On Russia's strategy and methods of defensive war.
Have you heard about the effect of Mandela? Briefly, its essence is described by a simple and sad human fact - people are suggestible ...
Nelson Mandela spent almost a third of his life in prison. In 60-ies of the last century, this young idealist tried to resist the dictatorship of apartheid and, of course, quickly realized that the elites in power are unlikely to yield under his peaceful intentions. Indeed, the proponents of the superiority of the white race in Black Africa were not inclined to react to democratic processes, then he had to create an armed wing. The methods of his organization were sabotage and sabotage, but on Mandela's misfortune he did not think about European and American "colonial" interests.
As a result, not a month passed, as the world mass media became closely involved with them. Interested, of course, not on their own, but on the orders of Western companies and governments. The whole point is that Nelson has harmed the business of Europe and America by his acts, and therefore he has paid close attention to himself. Thus, the world media first introduced mankind to Mr. Mandela - he was made an example of a notorious terrorist, doused with mud and imprisoned.
Black fighters for the abolition of apartheid. South Africa
By the end of the 80-ies, amid the financial crisis, the United States was forced to demonstrate the beginnings of humanizing society, otherwise it was difficult to explain why socialism had free-of-charge support for citizens, and in "the most blessed country" they raise taxes. We urgently needed parallels with something that could underline the totalitarianism of the USSR, thus showing that, although there is free medicine in the Soviets, there is no freedom there either.
A new generation of white South African leaders was perfectly suited to this role. So, the US media, which for decades did not notice racial segregation and racism, suddenly became concerned about the problems of this country. The assets of South Africa were pre-purchased, the branches of Western firms were assigned new owners, and the regime was decidedly demolished. But since the task was to draw parallels between "slavery" and the Soviet Union, it was necessary to do this as loudly as possible. It was then that they remembered the "fiery fighter" with the silent indulgence of the West, who spent several decades in solitary confinement. The press of Europe and the United States immediately forgot about the brand of the terrorist, and from that moment Nelson Mandela became a fighter for universal values and tolerant ideals. It was his community of Western countries who nominated him for negotiations with the regime, and he also made him the new president of South Africa.
Dozens of Western universities awarded him honorary degrees, the Nobel committee issued a peace award, British singers recorded the world hit, dedicated to him, the end of 80 became the Mandela period, and then Nelson mysteriously disappeared - disappeared from the world press.
Only in 2013 happened what was called the Mandela effect as a result: "5 December 2013 at the age of 95 years, the African leader and the first black South African president Nelson Mandela died." With such a title came out the popular British edition of The Sun. On the front side of the issue it was written: "We grieve for Nelson. Years of life 1918-2013 year. The main opponent of apartheid lost the final battle and left us. " Then came a photo in black and white for the entire turn of the magazine.
In response to this news, thousands of people were indignant at the unprofessionalism of the British press, the newspaper was accused of ignorance of historical facts, at forums and comments people stigmatized the media for lack of education and in basic contempt for the reader. Everyone said that Mandela died at the end of the 80-ies, and the current news is an absurd fiction. In the meantime, The Sun's article reprinted more and more publications, and people's indignation grew.
It went so far that official representatives of the press and a number of EU governments had to make an official statement trying to convince people that Mandela had really died right now. But society still did not believe them. So psychologists first encountered the situation of mass false memories, calling it the "Mandela effect".
The essence of it was simple: while a person was at the hearing of all the world's media, and everyone said about him at the end of the 80-ies, people were convinced that such a person could not simply disappear, which means that if the press forgot about him, most likely, he died. In the mass consciousness, the images of two characters - the real Mandela, as a person who lived up to 95 years, and the image of Mandela formed by Western media mixed up. His image really died at the end of the 80-ies, after all, he was no longer needed the West, but the real Nelson lived 2013 life in information non-existence.
This example perfectly demonstrates how inspired the people of the West are and how they depend on their own media. The information is quite capable of creating a separate reality, but, fortunately, the current time differs significantly from the 80-ies. If it were not for the people's ability to access data independently, we would probably have turned for a long time to the world into a terrible and isolated country, repeating in this respect the unenviable role of the Soviet Union.
Remember the old and wise proverb: "The forbidden fruit is sweet"? Do you remember how well it worked against the USSR? After all, in many respects, therefore, the West seemed to people a priori ideal. Ignorance gave rise to the idealization of the EU and the US, and the information policy of self-isolation only further inflated it.
But who would have thought that, after thirty years, the West itself would fall into its own trap. Today - Europe and the US are engaged in the isolation and absurdity of propaganda themselves, and Western media generate craving for forbidden societies from their societies. The Internet boils from foreigners wishing to visit our country: blogs, articles, reviews, video travel and just communication with Russians has become a "fashion". An original protest, which expresses an increasing number of thinking people. At first they were units or marginals, but now this is a rapidly growing trend.
3,3 million foreigners visited Russia in 2016 year for tourism purposes, this is 11,2% higher than 2015 and 25% - 2014. In 2017 year, according to the FSB border service, 2016 indicators were beaten by the third quarter. And from this figure 385 thousand are Germans, and 207 thousand are US citizens. 2018 year thanks to the Russian mundialyu and does increase last year's values multiple.
And what did the propaganda of the collective West, led by the United States, do in response to this? She made a historic mistake - increased the degree of unreasonable Russophobia and went completely absurd in ignoring the facts. It is logical that due to the presence of the Internet and open borders, this led to a diametrical effect: the mainstream media not only lost their own audience, but also actively deprived of the most important resource for themselves - people who previously implicitly trusted the opinion of their media.
So, for years, describing the weakness of Russia, the West has only achieved that our country, having withstood, began to be perceived as "unruly" and "strong." Starting to blacken us, accusing of all sorts of "sins", from interfering in elections to information zombies, it wound up Russia's possibilities to the limit. And when describing the "rustiness" and "small opportunities" of the Russian army, it was not only NATO, but also the USA that put it at all. The Army of America declared for decades that only it is capable of restraining terrorism, but even with all its capabilities, it was forced to retreat. When Moscow came to Syria, this statement became a continuous problem.
Earlier, the more the US and NATO expanded their operations in the Middle East, the wider terrorism spread its geography. But as soon as Russia appeared in Syria, the minimal expeditionary contingent of the military security services and "polite people" was enough for terrorism to immediately decline. For several years, our army coped with what the US military could do nothing for two decades. And all this, despite attempts at concealment, became public. Talking about Vladimir Putin is absolutely unnecessary, because the West made the Russian leader not just the "most influential person" on the Earth, but also a symbol of a serious leader capable of strategically resisting US hegemonism even in the worst of cases.
VKS RF at the airfield "Khmeimim" (Syrian Arab Republic)
Of course, the key merit in this belongs to our country, which over the years has shown the world a literate game on the field of its rival. But at the same time, the West itself has done a lot for us with unfounded propaganda and the actions of its own media.
This is our chance for the growth of society and the state. Dodging, we have won time for years, accumulated forces, developed, used mistakes of the enemy and played counter-attacks against him. This worked then and continues to work today. We strengthened and raised our reputation in the world, managed to delay the stage of direct confrontation until the gap between the realities in the minds of the Western man in the street reached a peak. As a result, the longer we abstain from a radical struggle, the better we show ourselves, and the harder we act within the framework of international law, the more stamps of "aggressive" Russia give way to facts about the country.
Is it important? Yes, because it brings not only self-satisfaction, but also real fruits - Russia is increasingly perceived as a weighty alternative to the West. It would be possible for the coalition majority of Italy, for example, to declare that "we seek and achieve friendship with Russia, insist on the lifting of sanctions and believe that the current EU policy in its relation is not justified," if Moscow behaved differently? Could Sarah Wagenknecht, Germany's most popular political figure, call the Germans and Merkel from the rostrum of the Bundestag "open our eyes, stop groveling before Washington and direct our efforts to restore friendship with Moscow," if we responded more harshly, with a blow to the blow?
Was the meaning of the actions akin to American pulling into a direct conflict and thus pushing potential allies into a stalemate of "transatlantic solidarity"? Could China under radical pressure find a compromise and maintain relations with Russia, risking losing the main market in the face of the US? Examples can be enumerated endlessly ...
That is why liberals and people who pretend to be supporters of Russia have recently increasingly called on Russians to become "tougher", to respond "radically," "to break off relations," to "fight" and finally stop calling them "partners." Of course, from the point of view of emotions this can be understood, but from the point of view of the consequences and goals, this does not justify itself.
In fact, hurray-patriotism rarely appears at such a level accidentally, and in this case it's not just that. We are on the verge of changing the technological order. All the world's leading players: China, the United States, and Russia are accumulating forces for a powerful breakthrough. The unpopular economic decisions taken by Trump are aimed precisely at this. Vladimir Putin's unpopular economic steps are exactly the same. And even the unprecedented purge of elites in the People's Republic of China, pursued by Xi Jinping, pursues the same positions.
Everyone understands: the one who will be at the start of this process in an unprepared condition, will fall behind forever. And therefore, our task is not to rush to the embrasure, but even through force, calling our enemies partners, sometimes retreating in separate battles, to win the war. We must develop, apply the Chinese method of non-interference, win and use the won time with the mind, engage in domestic politics, secure ourselves in the external. And we have already done a lot.
After 1 March and the historic speech of Vladimir Putin, we secured ourselves for years to come, and now, at last, we began to deal with the internal agenda. It is significant that it was at this moment that we were convicted of excessive softness, demanding "pressure," "fighting" and responding "tougher" and even launched a whole chain of provocations on the domestic front and through the media. The unpopular economic decisions were showered with numerous inlets and custom materials, immediately and massively on social networks fakes spread about the imminent increase in taxes for everything from rain to "plastic" transfers, and gasoline prices grew during the same period by no means accidental.
But meanwhile have you seen the number of cars on the streets and cities of Russia? Have you seen excellent federal routes across the country? Have you noticed how many bridges, residential areas, civil, military and related infrastructure are being built, how fast are shops of walking distance? Have you noticed that the growth rates of GDP in 2008-2009 in the global crisis without any sanctions policy have fallen so much that they exceeded those in the default level of 1998, and in 2014-2015 under the insane pressure of the collective West by sanctions and blows at the exchange rate was minimal?
So does Russia become stronger with such a strategic technique? Does the "political judo" of Putin work, or should we really rush to the enemy, which is much stronger than us and will benefit more from this? Is it worth to please China again, again allowing him to enjoy the old saying: "While the two tigers are clinging to each other, a wise monkey ..." will extract from this its pluses? Of course, when it is necessary, Russia will not falter and will fight to the bitter end, but is it necessary to begin today?
The time of tranquility makes us stronger, and the enemies weaker. This is how the present times develop, and so is modern geopolitics. A unipolar world is bursting at the seams, and we are holding a blow and saving power.