work your ass off so that your unlucky granddaughter has something to eat. Degradation is a conscious choice of the elites of the Russian Federation, enthusiastically supported by the masses. The problem is that it is impossible to degrade forever - any degradation ends in decomposition. When grandfather’s inheritance is finally eaten away, we will either have to work again or fall apart.”
As part of the round table, a presentation of the scientific monograph “ Is Russia waiting for a revolution?».
The publication of the monograph is, of course, an important event in our days: it examines the state of Russia, the medium-term forecast for the country's development, introduces the formalization of the concept of its model, and also shows that the current liberal model is incompatible with the success and sustainability of Russia.
According to the authors of the monograph, a change in model as an alternative to geopolitical disintegration is inevitable. The book examines the factors, algorithm and possible scenarios for Russia's transition to a post-liberal model of the country. It is convincingly shown that the future model of development and life in Russia is most likely in the form of a moral and fair state. The probabilities of various scenarios of post-liberal transition predicted for the period of 2020 are calculated.
The following also made their reports at the scientific expert session:
Nesmiyan Anatoly Evgenievich- writer, public figure: “Social dynamics of ideological and power transition based on the experience of the Arab Spring and Ukraine”;
Dubovsky Sergey Vasilievich- Institute of System Analysis of the Russian Academy of Sciences, head of the laboratory, Ph.D. in Physics and Mathematics: “The surrounding area of 2020 is a time of social and criminal catastrophes”;
Zaderey Valery Alexandrovich- Vice-President of the People's Academy of Sciences, Doctor of Economics: “Taking control instead of revolution”;
Efremov Oleg Anatolievich- Associate Professor of the Department of Social Philosophy and Philosophy of History, Faculty of Philosophy, Moscow State University. M.V. Lomonosova, Ph.D.: “Is a “color revolution” possible in the conditions of “theatrical democracy”?”;
Belov Petr Grigorievich- Professor MAI (National Research University), Doctor of Technical Sciences: “Forecasting the likelihood of a revolutionary situation by modeling”;
Skurlatov Igor Valerievich- Executive Director of the National Fund for the Promotion of Sustainable Development of Regions: “Prospects for the socio-political development of Russia”;
Nikandrov Alexey Vsevolodovich- Associate Professor of the Department of Philosophy of Politics and Law of the Faculty of Philosophy of Moscow State University named after M.V. Lomonosov, Ph.D.: “Revolution and political creativity: the concept of H. Arendt”;
Zernov Sergey Vladimirovich- senior researcher at the Institute of Political Sciences of the Russian Academy of Sciences, candidate of social sciences: “Open self-government as a decisive factor in the management revolution”;
Prokhvatilov Vladimir Viktorovich- President of the Academy of Real Politics: “Scenarios of regional Maidan and revolutionary jihad in Russia”;
Skoblikov Evgeniy Andreevich- President of the Financial Initiatives Foundation, Ph.D.: “Only the Third Path can lead to a moral state”;
Terekhin Alexey Dmitrievich- auditor of the Public Accounts Chamber of the Russian Federation: “The driving forces of society in the 21st century. A fulcrum for turning the world around";
Khristenko Sergey Vasilievich- correspondent of the newspaper “Bolshevik Sickle and Hammer”: “Revolution? Goals! Resources! Methods!";
Puntus Valery Ivanovich- MOIP, seminar leader, Ph.D.: “An alternative to revolution in Russia.”
Based on the results of the discussion, a collection of materials will be published and distributed.
Loading...
