The United States will not allow Russia to return to the club of superpowers. According to the American press, just three senior officials of the US administration will try to convey this idea this week to Europeans and Muslims. Why does the West so vehemently oppose the revival of Russia - and how should Russia behave in this situation?
On Friday in Munich, the annual security conference comes off. From Washington, two key Trump generals will arrive: her national security adviser, Herbert McMaster, and Secretary of Defense James Mattis. In addition, McMaster will also visit Turkey, which will host and Secretary of State Tillerson, now on a trip to the Middle East.
Three people who determine US foreign policy, according to the American edition of National, carry with them a new foreign policy doctrine of the Trump administration. And this doctrine is that "the United States will no longer show softness towards those whom they consider a threat to the influence and strategic interests of America." In a sense, this is also addressed to Turkey - so, McMaster seems to be "to explain the limits of the US and NATO's patience with the recklessness of Recep Tayyip Erdogan in Syria and his partnership with Russia and Iran." But the main addressee, according to National, is Russia: "In a broader strategic sense, the White House sends a signal to the Kremlin that Russia will not be able to regain the status of a superpower."
Here it is interesting not how reliable the information of the American publication is. What's important is that the position itself is more than widespread in the Anglo-Saxon and wider Western world. Russia has no right to occupy one of the leading places in the world - it does not matter whether it has such a desire or not. Does not have - and a point. Why? Because we think so. But if you want explanations, here they are: totalitarian, aggressive, communist, imperial, orthodox, atheistic, conservative, revolutionary, anti-democratic force.
What, one contradicts the other? Well, choose the one that relates to the present time - and the rest is laid out on the shelves of the XVIII, XIX, XX centuries. In reality, this is the case - the policy of restraining Russia is unchanged. It changes, often in a cyclic order, only its justification, that is, the slogans under which it is conducted. Which makes it possible to draw an obvious conclusion - the reason for this attitude to our country is quite different.
What?It's simple - the West considers Russia a savage, barbaric country. The country is an impostor. The West is afraid of Russia.And that is why Russia has no right to claim one of the main places in the world. After all, "alien" and "wild" can not be on an equal footing with the developed and its own. Is this attitude surmountable - and, most importantly, is there a desire to overcome it from the West? Is the West able to give up such not even arrogance, but civilizational racism?
After all, there are no problems on the part of Russia.We not only do not consider ourselves better, more developed or smarter than others, we have another extreme. Our "elites" periodically fall into the humiliating adulation of the West - forgetting, betraying, abandoning their native history, culture, civilization for the sake of "sharing in the benefits of civilization." Naturally, the western. For those who consider Russia "one continuous misunderstanding," only West-centric thinking is surprising. And it is not clear what is more harmful - the craving for Western material values (the so-called way of life) or spiritual (that is, for "correct philosophy" and "real art" through oblivion of one's own). Both of them cause great damage to the country. But sooner or later another attack of thoughtless "love" towards the West is straightened out - and, albeit at great cost, Russia is returning to its own path.
And here the exacerbation of Western russophobia is beginning. If in the period when pro-Western forces are ruling Russia, the "civilized world" is only leniently listening to the "delirium of the barbarians", that "we are of the same blood" and "we have common values and interests", then as soon as Russians remember their roots and interests , they begin to apply the same "containment policy". That is, they declare us as the descent of hell and cause all ills for the whole world. A specific reason for this may be anything, even if the defense of Christians in the Balkans (at a peak seemingly alien to the Christian West of the Ottoman Empire), even the introduction of troops into Afghanistan (which has nothing to do with the West), even the return of the Crimea.
That is, as soon as Russia begins to defend its interests and behave almost like the West (almost, because we are practically always concerned only with what is happening directly at our borders, and not on the other side of the globe), immediately she is reminded that she is not dares to claim the first roles.
In this case, the West itself does not notice the absurdity of its claims. How can you point to a power that is objectively one of the major world players?
Indeed, after three centuries ago, at the beginning of the 18th century, Russia entered the European arena, it became clear that nothing in the world would happen without it. Because, no matter how strong the then two superpowers, Great Britain and France, the very trajectory of Russia's development foreshadowed its further rise. Which is what happened - therefore, in the XIX century, Russia was tried several times to crush the united Europe, and in XX tried to liquidate it twice as such. But after 1945, Russia has become an undisputed superpower and, more than three decades later, has reached the peak of its global power. After that, of goodwill (albeit implicated in the stupidity of the leadership) is not just passed back, but even fell apart. Crashed to bits, the West was delighted - but, as in 1917, Russia got to its feet, returned and went its own way.
On whichwe do not even have to question whether to be a superpower or not. Russia in its essence can either be great, or not at all. Moreover, our superpower is not a colonialist, non-hegemonic, or imperialistic. We are not going to impose anything on anyone, we do not want to control all straits and continents. We just want to develop our mind and go our own way. The problem of the West is that in order for us to have the opportunity to live like this, we will have to deprive someone of the opportunity to be a hegemon in this world. That is, our freedom begins where the globalistic project of world domination ends - no matter how sad it may be for the Atlantists.
Who can say anything - but no one in this world can not hear them anymore. Ask China, India, the Islamic world, Europeans and Hispanics: can anyone prevent Russia from taking its rightful place in the new, emerging world order?
Such a power simply does not exist.