To frighten Russia by the West, all means are good: distortion of statements and facts, direct lies, invented concepts of Russian politics. And there is no limit to fantasy - for more than a year there has been an unprecedented campaign to find a "Russian trace" in the American elections. Against the backdrop of such a grandiose lie, the rest seems shallow, but it is symptomatic that now some stable bricks of Western Russophobia began to pour.
"Russia is nurturing plans to conquer Europe, and there is documentary evidence for this" - this mantra has been more than two centuries old. Changed rulers of Russia, the system and even the name of the country, but the Russian threat remains a bogey for the Western public. Peter the First, Nicholas I, Joseph Stalin, Vladimir Putin - everyone wants to capture Europe.
To begin with, decompose it from the inside, set off between each other, and then walk along it with a Russian army rink.
Putin here and on the US swung - his president has already imposed lop-eared Americans.
All this nonsense is both bitter and ridiculous, and it is useless to argue, it remains only to wait for the use of the "Russian scarecrow" to cease to meet the interests of the Western elites, or, at least, for them there will be more strategic harm than tactical advantage.
At the same time, turning over the next chapter of the Russophobic saga is not so easy for its initiators, because they themselves are caught in a web of webs from their own prilums. Take one away - the whole thread will be torn. Therefore, to dismantle the debris of lies you need to gradually, carefully. Perhaps what is happening to the Western Russophobia in the last month is indicative of the very beginning of such a purification process.
A month ago, Dutch Foreign Minister Halbe Zailstra lost his seat - because his lie was revealed about the words of Vladimir Putin. After the Crimea, Zailstra, who did not head the Foreign Ministry, but was a former MP, repeatedly told how in 2006, Putin told him about the plans for the revival of great Russia through the accession of Ukraine, Byelorussia, the Baltic and North Kazakhstan to him, then working for a major international oil company . When he was caught lying, Zielstra resigned. Whether his case was an example for the next step in the dethronement of "Russian fairy tales" is unknown, but this week in Foreign Policy appeared a very remarkable article.
It is called"Sorry for the invention of the" doctrine of Gerasimov,and its author is Mark Galeotti, a British analyst and specialist in Russia (especially in our special services). For what does the Briton apologize?
"Everywhere you can find scientists, experts and politicians talking about the threat that the" Gerasimov doctrine ", named for the head of the Russian General Staff, represents for the West. This is a new type of war, an "extended theory of modern warfare" or even "an idea of a total war".
There is one small problem. It does not exist. And the longer we pretend that it exists, the longer we do not understand the true, but different nature of the challenge that Russia throws.
I believe that I have the right to say this, because, to my great vexation, I invented this term, which since then began to live its own destructive life. "
Galeotti simply gave this name - "The Doctrine of Gerasimov" - an article in his own blog, published in the spring of 2013, which dealt with a shortly published article by the chief of the Russian General Staff. In this case, Galeotti was worried about the attendance of his blog, so he gave his article a catchy name:
«Blog-this, like everything else, is a place for the manifestation of vanity; Of course, I want people to read it. So, for reasons of slash, I came up with a term for the title - "the doctrine of Gerasimov," although even then I noted in the text that this phrase-no more than a "temporary name" and "this is certainly not a doctrine."
However, a year later there was Crimea, and the term Galeotti began to live his life - "it suddenly began to seem that Gerasimov really described the future." Although - and this is reminiscent of the English analyst himself - in the article of the Russian general, it was not at all about Russia's plans:
"Gerasimov, in fact, spoke about how the Kremlin understands what happened during the speeches of the" Arab spring "," color revolutions "against the pro-Moscow regimes in neighboring countries and later during the Ukrainian uprising on the Maidan ... It was about that , how to deal with such phenomena in the country, and not to prepare them. "
The so-called article by Valery Gerasimov was published in the newspaper Military-Industrial Courier 26 February 2013 under the heading "The Value of Science in Foresight" and the subtitle "New Challenges Demand Re-think Forms and Methods of Fighting". In fact, this is not an article, but excerpts from the speech of the chief of the General Staff at a general meeting of the Academy of Military Sciences, which took place in January of the same year. At one of the AVN sessions Valery Gerasimov made a report on the theme "The main trends in the development of forms and methods of the use of the Armed Forces, the urgent tasks of military science for their improvement", extracts from which were published by the Military Industrial Courier, then translated into the West in English and hit the eyes of Galeotti. What did General of the Army Gerasimov speak about?
"In the 21st century, there is a tendency to erase the differences between the state of war and peace. Wars are no longer declared, but when they start, they do not follow the pattern we are familiar with.
The experience of military conflicts, including those associated with the so-called "color revolutions" in North Africa and the Middle East, confirms that a completely prosperous state can turn into an arena of fierce armed struggle for months and even days, fall prey to foreign intervention, plunge into the abyss of chaos, humanitarian disaster and civil war.
Of course, the easiest way to say that the events of the "Arab Spring" is not a war, so we, the military, have nothing to study there. And maybe, on the contrary: are these events the typical war of the 21st century? "
In his speech before military scientists Gerasimov analyzes the events taking place in the world and comes to absolutely fair, but, in fact, even for 2013, banal conclusions:
"The" rules of war "themselves have changed significantly. The role of non-military methods in achieving political and strategic goals has increased, which in some cases, by their effectiveness, far surpassed the strength of weapons.
The emphasis of the methods of confrontation used is shifting towards broad application of political, economic, information, humanitarian and other non-military measures implemented with the use of the protest potential of the population. All this is supplemented by military measures of a hidden nature. "
Gerasimov poses reasonable questions:
"What is modern war, what should the army prepare for, what should it be armed with?" Only by answering them will we be able to determine the direction of the construction and development of the Armed Forces in the long term. To do this, it is necessary to clearly represent what forms and methods of their application we will use.
... In recent conflicts, new ways of conducting military operations have appeared, which can not be regarded as exclusively military. An example of this is the operation in Libya, where a no-fly zone was created, a naval blockade was applied, private military companies were widely used in close cooperation with the armed opposition formations. "
And although there were more arguments in Gerasimov's speech and more about what - from precision weapons to "countering sabotage and reconnaissance and terrorist forces with the complex application of all law enforcement agencies of the state" - to say that the chief of the General Staff formulated at least some sketches of some kind, then the concept or doctrine of war is impossible.
So Galeotti quite honestly admits:
The "Doctrine of Gerasimov" never meant anything and does not mean now. It's time to leave her alone. "
Yeah, that is, five years the West rushed with a doctrine that does not exist? Yes, but what can not you do for the sake of a good sensation. Worse for the West is another: the term "Gerasimov's doctrine" was used not only in the production of propaganda horror stories, but also for real, serious analysts for the special services and leadership of Western countries. That is, they themselves invented the existence of the Russians "an expanded theory of modern combat operations", they themselves believed in it, they themselves are building a policy in accordance with the need to respond to it? Exaggeration? No, because the pathos of Galeotti's article is not that he repents for the stupidity invented by him, but that the Russians, it turns out, are doing something completely different - and that's what's dangerous. And the West does not even know, and "the wrong perception of Russia's actions will lead to a misunderstanding of the threat and a miscalculation in the development of the answer to it":
"We can not deny that the West is facing a multi-vector campaign of subversive activities, introducing discord and secret political" active measures "from Russia. But words have an effect. Adherence to this inaccurate label also limits and sets the wrong direction for our attempt to understand and oppose it.
First of all, there is no single Russian doctrine. In any case, the Russian campaign is dangerous precisely because it lacks a unified organizing principle, not to mention the controlling body. Its goal is to divide and demoralize, but it is opportunistic, fragmentary and sometimes even contradictory. In most cases, it is carried out by "political entrepreneurs" who hope to curry favor with the Kremlin. "
That is, Galeotti describes something formless, not having a single center, but terrible. What is it, a terrible Russian secret machine for seizing the West, a hybrid of the FSB, the Red Army and the Kremlin's money? It's unclear, but this is not a military threat ...
"We should not consider this primarily in military terms ... Gerasimov spoke about using subversive actions to prepare the place of military operations before the invasion, and not about the actual war. These are the methods that Russia used in Ukraine and which can hardly be called new ...
For Russia, there can be no question of waging a war with NATO, which is a coalition of richer democracies, while Russia can only boast an economy comparable to that of Canada, and an incomplete, very expensive modernization of the army, which has already become bogged down in two wars.
Such a country can only resort to what George Kennan called a "political war," namely, the use of all means available to the state, with the exception of the military, to achieve its national goals.
Thus, if subversion-not a prelude to war, but a war itself, this changes our understanding of the threat and our best response to it. "
It turns out that there is no military threat from Russia, and there is a threat of subversion, to which Galeotti recommends that the United States "focus on counterintelligence, media literacy, fighting corruption and eliminating the division of American society created by Russia."
Great advice: eliminate the split in American society. But how can we eliminate it, if, according to another conspiracy theory, it was the Russians who selected Trump for the Americans? Yes, Galeotti does not answer for this invention - her author, that is, the creator of the concept of "Russian influence on Trump", is collectively the entire American liberal establishment headed by Hillary Clinton. There is, however, a performer: a former British intelligence officer, Christopher Steele, who prepared for Clinton a "report on Trump", which contains many rumors of all sorts of dirt on the billionaire allegedly collected by the Kremlin.
But Steele does not repent of his invention, and who will allow him to admit this? The story of the "Russian Trump file" has not only taken its key place in the arsenal of the struggle of the American establishment with the disagreeable president, but has also become part of the Russophobe mythology.
In which its neighbors are both the "doctrine of Gerasimov" and the eternal values of Russophobia, such as "the testament of Peter the Great" or "Zinoviev's letters".
The most famous is the false "testament of Peter the Great" - it "surfaced" in France 200 years ago. It cites the Emperor's order to his descendants how to achieve world domination. To seize not only the East and India, but also gradually the whole of Europe. Here are two final paragraphs from it:
«13. When Sweden is fragmented, Persia is defeated, Poland is buried, Turkey is conquered, the armies are connected, the Black and Baltic Seas are guarded by our ships, then it is necessary, under great secret, to offer the Versailles Treaty first, and then Vienna to divide power over the Universe. If any of them, deceived by ambition and pride, accept this offer, which inevitably happens, then use it to destroy another, and then destroy the survivor, starting a fight with him, in the outcome of which it will be impossible to doubt, for Russia in that time will already have the whole of the East and most of Europe.
14. If they both refuse the offer of Russia, it is necessary to skillfully stir up the mishap between them and deplete them in mutual struggle. Then, taking advantage of a decisive minute, Russia should direct its pre-assembled troops to Germany and at the same time send two significant fleets-one from the Sea of Azov, the other from Arkhangelsk-with its Asian hordes under the cover of the Black Sea and Baltic fleets. Going to the Mediterranean and the ocean, they will be flooded with France on one side, and Germany on the other, and when both these countries are defeated, the rest of Europe will already easily and without any resistance get under it.
So it is possible and should conquer Europe. "
This "document" was especially popular on the eve and during the Crimean War 1853-1856 years - it was necessary to justify why the British and French troops landed in the south of Russia. To prevent the eternal striving of the Russians to seize the whole world.
But if the "testament" is an invention of the early nineteenth century, it was first published in France at the end of 1812, when Napoleon had already fled Russia, the "letter of Zinoviev" appeared already in the XX century.
Because of it, the relations between the USSR and Great Britain broke down. At the beginning of 1924, the first time the British Laborites came to power, they established diplomatic relations with the Soviet authorities, in the summer a trade agreement was concluded, but in the autumn the British press published a letter from Grigory Zinoviev to the English Communists.
Grigory Zinoviev in 1924 was not only one of the highest leaders of the USSR, but also headed the executive committee of the Comintern - the headquarters of the world communist revolution. The West was frightened by plans for the conquest of world supremacy by the Bolsheviks, although in reality by that time the leaders of Soviet Russia, though not completely abandoned their hopes for the continuation of the world revolution in European countries, were mostly concerned with strengthening the USSR.
The letter contained an appeal to the Communists to intensify subversive work in the army and navy, to train their own cadres for the coming civil war and the taking of power.
The letter was published 24 October, and four days later in the general parliamentary elections, the ruling Labor Party lost to the Conservatives. "Letter Zinoviev" played an important role in this. Still - they, the leftists, indulged ideologically close to the Communists, were friends with a country that plans a coup in England. The Labor Party lost power, and the treaties concluded by their government with Moscow were never ratified.
The fact that the letter was forged was clear from the very beginning, as it was said in Moscow and in the British Communist Party, but in London for several years it was said about its authenticity. In reality, the author of the forgery was a white emigre Sergei Druzhilovsky in cooperation with the famous intelligence officer Sidney Reilly.
"Wills", "letters", "doctrines" - these are only the most famous weapons of the struggle with Russia. And in the coming years we will see the exposure of more than one fake.