Today: March 22 2019
russian English greek latvian French German Chinese (Simplified) Arabic hebrew

All that you will be interested in knowing about Cyprus on our website
the most informative resource about Cyprus in runet
The world after Guta: more difficult than war

The world after Guta: more difficult than war

Tags: Russia, the West, USA, China, Politics, Economics, Analytics

How can we equip our common world after Guta?

I will no longer talk to you about war and military actions. Everything is said there. Everything is decided there. And decisions these years carefully prepared and behind the steering wheel sit responsible people. Pray for them and their success, for they are not there for their own sake.

I want to talk to you about the world. About the world after Guta. For there, the processes of creation in full swing and work for us with you is an endless region. For this world, like an untilled field, awaits a responsible farmer. How can we equip our common world after Guta?

You tell us on this way we have much to overcome. I agree. But the biggest overcoming is to overcome ourselves, for we live a life that we imagine. For there are no deeper goblins than the palaces of one's own intellectual lenience, multiplied by the pride of omniscience. For "everything is lost," "it is necessary to leave" and "Ivan the Terrible is to blame for everything" is not an assessment of the spectrum of the possibilities of a great power in a changing world. This is a refusal to construct a positive picture of a new world with an organic role for its country. This meager intellectual tools, pettiness goal-setting and honoring on the laurels of the "read".


European reductionism of the Russian "well-read" class

Economics, politics, culture, security, ethics (especially if geo-) do not exist as an isolated phenomenon. I'm developing the Semantics of systems, and as you know, systems do not have unrelated events. The events described by me in "Standing near the East Hut" aroused fear among some readers and created a feeling of one-sided concentration on military efforts. On the contrary, we are interested in those future economic, political, cultural and social changes and their scale, which led to such an intense military confrontation. We are too accustomed to think in the shadow of European reductionism, which, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, hastened to remove from its discourse even such a single integral discipline as the political economy introduced by the European Marx. I will further develop the vision of what is happening in terms of the integrity of the existence and interaction / competition systems, where the economy, politics, security, culture, ethics mutually penetrate into each other, rather than are entities in themselves.

Russia is so large in its size and importance that it is a space forming a country. And its accession to the space of other unions, be it the EU or NATO, is impossible without the transformation of these spaces, taking into account the traditions and interests of Russia. The people of Russia (historically) did not allow and will not allow themselves to be laid in the Procrustean bed of the interests of other peoples, even if sometimes the domestic political and economic elites have almost made a deal with the elites of other countries. Do not reduce Russia to the scraps of Euro-Atlantic interests, give Russia a new space where it can show all its diversity.

GREAT EURASIA (Old / new space)

This geoeconomic, geopolitical, geocultural phenomenon has been known for thousands of years. The empires of Alexander the Great and Genghis Khan are some of the incarnations of this space of peoples' interactions. "Well-read" compatriots usually here are in a hurry to announce that they already know all about "Heartland and Rimland" (not to be confused with Rome) that Toynbee, Wallerstein, Huntington and Brzezinski read it all, but what does this have to do with " shattered, backward, torn to shreds "Russian economy.

Here it is necessary to turn to my understanding of the economy, from the point of view of the Semantics of systems. Economics is the distribution of parts within the whole. If you create an extremely large space of interaction between peoples, for example, Greater Eurasia or the Euro-Atlantic, where all the natural resources are present, huge masses of the population, both producers and consumers, with a wide range of competencies - then the economy of this space in the limit (as they say in mathematics) , this is the distribution of parts within the whole or the offsetting of the abilities and needs of all economic actors.

Two limiting geo-projects (the surface of the Earth is not infinite) is the Euro-Atlantic - known as "all progressive mankind", and Greater Eurasia - known as "periphery, autocracy, dictatorships," etc. Each of its projects solves the problem of creating and managing geospace. The Euro-Atlantic affairs solves the problem of internal connectivity at the expense of the Large ships, and in the military (this was described in "Standing near East Guta") and in the civil sphere. If you think that in the 20 and 21-th century it's metaphors, then look at the geocaches. 1 000 000 kilometers of copper and fiber-optic cables are laid along the bottom of the oceans, which connect the whole world (we are all lucky), but belong to the Euroatlantic (we all were unlucky). Since the cables are laid at a depth of more than 3 500 meters, with the exception of the "rusty gas station", non-Western countries do not have the technology to control communication cables at this depth. The connection in Greater Eurasia in the military sphere was provided by a sharp superiority in military strategy: the phalanx and maneuver of Alexander the Great and the highly mobile army of Genghis Khan with the unrivaled competence of taking cities and fortresses on the move secured by the siege and ballistic machines of Chinese engineers. Communications in Greater Eurasia were provided with innovative infrastructure projects. Mail in the empire of Genghis Khan from Eastern Europe to Mongolia was two weeks due to a system of distributed points with swap horses, known as "pits". So, the phrase "coachman do not drive horses" - this is the line from the song about the innovative startup 13-th century.

The fact is that approximately until the beginning of the 19-th century, that is, the times of Napoleon, the economies of India and China accounted for more than 50% of world GDP, as it is customary to call in the Euro-Atlantic countries. And only in the last two hundred years the center of gravity shifted to Europe and reached its peak after the Second World War, when the Euro-Atlantic countries, including on a purely geographical basis and the USSR, gave more than 50% of world GDP. Here I can already clearly hear the echoes of impatient readers that it was necessary to spend so much "bukaf" to communicate the obvious idea: it is necessary to integrate into the economy of the West.It is just that if the aggregate GDP of the USA and Europe (with all their financial bubbles) is today 34-36 trillion dollars, the GDP of China and India at PPP 26-27 trillion dollars (including Russia 30-31 trillion dollars) and the rate of their growth is much higher than the Euro-Atlantic.

So, if, following the results of "Standing near East Guta", it will be possible to weaken the principle of the Large ships, which is the basis of the Euroatlantic geoproject, then the Big Eurasia project can increase its growth rates. In the limit (as mathematicians say) in this space can enter China, Russia, India, Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, South Korea, North Korea, Vietnam, Laos, Philippines, Malaysia, Egypt, Syria, Libya, Turkey, South Africa, not I would be surprised if Israel, too, because it will solve the issue of its security for many decades. This will amount to more than three billion people, about 50% of world GDP, all major world religions. It is a self-contained global space with a full range of competences, resources and markets.

The time comes for the second critical issue of "well-read" citizens. Even if everything said above is true, then who needs Russia ... (corrupt, backward, bureaucratized, unmodernized, etc., necessary to substitute)? China will do everything himself. China has everything. China wins in all cases. Here it is necessary to debunk a few myths about China, and then about Russia.


Myth FIRST. China has achieved everything himself. China itself knows what to do next.

China is a great power, a great culture and a great nation. In the 20 century as a result of incredible losses, he was able to return to the first roles in the world due to the strategic BALANCING between the USSR and the USA. According to the results of the Second World War, China received its territories (from Japan), independence, nuclear weapons and a place in the UN Security Council thanks to the USSR (of course, the USSR had its own interests). At the end of the 60, China predicts that the interests of China and the US can coincide in order to limit the growing power and influence of the USSR. In 1971, Kissinger's secret visit to Mao Zedong, and in 1972 Nixon's visit to Beijing will begin the stage when China will get back Hong Kong from Britain, Macau from Portugal, more than a trillion dollars of Western investment, will require localization of Western production, will violate all conceivable and unthinkable laws on intellectual property, and instead of punishment will receive the status of a privileged trading partner and will enter the WTO earlier than Russia, which will stand at this threshold for 18 years. So this stage is over, we have prepared for it and there is nothing unusual in this. Kissinger to President Nixon in 1972: "In 20 years of your successor, if he's as wise as you, will wind up leaning against the Russians against the Chinese. ... [The United States needs] to play this balance-of-power game totally unemotionally. Right now, we need the Chinese to correct the Russians and to discipline the Russians. " For those who do not understand the enemy, I will explain in 1972 the year Henry Kissinger, the architect and the immediate executor of the strategy of rapprochement with China, tells President Nixon that, "In 20, another President of the United States, if he is wise, may have to forcibly converge with Russia against China . (USA needed) to play the game of balance of power without any emotion. Right now we need the Chinese to hold back the Russians and correct their actions. " (God!) With what emotion I recall the seminars and conferences of the end of the 90 2000 beginning of the Chinese economic miracle, with step-by-step instructions for enthusiastic Russian idiots, including your humble servant.) So, life for China is no longer will be the same as before, Trump the first sanctions and requirements for the purchase of new debts to the US (the Horde must be fed) has already thrown in.

Myth II. China is a self-sufficient country, its partners are particularly not equitable partners.

For decades, China has been oriented to export to markets with high consumer demand (Euro-Atlantic), and only the last ten years began to develop domestic demand (preparing for a break with the West). Nevertheless, China's domestic demand is not enough to compensate for the sharp decline in demand in the West. In addition, the structure of China's domestic demand is not necessarily the same as the structure of exports. Where to put excess steel and aluminum after Trump sanctions, if China already produces 90% of steel in the world. "Well-read" compatriots should instantly recall the words "Silk Road" to Europe. Why do I say words, not a project? Because everything I see as open access to the project can not be named, as I made a report during my visit to Shenzhen. With rare exceptions, the northern corridor through Russia is practically not marked on maps and diagrams. Two main corridors: the sea - through the Malak, Aden, Suez and Gibraltar Straits - after reading "Standing near East Guta" and the principle of the Big ships, we strike out; over the territories of Pakistan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Georgia, Turkey - after reading "Standing near East Guta", after knowing about the American military contingents in Iraq and Afghanistan, about transferring the militants saved in Syria to Afghanistan to the border with the republics of Central Asia, we cross out. What's left? Northern land and northern sea corridors, and they are controlled (I refer to one of my creative readers) People of Coldness. And with the People of Cold agree only as partners. And more importantly, energy resources, food and critical materials and technologies should be guaranteed to go to the same corridors in China, and no economic or military threats to Euro-Atlanticism should scare the partner of China. No one, except for the People of Cold, who have been standing by East Guta, can guarantee this one and a half billion Chinese people.

Myth THIRD. China will easily and quickly build its relations with neighboring countries.

China has long been a great power, and therefore its baggage of contradictions with neighboring countries is no less than that of Russia in Europe. Japan, South Korea, Vietnam, Thailand, justified or not, do not want to face China alone. Not to mention India, which is in a strategic confrontation with China. Let me remind you that the globalist party under Obama gathered these countries in the Trans-Pacific Partnership to contain China's growth, and only the nationalist Trump canceled the partnership with the first decision.

Myth FOURTH. China is on the rise. Its soft power is on the rise. His identity is undeniable.

Do not jot down the achievements of the Chinese people, its self-identification, the integrity of society, the existence of a single perception of the historical tradition, perhaps the biggest challenge for China. Communication with representatives of China's humanitarian and financial elite evoked the image of the republics of the late Soviet Union. In no way claiming to be objective, I got such a picture that many provinces do not feel part of a single power, and provincial clans, like republican clans of the USSR, vie for federal funds. Accepted by Deng Xiaoping, the concept of the development of provinces at different speeds, expectedly led to a large imbalance in the development of the provinces. Realizing that the period of concessions of the West is over, Xi Jinping is preparing to redistribute the national welfare between provinces and elites. Hence the removal of restrictions on the terms of the head of state, the adoption of direct command over the army, the expansion of the powers of the commission of party supervision (for corruption) from the party apparatus to the whole country. China is preparing for the next turn of the level of Mao Zedong or Deng Xiaoping and is very afraid of ruining the country in contrast to Gorbachev, who has not yet taken responsibility for the disaster of 90. Let me remind you that the economic liberal Deng Xiaoping, seeing chaotization in the management of the USSR in 1989, instructed the tanks to disperse the protesters in Tiananmen Square.

Strangely enough, China even needs a wise system support of Russia (I mean intellectual, analytical, ontological and cultural), rather than in the field of geosafety. It is no coincidence that the Chinese compare Si to Putin, who is very determined to fight the oligarchs and wants to again make large capital nationally oriented. (How the Russian capitalize these opportunities, and they are measured trillions of dollars - the subject of further discussion.)


Myth FIRST. Nobody needs Russia. Russia is on the periphery of world development.

Imagine that nobody in the world needs a country - one of the world's two, managing the world's only orbital station, one in three in the world with its own satellite navigation system, one of two in the world, capable of independently conducting long-term expeditionary military campaigns, one of the five countries with a veto in the UN, one of the two countries in the world, possessing sovereign technologies of critical defense and cybersecurity, the first country in the world to make hypersonic weapons, one of the three countries in the world that produce a wide-body (20 vs. ZERO), the only country that built cities beyond the Arctic Circle, a country that has a gas, oil and pipeline network at 1 000 000 kilometers, a country one-sixth of the world's land area with a third of the world's gas reserves and the Northern Sea Route in its territorial waters. I do not know how you are, but I want this! Give two! Where does the myth of uselessness come from? The answer is simple: we have GUVENNY (forgive my French, but the degree of incompetence and pride of this layer of citizens in the normative vocabulary does not fit) appraisers and international negotiators. It is with such and such assets in the modern world that Russia can not find a decent financial compensation for its services to the world community. The Russian "well-read class" from the 70-s of the 20-th century replaces the realistic strategic goal-setting of Russia with its own personal psychological problems in the style of "Oh, forgive me the old fool, awkward, to blame !!!" None of us in his sanity hired would such people to help the apartment to rent, I'm not saying to appoint such a sales director to your company. Greater Eurasia Russia is very necessary, but we need to think over the proposal and conditions for cooperation with you. We need new appraisers and negotiators.

Myth II. In Russia, huge money from oil, but huge corruption. Here in Saudi Arabia ... Resource curse of Russia.

Oil has played a significant role in Russia's GDP since the early seventies, when Euro-Atlanticists lost control of Middle Eastern oil and Arab countries nationalized the extraction of hydrocarbons. For a year or two, oil prices from two or three dollars per barrel rose to eighteen (in the previous 100 years, the price of two or three dollars per barrel surprisingly did not change). Before that, the peoples of the Arab countries "voluntarily" subsidized 90% of the cost of oil for free, efficient Western economies. By 1980, oil prices soared to a hundred dollars per barrel, falling to 36 dollars in 1986 and, finally, to 11 dollars in 1998. So in the past forty years, when the West failed to get the Arabs to subsidize liberal economies with an iron hand, Russia 10 years in the 70 years and 10-12 years in 2000, it was able to get real money for self-extracted, on its territory and sold to the West oil . Russia did not receive any gifts, did not sell oil from the occupied countries, did not force the West by means of sanctions or threats to buy our hydrocarbons. You ask why we apologize every day for the extraction and export of our hydrocarbons? Ask the Russian "well-read" class, this is clearly the result of his inner psychological drama. Find Britons, Germans, French or Italians who would tear their hair, because they paid 100 years for hydrocarbons 10% of their real value and created economic parasites - I failed.

How much is Russia's income from oil and gas and what will happen if they are "properly divided"? In any conversation, any day of the week, when discussing any problem, an argument necessarily arises that if the speaker is given the "right to divide" the revenues from oil and gas ... then the next version of the miracle follows. Any attempt to propose to calculate or justify a decision results in an "absolute" argument: "But in Saudi Arabia, Norway and ..." Take the CIA Factbook, not the most friendly to Russia, and compile a comparative table or a diagram of net oil exports for per capita for different countries, because 2-3 million inhabitants of Qatar and Kuwait or 5 million citizens of Norway as beneficiaries of oil revenues are not the same as 145 million citizens of Russia. So, Qatar exports barrels of oil per one citizen of 326,8 against 12,8 from Russia (25 times more), Kuwait - 307,4 against 12,8 from Russia (24 times), Norway - 177,9 against 12,8 from Russia (14 times). Do Norwegians live in 14 times longer than Russians or do they have gasoline at 14 cheaper than in Russia? In 14 times !!!, Karl, it seems to me that in Norway someone steals steeply. For comparison, net exports of major oil countries: Iraq (30 million citizens) and Iran (70 million citizens) - 22,8 and 11,1 barrel per inhabitant per year. Russia has 12,8 barrel. And then, the second question arises, Karl, and where Iraq and Iran have an orbiting space station, nuclear submarines, a global satellite navigation system, a million kilometers of pipelines and dozens of nuclear power units. I do not know what conclusions you will make, but for me, Russia has a huge non-oil economy, and the problem is not in it, but in our accountants.

Well, and finally, about the RESOURCE curse of Russia. Here I believe the Euro-Atlanticists immediately and without comment. If the Russians, Hindus, Chinese, Aztecs, American Indians, Syrians or Libyans find a resource that the Euro-Americans need, then a curse hangs over these people. Their countries become colonies of the Euro-Atlantic countries, civil wars, unfair elections, economic sanctions and corrective visits of missile cruisers and carrier groups begin there. I hope that the Russian General Staff in the coming years will remove the curse first from the Russian economy, and then from the allied countries. (More on this in the article "Standing at the East Guta").

Myth THIRD. Russia is the twelfth, seventeenth ... the world economy (less than Portugal, Canada, Italy, etc.)

And again about the APPRAISERS. I do not accept shakkozakidatelstvo and not based on the facts of bravado populists, but also arguments that devalue the economy of Russia, I do not leave without verification. The International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and the International Yearbook of the CIA give Russia the sixth place in the world in terms of GDP (on parity purchasing power). This is about four trillion dollars, and from the fifth place in Germany we are separated so little that we can say that Russia shares with Germany 5-6 in GDP. Why on parity purchasing power, and not at the rate of the dollar? Anglo-Saxons emit as much domestic debt in dollars, which maintain their own GDP and inflate the stock market, that it is impossible to use the dollar exchange rate when comparing economies. I can understand Theresa May, who resents how Russia with GDP is less than Canada's 1,7 trillion dollars (in the Anglo-Saxon GDP in dollars and at PPP are the same), allows us to behave like this in the world. Well, do not tell the voters that the economy of Britain itself is only 70% of Russia's.

Another way to check the size of the Russian economy is for tourists. In 2014, before the sanctions and the devaluation of the ruble, Russia is the fifth in terms of tourist spending. Ahead only China, the United States, Germany and Britain. The loss of flows of Russian tourists to Turkey and Egypt made a greater impression than the collapse of the Soviet Union. But the main thing when the Russian economy is compared to Canada, Spain, Italy or even Britain, I can not get rid of my thoughts, that I can not recall the products of these countries. Electronics, clothing, machine tools, road machinery, tankers, software, social networks, search engines, distributed call systems and taxi management. Where are the global brands of these countries? And if the economies of these countries are "still" more than Russia, then why do not they have their own orbital stations, satellite navigation systems, nuclear icebreakers, ice-class gas and oil tankers, hundreds of thousands of kilometers of pipelines that are "rusty gas station" built and contains at his own expense. Well, a separate area of ​​comparison is the Defense Industry Complex. According to Western professional analysts, rearmament, conducted by Russia in 2012-2018, speaks of another economy. Each dollar invested by the Russians was equal to five dollars spent by the US. Therefore, the "modest" three hundred or four hundred billion dollars invested by Russia in rearmament are equivalent to 1,5-2 trillion dollars, which NATO should invest.

Russia is the fifth-sixth economy of the world, and this is despite many failures, shortcomings and ineffectiveness of asset management. This shows how much potential we have with you, if for all our inner bickering, bazaar and "circle of guilt" - Russia is the fifth in the world.

Myth FOURTH. Russia does not need anyone in the BRICS or the SCO.

About "uselessness" of Russia throughout the world, we sorted out. About "nigmaturity" China was talked. Let's move on to the BRICS and the SCO. These are young international organizations of countries, with little experience in setting up international organizations. China - "Mid-Empire", historically oriented inward. For millennia it had no concepts of ambassador and diplomacy, but only barbarians who recognized the greatness of the Chinese emperor. Over the decades of membership in the UN Security Council, you do not remember any independent application of the veto by the Chinese delegation. China will undoubtedly be the financial leader and bicep of any international union or bloc, but it can not engage in intercultural communications, the balance of interests of the members of the Union, and also the settling of conflicts inside, and above all, outside the bloc of countries (due to non-compliance with the requirements for the post). India is so complex in terms of internal composition that its government resembles the UN in its own way, and the language of the country-occupier became the unified language of national communication. About the ability of Brazil or South Africa, Pakistan or Iran, etc. to organize a balanced dialogue inside and outside the bloc of countries so far it is not necessary to speak. International experts on cross-cultural communications, for example, Richard D. Lewis, have been saying for many years that BRICS can not be a capable organization without Russia, because only Russia has the competence and experience (several hundred years) of constructive negotiations with the collective West . The rest of the participating countries, after "negotiations" with the West, became his colonies. The West is negotiating and observing contracts only with those who first survive until the end of the negotiations, and then be able to press partners until the terms of the contract are fulfilled.

I can not fail to quote (literally, without notes) a similar conclusion made by one of my readers. You can not approve of his vocabulary and stylistic presentation, but semantically the conclusions are made impeccably: "With all the greatness of Emperor C, he does not even have a theoretical opportunity to destroy the Great Empire of Good. And all the sad drawers around a few shabby shoals in the southern sea this again showed. So this is a huckster - he will not be allowed to shoot at the arrows, even if asked. But the People of Cold are serious. Moreover, they said, "This is mine, all the nah." And having soberly considered the chances, the Empire of Good agreed-yes it's yours. Let's talk about the rest, because I have enough enough for a symphony ... "(Vadim Veschezerov).

And again we return to the critical questions of the "pure" thought and the soul of our compatriots: "But how will we go further and build relations with these great nations until we repent ..., apologize ... do not change our behavior, because we can not be trusted ..." . So I want to ask you that my mother did not like in her childhood? Why are you always putting yourself in a corner? Well, yourself, why are you trying to put Russia in a corner? Or do you and the Anglo-Saxons play this game: "Punish yourself and get sanctions as a gift!"


Anthropomorphism of the Russian "well-read class"

For man, anthropomorphism is characteristic. We tend to animate our favorite subjects, encouraging our car on a difficult climb, calling it diminutively caressing names. We tend to attribute human qualities to animals and interpret their behavior. But from the thinking stratum of the country, from the "well-read" class, we expect more advanced mental constructs. They are ashamed of Russia's behavior, that is, 145 million people. Are you simultaneously controlling the behavior and intentions of 145 millions of Russians and feelings of "offended" by this behavior of a billion Westerners? And about the outrageous pride or megalomania of grandeur you have not read in your books? And for the role of a moral tuning fork you yourself appointed?

In the opinion of the "well-read" class, Russia needs to repent or apologize for ... further substitute what hurts you. Notice from you, and not from 145 millions of citizens. Or, that Russia does not participate in the pardoned resurrection of the West? That Britain, France, Italy, Spain are already swearing for the robbery of countries and peoples, the killing of millions of people, the robbing of their historical heritage (this is called museums in the capitals of these countries), the creation and real (and not invented for us) use of chemical and nuclear weapons ? It is not necessary to pour out the results of protracted sessions of counterproductive self-interest on Russia, distracting compatriots from solving real problems of safety, food, restoring the environment and providing a conflict-free hostel. The country is not one person and it is not necessary to reduce the existence and interaction of countries to the rules of behavior of one person. This anthropomorphism in its extreme application. When asked by the journalist whether the president of Russia trusts another country, the professional manager replied that the country is not a girl to operate with the words "you trust, you do not trust". Countries - the most complex socio-dynamic systems, distributed in space and time. To ensure "trust" between countries, numerous international treaties, institutions for monitoring their implementation, a system of checks and balances are necessary: ​​military, economic, cultural, and information. The history of interaction between countries (over the centuries), precedents, losses suffered, risk assessment - all this is an integral part of the mechanisms of trust between countries. In no case can you transfer the idea of ​​personal relationships to relations with corporations or countries. I remember at the dawn of my managerial career that I was worried that I was not very "respectable" in defending my personal interests in negotiations with an international corporation, but an experienced comrade (about 10 years in the London banking sector) corrected that you do not and can not have a relationship with the corporation . She has interests and no emotions, and she will take care of herself. For a long time people who knew me were surprised that in my history there are no cases that the largest corporations would not pay off with me on contract. All because in the relations of corporations there is no place for human prejudices: big-small, known-unknown, rich-poor, ashamed-shameless, but there are only specific interests and mechanisms for their control and protection. "I give you the floor of the president of the concern; You have the honor to work with us; we are always provided with this service free of charge; we have standard contracts, we will not change anything for you; why write it in the contract, it's enough of my word ... "- these are phrases with the help of which corporations and countries save huge money on idiots, non-professionals, who transfer their everyday naivety to the higher management league. Remember at least Gorbachev and Yeltsin and the promise of NATO's non-expansion to the East.


In general, if we talk about the economy, the exchange economy, where we do not try to produce everything ourselves (many of my patriotic acquaintances take offense when their dreams of producing "everything" in the territory of Russia, their city or enterprise, I call a return to subsistence farming) then one of the main tasks in the exchange economy is the ability to determine what kind of need of neighboring countries / nations can be met with the greatest profit / benefit for themselves. What kind of product or service could Russia produce in exchange for it to obtain the necessary finance, technology, products or resources? Russia, as a people and the country as a whole, and not as a set, albeit large, but benches, such as "Rusal", "Renova" or "Norilsk Nickel".

It so happened that the world urgently needs a SECOND global regulator. The fact is that the first regulator, which terribly hates all monopolies except its own monopoly on the management of the world, has sharply podrasteryal its reputation and its assets have decayed a lot. Left after 1991, the sole ruler of the destinies of the world, the collective West so ordered its monopoly position: Firstly, it brought its debts to 100% of GDP. The "well-read" compatriots will immediately report that this is normal, because other countries allow them to do so and lend. Let me remind you that all global regulatory institutions: the IMF, the World Bank - are under the control of the collective West, where the share of votes in tiny Belgium is equal to the share of China or India. In addition, controlling major stock markets, issuing trillions of dollars of debt, "persuading" Arab countries to quote oil and gas prices in dollars, controlling the movement of oil and gas tankers through the eight major world straits, controlling the world's SWIFT payment system, and a million kilometers submarine cables of communication, instantly imposing sanctions from 20 countries of NATO and sending to the banks of doubters large missile ships, it is very difficult to find those who would not have lent the owner of all of the above. Secondly, the sole global regulator first destroyed the civil infrastructure of Yugoslavia and judged its President, who acquitted him posthumously (after almost 20 years) without finding evidence of guilt, acquitted him. Then the global regulator destroyed the infrastructure and government of Iraq, condemned and executed his President on charges of creating a biological weapon, which, as it turned out, was not. Then he destroyed the infrastructure and state administration of Libya and killed her President, on charges of ... well, decide what he was to blame. For example, in that he gave money to the elections to the President of France. Destroyed the infrastructure and almost destroyed the state administration of Syria. He tries to judge and destroy the President of Syria, the doctor of an ophthalmologist married to a British citizen, the Chevalier of the Order of the Legion of Honor (France 2001 year), the Order of King Abdel-Aziz (Saudi Arabia 2009 year) and the Order of Merit for the Italian Republic (Italy 2010 year) . To judge and destroy (cruise missiles) for the production and use of chemical weapons, the presence of which "according to tradition," the sole controller should not prove to anyone. Thirdly, the only global regulator, I recall that regula - in Latin means the rule, and the regulator - respectively, one who is responsible for compliance with all (and by itself in the first place) universal rules. So the only global regulator first began to ignore certain rules, for example, the UN Security Council Resolutions. Then abolished the sovereignty of peoples and countries, inventing "humanitarian intervention", that is, giving the right to the regulator to violate international rules and laws in order to prevent the "suffering of people." What kind of people and what suffering, as well as the scale of the invasion - the only regulator decides alone and not to whom should not be accountable. If the scale of deaths, suffering and damage from humanitarian interventions exceed the initial pretext for invasion by orders of magnitude (Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya, Syria, one "liberation" of what is worth), then the global regulator does not judge the global regulator so as not to spoil the reputation of the global regulator. Unlike the Russian "well-read" class, Euro-Atlanticists do not put themselves in the corner and do not give themselves to others. Then the global regulator deprived the people and the country of the right to determine their domestic political choices. Long before the elections in any country in the world, the global regulator determines what results it recognizes and which does not. And neither the level of real support for voters, nor the type of state structure is important either. To the legitimacy of the regimes of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the Emirate of Qatar or the Brunei Sultanate, in principle there is no claims, but to the elections under the control of 90 000 web cameras and hundreds of thousands of observers and electronic counting of votes technologically unthinkable either in the US or in most countries of Western Europe , there is a claim, because "Highly likely". Simply the global regulator informed all "subjects" that what for to us rules (regula) if we have a regulator which now instead of observing observance of the rules coordinated by the countries and the people, he comes up with rules. The enlightened global regulator took upon himself the right to determine the relationship between the sexes and even the number of genders in any country and nation, the relationship of parents with children (juvenile justice), the rules of doping, where the Olympic champions of the regulator countries for 70% asthmatics and chronic patients, corruption, where corruption is off scale in poor countries, and domestic debts exceed 100% of GDP in rich countries. Did the US, British and French taxpayers themselves collect "dozens of trillions of dollars of debts for themselves" for the burning of life, and those as a result turned out to be on the accounts of banks and funds like: BlackRock - 5,7 trillion dollars, Vanguard Group - 4,4 trillion dollars, State Street Global Advisors - 2,6 trillion dollars. Is this corruption. The only global regulator of corruption can not be corruption. Well, in the fourth, the only global regulator brought an irresistible desire for efficiency, or, in parlance, greed, which, as is known from petty criminal folklore, had a bad effect on the career of the fraera. The global regulator began to save more and more on the proof of the guilt of the "defendants", to imitate the processes of fair detailed proceedings, and most of all the number of "custom-made" decisions of the regulator began to exceed the number of decisions creating the appearance of justice. If they organized Srebrenica and Kosovo under Milosevic and spent money on the Hague Tribunal, if an explosion of the Twin Towers and connection with Al-Qaeda were used to invade Afghanistan, then they simply waved a test tube with white powder at the UN for the invasion of Iraq, and the court Hussein was quick and inexpensive. The invasion of Libya was not particularly motivated, and they decided not to spend money on the trial of Kadafi, they let him be ransacked by the crowd. And the elderly lady, the secretary of the global regulator, hysterically laughed at the camera after the beatings to death of the lawful head of state, laconically saying: "We came, he died." Apparently considering that her exclamation of legitimacy is equivalent to a five-year investigation in the international tribunal, public debates of the parties and the publication of hundreds of volumes of proven evidence. In short, the only global regulator went into all serious and the crisis of the genre became already obvious even for the sellers of balloons on the beaches of Pattaya. The world urgently needs a second global regulator. And for three kopecks the case of the Skrypals, stitched by another elderly lady, and the marketing action "Let's send one hundred diplomats, we'll launch a hundred rockets" and the promise "From suspicion to execution - no more than three days" - only confirm the urgency of the appearance of a new regulator. Forgive my French one more time: "Right F * cking Now !!!"


In no way do I say that the global economy does not need a regulator. The regulator is necessary for any system. I do not claim that another country - a regulator or a group of countries will be more perfect or better than regulators than Euro-Atlanticists. No, the world simply needs a balance, a system of checks and balances, competition of regulators. The second regulator should not be perfect in all respects. He will have one task - to limit and discipline the first (Euro-Atlantic) regulator, and to create a predictable space of international relations, where countries and peoples will have the opportunity to protect their interests and traditions, without the threat of financial, political, cultural or physical destruction. So, if Russia chooses it as the second regulator, it will be very constructive and, I dare say, ontologically organic for the people of Russia.

You will ask, what is Russia considered to be the second global regulator? My vision suggests that for several years, at least from 2012 a year after the murder of Kadafi and the phrase "We have come, he's dead!" Is attending the new global regulator. I emphasize not a new hegemon, like the US or the USSR, but a new second global regulator. What is the difference? The hegemon must (or tries to) dominate in all areas: in economics, ideology, science, technology, culture, information propaganda, in the military sphere, etc. The hegemon must control the world currency, global communications infrastructure and trade flows. This was observed in the case of the British Empire, the USA or the USSR. The hegemon carries enormous costs and risks and should not allow the existence of other hegemons. However, hegemony is very dangerous for a hegemonic country. And overstrained, the former hegemon can forever leave the global arena. There is a possibility that part of the American and global intellectual elite, which, including at the beginning of the 70-s, changed the global balance of power, pumping China with money and technology and removing it from the zone of USSR domination. I decided that at the beginning of the 10th century the US, especially after the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, entered the zone of self-destruction and needed a controlled counterweight that would limit the chaotic actions and ambitions of the unchecked imperial hegemon elite, but could not destroy it. Since the beginning of the 21, China has been actively dragged into this role, having invented even such names as "Big Two" or "Chimerica" ​​(China + America). But China failed, in two ways. First, he refused to assume any obligations outside of China, and secondly, did not fit in as an invulnerable, impudent, high-tech villain. World Stanislavsky, representing China, night cast special forces of the exciting Crimea or establishing a no-fly zone over Syria, said: "I do not believe it!". Suitable for all articles, Russia did not pass on two points: the size of the economy and the ability to really destroy America.

Probably (I not only do not claim that such plans and agreements have taken place, I do not even expect that they will ever be confirmed by facts, I learned about the plans of Nixon and Kissinger and negotiations with Mao Zedong in 1971 year from Kissinger's book " On China ", published in 2010 year). Probably, with tacit, conscious or unconscious consent of the parties, the events were turned toward creating a collective or composite hegemon No. 2. Where China will be the economic locomotive, technological base and industrial and consumer base of the hegemon, and Russia will take responsibility for the international situation, cross-cultural communications in Greater Eurasia, limiting the chaotic actions and ambitions of the Euro-Atlantic elites, keen opposition to the power elites of the West, for the creation and development sovereignty-forming technologies: aerospace defense, hypersound, electronic warfare, cyber defense, cryptotechnologies, information wars, protection from color revolutions, energy security and product safety, as well as the security of communications and trade routes.

So, the second global regulator, as I said, is not a hegemon. It does not bear the costs of creating and retaining the global infrastructure, its only task is to limit and discipline the first Euro-Atlantic regulator. So why did Russia come under such pressure if it has a positive global scenario.

AT FIRST, the new global regulator in its essence (in terms of TK or job descriptions) must withstand any pressure of the Euro-Atlantic regulator. Up to the threat of war or its not intensive conduct (see the article "Standing at the East Guta"). The last four years, since the coup in Kiev, is an intensive certification of Russia for the role of the second global regulator. Russia removed from the G8, deprived of the right to vote in the PACE, accused of destroying the Malaysian Boeing. Against Russia imposed sanctions that deprived it of hundreds of billions of dollars in revenues, the ruble has fallen in price by half against the dollar, oil prices have fallen to forty dollars per barrel. Russia has been denied access to a number of critical technologies, the most important ties with the Soviet-Ukrainian OPK (rocketry, aircraft and ship propulsion, instrumentation) have been severed. Russia and its enterprises have limited access to the world (Euroatlantic) financial market, sanctions have been introduced against the financial elite and a significant part of the political elite. Military conflicts have intensified along the perimeter of Russia (Ukraine, Transnistria, the Caucasus, Central Asia, Afghanistan, Iran), the United States and NATO officially call Russia the threat of 1, NATO rocket destroyers are on duty in the Black and Baltic Seas. Conclusion: no one wants the world to slip the "fufelnogo" the second global regulator, testing is done with all straightforwardness and thoroughness. No one can test and certify a new global regulator, better than the old global regulator.

SECONDLY, no one can formally appoint a new global regulator other than the newest global regulator. I recall the comments on the televised debates of the candidates for the French presidency, when Ségolène Royal, when asked about her reaction to the frequent attacks on policemen, suggested that they hire security guards. So the real police guards are not needed, and the emergence of a new global regulator of the country and their peoples can only recognize after-fact, but not to announce in advance. The military, political, media and business elites of the countries of Greater Eurasia should see firsthand the overcoming through which the people of Russia and its state and public institutions pass, and voluntarily refuse to replace the vacancy of the regulator in Greater Eurasia. Otherwise, they themselves, "on their own skin," and not in the book-lecture mode, will have to experience how much "it costs" to be a regulator. And then Chairman Xi Jinping and Prime Minister Modi will not have to long persuade the elites of their countries to pay for the services of the new global regulator.

THIRD, the morphogenesis of Russia and its people in a global regulator can not occur in the same day and in an existential vacuum. You might think that the difficulties that we have been experiencing for the past four or six years are excessive and "people" should not suffer so much. I wonder what you are comparing with? With 500 days of Yavlinsky's reforms, which were supposed to "miraculously" transform the USSR into ...? To what to transform, did not even give a name. Or with the reforms of Yeltsin, Gaidar, Chubais, who in the same four years converted 270 million citizens of the USSR into 145 million Russia, lost five million square kilometers of territory, up to 40% of GDP, destroyed manufacturing industries and transformed Russia, in the raw appendage of the West. True genius could blame their predecessors, that they created the "Commodity Supply" with the raw CURRENT. Without the Sochi Olympics and taking the Crimea (not to mention its military-strategic importance), it was impossible to consolidate Russian society around national interests so much, reducing the protest potential from 25% -27% in 2012 to 2-3% in 2018. I'm not talking about the contentment of all (we have enough problems in Russia for decades to resolve), I say that part of the society that stands for the superiority of foreign (Euro-Atlantic) interests over national interests has declined to 2-3%. For a regulator acting as a counterbalance to Euro-Atlanticism - this is critically important. Without the introduction of financial sanctions, it would be very difficult to limit the dependence of private business, the national financial system, and the financial part of the government on Western financial instruments. The mopping up of the banks that lived at the expense of re-issuing "cheap" Western money inside Russia is almost complete. (The low interest rate of western banks is determined not by the greatness of the West's economy, but by the inability to pay interest on domestic public debt at 100% of GDP, when the interest rate is almost equal to the share of GDP that must be paid to repay interest on loans. Try to explain to voters why, when the economy grows at 1,5%, you spend 5% of GDP on repaying interest on public debt, and not even debt itself.) A national electronic system of bank payments has been introduced, not tied to the Euro-Atlantic countries. External pressure on big businessmen should finally stop the trend, founded by the Soviet Euro-Atlantic elites, to export capital from Russia instead of including these funds in the development of the national economy and public institutions. The phrase of the representatives of the long-billionaire party that the government does not have the right to a tough foreign policy with countries where a million Russians have real estate has already gone down in history. The Russian society will offer its energetic, enterprising and talented co-citizens to invest in those countries with which Russia has strategically mutually beneficial relations, confirmed by international treaties and financial obligations. Then the Russian society with all the power of its institutions, including the military, will protect these investments. The export of capital to countries that oppose themselves to the Russian people, and the use of it (capital) as a lever of pressure on the Russian government, I hope will be recognized as socially unacceptable. Over the years of sanctions, a large-scale transformation of Russia's defense industry has been carried out, which is critically important for the new global regulator. Seriously, at times, the dependence of the Russian defense industry on foreign components has been reduced. A new system has been created, but not a perfect, but much more modern pricing system. The DIC will be financed by the Government through a specialized State Bank, which will not have foreign accounts and transactions, and therefore, will be insensitive to sanctions. State Bank also eliminates the imbalance between the loan rate at 15% per annum and the allowed margin to enterprises of the OPK in 5-7%. The defense and industrial complex of the new regulator should not only be independent, but also effective, as it must receive significant orders for armaments from the countries of Greater Eurasia, as well as master the markets it provides (under the agreement on services of the global regulator) for high-tech industrial products and services. Few people noticed, but in opposition to the trend towards the nationalization of large-scale industry, privatization of large concerns began in the defense industry. Concern Kalashnikov demonstrates excellent dynamics and results. The head of the company S7 acquired the Sea Launch, made an application for a concession to the Russian segment of the ISS and is ready to participate in the program of orbital transportation. I expect that in the coming years we will see numerous agreements on privatization in the aviation, space, radio-electronic, shipbuilding, navigation and other industries in order to realize the export potential of Russian enterprises in the markets of Greater Eurasia (including in the framework of agreements with the new global regulator) .

Output. Within the framework of the concept I described, in recent years the world has been carrying out a complex (internal political, foreign policy, financial-banking, technological, food-agricultural, military-industrial, military-organizational, information) transformation of Russia, its society, state and public institutions to fulfill the geo-strategically claimed role of the second global regulator representing the interests of Greater Eurasia. Work on transformation is carried out extremely systematically with direct participation (negative or positive) or under the supervision of all subjects of geopolitics and geo-economics. Transformation takes place in the historically shortest possible time, even Gorbachev and Shevardnadze, and Yeltsin and Gaidar and Chubais disorganized / transformed the USSR more slowly; with minimal social, political, financial losses and costs. Remember Ostankino's assault on 1991, hyperinflation in 92, the shooting of the White House in 93, voucher privatization, the deployment of troops to Chechnya at 94, the issuance of salaries for industrial products at enterprises, the election of the "dying" Yeltsin in the 96 , pledge auctions in gratitude for the election of Yeltsin and the creation of billionaires in 97, and finally, the default of 1998. So between 1991 year and 1998, only one more year than between 2012 and 2018. And if it seems to you that then everything was good and inexpensive, but now "bad", "unbearable", and "everything is lost," then you are either pregnant, or you have a nervous breakdown.

"But it's all so difficult to verify. A lot of "bukaf", a lot of "tsyfer". But I read ... but it seems to me ... But Adam Smith does not say anything about the role of the global regulator. "I agree. Heavy. And we again need to talk about overcoming. Overcoming the palaces of his thinking.


Big data and the end of common sense.

In principle, in any society does the intellectual elite or the "well-read" class claim? On the definition of common sense. Active society uses "common sense" in the literal sense of the word, as an opener, microscope or ruler. Cloud phenomenon of collective thought activity (or its imitation, as it happens in natural ecosystems) of the "well-read" class, the system of higher education, the media industry and social information exchange is a phenomenon that we call "common sense". It is interesting that in Anglo-Saxons it is called "common sense", which is much closer to its technological essence. After all, "common sense" and "common sense" are not always the same, especially in the turning points of history. Common / common sense is an energy-saving technology / product that allows a person to save years spent on studying the economy, history, law, collective unconscious of other peoples, technological processes, the balance of army forces, the effectiveness of society and so on indefinitely. I will not go into the problem, I will only say that the technological, social, geo-economic and geopolitical changes of the last two decades have led to a sharp decline in the effectiveness of "common sense" tools, and now to the catastrophe of this toolkit, which causes deep traumas and injuries to users.

What happened?

AT FIRST, the number of parameters that must be taken into account when evaluating the event has grown at least three orders of magnitude (a thousand times). I will not go into the calculations, only I will draw your attention that expert-cognitive and advisory systems, systems of semantic parsing, a system of semantic selection of consumer preferences use from 160 to 200 thousand parameters. So, if you are used to drawing conclusions on three events or sources, raise the threshold at least to a thousand.

SECONDLY, the convergence of systems is growing in speed and scale. Convergence is the fusion and / or interchange of separate and different entities. On the phone, you do not need to mount a video, have a horoscope, or recognize faces - so did NOKIA corporation. No foreign passports, absentee ballots or parking permits can be issued to the MFC, so many social services have already disappeared, and one can only guess about the new acquisitions of My Documents. The fact that you know in detail how something was arranged 10, 50, 100 or 500 years in a row and did not change, does not guarantee that in five years it will not change beyond recognition.

THIRD, the monopoly of the Euro-centric view of the world disappears before our very eyes. The robbery and destruction of the Incas and Maya will no longer be the Great geographical discoveries, the robbery of the Egyptian pyramids and Indian temples, will cease to be an invaluable contribution of the Anglo-Saxons to the world cultural heritage. The creation by the richest countries of debts in 100% of GDP will not be a delight for non-Euro-Atlantic economists and politicians. Do not use the European point of view as the only one, this no longer guarantees common sense. If you do not trust the Russian sources for the war in Georgia or the annexation of the Crimea, on the development of EW or air defense systems, read in the original American analysts (not journalists, but active military and strategists), diploma papers and theses of cadets and officers of military academies, military analysts of Pakistan and India, analytical reports of Chinese publications, read blogs on specialized community sites in Australia and Thailand. Just do not shout that "everything is lost," if a well-known expert (usually on all issues) in Russia Sasha Filkin Schnauzer in an interview with the Air Force will say that S-400 does not exist and Israeli pilots easily fly around them on plywood stales.

We have to overcome many obstacles in our minds and answer ourselves to many not simple questions: Is it possible to be a responsible citizen and not have critical and systemic thinking? Is it possible at the expense of society to cherish its own intellectual pride and to transfer personal psychological problems to the relationships between industries and countries? Is it possible, as a monkey with a grenade, to rush through social networks with hastily made conclusions on the most complicated geopolitical issues?

In order to start offering global products and services to the world: geosafety, regional stability, intercultural communication and conflict management, interfaith consent - we must overcome ourselves, for we live in a life that we imagine. For there are no deeper goblins than the palaces of one's own intellectual lenience, multiplied by the pride of omniscience. For "everything is lost," "it is necessary to leave" and "Ivan the Terrible is to blame for everything" is not an assessment of the spectrum of the possibilities of a great power in a changing world. This is a refusal to construct a positive picture of a new world with an organic role for its country. This meager intellectual tools, pettiness goal-setting and honoring on the laurels of the "read".
One of the main reasons Richard Nixon became the 1952 vice-presidential candidate on the Eisenhower ticket was his strong anti-communist stance. Despite this, in 1972 Nixon became the first US president to visit mainland China while in office. One of the main reasons why Richard Nixon became a candidate for US Vice-Presidents at Eisenhower in 1952 was his strong anti-communist attitude. Despite this, in 1972, he became the first incumbent President of the United States, who visited communist China.

THE WORLD AFTER THE GUTA ... What's next? Why wait? And how to participate?

In May-December 2018 years

On May 7, 2018, the inauguration of the Russian President, possibly the new global regulator, will take place. (The representatives of the Euro-Atlantic regulator have two more weeks for the Violins and so on.) On May 9, the world will see the latest technologies guaranteeing the equality of the countries and peoples of Greater Eurasia in negotiations with the countries of the Euro-Atlantic bloc from the square about which the strongest Euro-Atlantic powers have broken their teeth. I wonder who will come to the inauguration. I wonder who will attend the Victory Parade. The composition of the Government, which will be presented by the President, is interesting. I wonder if the mayors of Moscow and St. Petersburg will change. Especially Moscow. Some candidates are capable of causing a tectonic shift. Will they announce structural changes in the aviation and space industries, are they announcing joint projects with China and India on the orbital station and the flight of the moon. I wonder whether it will be announced where the oil revenues will exceed $ 40 dollars per barrel, for which the budget is balanced, and these are tens of billions of dollars. Will there be joint statements with China and India on the Northern Sea Route and the extraction of hydrocarbons in the Arctic? Considering that the President has only six years to launch global integration projects, he must declare them and their leaders until the end of 2018. There is no time for swinging.

In 5-10 years

In the next 5-10 years of Greater Eurasia, it is necessary to create many international institutions: the Security Council (with the right of veto of Russia, China and India), possibly on the basis of the SCO. Council of Mutual Economic Assistance, let the name be different, but the essence is the same. The new "Warsaw" or, rather, the Seoul Defense Treaty. Novosibirsk International Tribunal for the consideration of crimes of Euro-Atlanticists against the peoples of Eurasia. St. Petersburg International Cyber ​​Arbitration. Organization for the protection of cultural heritage and traditions of the peoples of Eurasia. Transnational police and counter-terrorism organization. Regulators of maritime non-Atlantic law, international technical regulators and scientific expertise institutions. A single Eurasian geoinformation and geopolitical system for monitoring the implementation of international and commercial contracts, and tracking cross-border cargo and anthropo flows. In short, it is necessary to replace the entire Euro-Atlantic network of regulators and create new institutions that reflect the challenges of the 21 century.

You ask, and if nothing of this happens? If after 9 May everything will go as before, as if Russia does not have all of this described potential. And if the world does not need a second global regulator, or is needed, but will Russian elites ignore this need? And Russia will not receive an additional two trillion dollars a year from Greater Eurasia, and will not attract a trillion dollars of investments in the agricultural sector and another trillion in the development of Arctic hydrocarbons and will not insist that tankers and container carriers go only under the Russian flag on the Northern Sea Route?

I will answer you with a story told by my wonderful namesake, when in 2008 at the height of the global economic crisis we in Petersburg discussed possible scenarios of the future. "Sergei," he said to me. I quote the above not verbatim, I pass only the meaning of what I heard. "In the practice of creating scenarios, there is such a rule that if the script is very beautiful and harmoniously tailored and linked, and the data on which it is built are not accurate enough or even fantastic (well, who would believe that Nixon and Kissinger secretly from the American people and the US government organize negotiations with Mao Zedong), then such a scenario has high chances to be realized in reality. But the lame, laced with white threads and the best wishes of the authors (I recall all the ministerial development programs for the last 20 years, including the works of Kudrin), the scenario based on the most reliable facts and real experts' meetings has practically no chances for implementation. "

The scenario of Greater Eurasia with a new global regulator and export of security is not trivial, and can find its own life. The only question is how to fill it with personal plans of 145 millions of Russians, millions of small businesses and tens of thousands of medium-sized companies, how to link their actions with the plans of state corporations and large industrial concerns, how to adapt existing ones and create new public and state institutions to implement this scenario? Is it necessary to create parties and associations for this, how to organize work with export centers? How to get into the consortium and find your place in the value chain? How not to give the officials and / or the elite "profucing" these opportunities, but rather how to create tools for participation in the scenario that are convenient for interested citizens of Russia? I will try to talk with you about this in the next article.

If you want to practice your critical thinking, leave a few weak signals. In which countries Shoigu was going to open Russian naval and air bases about four years ago? Why should Russia have a friendship society with the Seychelles? Why would Russia need an agreement on naval patrolling the coast of Nicaragua? Why did Vietnam refuse to use the naval base of Cam Ran? And what is the most important thing for China and India?

The first part

Sergey Khaprov
G|translate Your license is inactive or expired, please subscribe again!