Today:July 23 2018
russian English greek latvian French German Chinese (Simplified) Arabic hebrew

All that you will be interested in knowing about Cyprus on our website Cyplive.com
the most informative resource about Cyprus in runet
Russia is fighting with a deadly enemy

Russia is fighting with a deadly enemy

March 17 2018
Tags:Russia, United Kingdom, Politics, Analytics, International Relations

The boorish behavior of London gave rise to a stormy response in Russia - from indignation to ridicule to "small-brats". Unfortunately, such ridicule is not the best answer. After all, we are dealing with a threat that is by no means a comic scale, and the whole history of the relationship between Russia and Britain proves this.

The British behavior in the Skripal case is frankly defiant - accusations against Russia, a recommendation to "shut up", statements about Putin's personal involvement. All this, of course, causes indignation in Russia.

But if the indignation of our public can be understood, then the mockery of Britain and its elites is completely wrong. It is strange to think that this is all "small-brits", that the "Englishwoman" is no longer the one that lost her influence and, in an impotent rage, is a mocker of Russia. This all does not fit even for banal response propaganda - for it distorts reality.

It is in our interests to be honest. For several years we have been in open conflict with the world elite, with those who have a decisive influence on world affairs. It is this power that now speaks to us with the lips of May and Johnson. What we call it "Englishwoman" is our tradition since the 19th century, when we discovered its location. And in reality, this is the world supranational class of money and power, the elite, who once again took up Russia seriously. Not because of the Crimea and Skrypal, but because we really stood in their way.

In the way of globalization in Anglo-Saxon - that is, the project to create a single humanity, managed from the western center. Western - in this case a synonym for the Atlantic, Anglo-Saxon. This project is carried out in the last hundred years practically in the open. Through the gradual consolidation of companies and capitals, through the convergence of civilizations and cultures, their mixing and interpenetration. Through the creation of unified global institutions, financial, managerial, supervisory and other, the formation of a new morality and philosophy of transhumanism. Humanity leads to its "golden age", in which there will be neither states, nor nations, nor sexes. Those who are against are retrogrades and conservatives, enemies of progress and humanity. The fact that so far it is not pronounced as official declarations, does not mean anything, it's only a matter of time. So far, Russia "in the old manner" is accused of totalitarianism and terrorism - well, it's simpler and more customary.

Who blames? The very "world community", which on closer examination turns out to be the West. And with even more careful - Anglo-Saxon, that is, the American-English elite. These are people who "have the right to decide."

Formally they are united in closed clubs or open orders, public societies or secret lodges. They can be the owners of banks or dukes, senators or ministers. The positions and even the size of the capital are of secondary importance - the very belonging to the circle is important. And for this circle are equally hostile to Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump (the latter because the impostor, upstart, usurper, and with the wrong, non-globalization ideas). APutin throws an almost open challenge, stating that Russia will never agree with the imposed world order.In addition, Putin also ridicules the Western countries as having no full-fledged sovereignty.

But when Putin goes through the lack of independence of European countries, he hints at Germany and France or smaller countries. But not on the UK. And despite the fact that America's power is formally incomparable more than the British, in reality it is London that remains the leading in the Atlantic tandem. Why?

Because the power of the country is determined not by aircraft carriers and not by the size of the economy - but by the managerial, intellectual, strategic and financial capabilities of its elite. And in this senseThe leading and guiding role of London as the "center of power" is not disputed by anyone.There are the same families that drowned the Spanish Empire, organized opium wars against China, pitted Russia and Germany in World War I, played on Russia's disintegration through the Chechen war.

These are real players in world chess. For them, the struggle with Russia is a traditional and old game.

But whose voice it is to voice - it's the tenth thing. That is, British ministers and prime ministers can be bailiffs of the true elite, or may be its immediate representatives.

Winston Churchill, who is the Duke of Marlborough, belonged to the very core of the British elite, and at the same time was the premier. This is his main difference from Margaret Thatcher, and not in the degree of influence of Britain, as a country, on world affairs. Yes, under the second premiership of Churchill, the British empire was sunk, but there remained the Commonwealth of Nations, uniting several dozen states, in 15 of which the Queen is also head of state (including Canada and Australia). There remain the Five Eyes, a system of interaction between the intelligence services of the five Anglo-Saxon countries (the United States, Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand), and the US Federal Reserve system remains tied up with banks from the City of London.

Many things remain, so it does not matter who is heading the British government: the daughter of grocer Margaret Thatcher or the daughter of the priest Theresa May, Eaton graduate David Cameron or aristocrat Boris Johnson (he also settles in Downing Street, 10). The name of the prime minister is of no fundamental importance. When we hear that boorish tone that British leaders tell us, we need to understand that they only sound the hatred and anger that the masters of the Western world feed our policy. Those who were called "transnational capital" in the Soviet years, and now for simplicity, the pictures are referred to as "Atlantists."

ANDUnderestimate their power is just dangerous. Repeatedly in our history, we have come across not just with the treachery of London, but also with a sudden blow that has become fatal to our rulers, and even our country. March 1801-th and December 1916-th - two very bad dates of our history. Two murders, which were directly related to the British - the Emperor Paul the First and Grigory Rasputin (which became a signal for the overthrow of the king two months later).

Now the "Englishwoman" was only capable of provocation with an attempt to kill Skripal, as before she had dealt with Berezovsky. But this does not mean that she is not capable of more.

We have been confronted for four years with the united Western front, organized after the Crimea, and the concern for maintaining the unity of its ranks now passes from Washington (where a stranger for Atlantist Trump sits) to London. That is closer to the real power center of the Western world. If we consider it small-scale, we can not restore Great Russia.

Peter Akopov
LOOK
GTranslate Your license is inactive or expired, please subscribe again!