The Era of Change and Russian Prospects

I wouldn’t want readers to see the following material as a jokey piece. It is least of all a rigorous, verified forecast of the future. This is only one option for our common future in the next 50 years. Based on the facts and trends known to us today, this option is very likely.

But for the strict correctness of the equation there is a lack of several more quantities, the parameters of which will become known no earlier than 5 (or even 10) years. I.e., there are possible options, both close to and far enough from what is described.

In the coming decades, mankind (if it survives) will have to solve the task of creating a new global political and economic system, instead of the modern one, which is experiencing a systemic crisis that it, through the efforts of the United States, can no longer escape. The time when the system could still be collectively reformed was hopelessly missed, while the US, in a futile attempt to prolong the agony of its own hegemony, is senselessly destroying not only the economic basis of the system, but the political, financial, and legal mechanisms that ensured its functioning.

The global system disintegrating before our eyes assumed that only about 1/6 of humanity (tentatively called the “golden billion”) could live normally (relatively well-off). The mechanisms of the system, while in operation, provided financial, economic, legal (international legal), and military-political support for the redistribution of the product created by mankind in favour of the “golden billion”. It should be noted that the notorious “golden billion” is not only the West + Japan, but also a number of other countries, as well as separate social and political structures in poor countries that have been able to occupy a demanded niche in servicing the interests of the global system.

But, falling apart for two decades, the system is no longer performing its functions. It finds itself unable by old methods (legalised as the rules of current international law) to ensure the redistribution of resources in favour of the “golden billion”. An increasing number of them started to leave the so-called catching-up economies, at one time framed as BRICS (though now there are considerably more).

The Collective West (US and EU) tried to solve this problem by artificially chaoticizing key (for international trade) regions of the planet: North Africa, the Middle East, Central Asia, and the non-Western (EU and NATO) states of Eastern Europe and the Balkan region. The chaoticization was supposed to lead to the fall of legitimate governments (in many cases it did) and allowed the West to operate outside of the same legal field (to plunder without being constrained by conventions) created by it. On the other hand, the chaoticization of these regions was supposed to jeopardise the vital interests of Russia and China, the West’s main rivals in the fight for global resources destabilise them from within, and eventually make them a submissive instrument in the hands of the West (or, as an option, destroy them as states).

Ultimately, the West did not have the strength to complete the initially successful operation. Having strengthened earlier than the West expected, Russia warned in 2007 in Munich, snapped back in 2008 in Georgia, launched a counterattack in 2014 in Ukraine (regaining Crimea), and finally went into a counter-offensive (initially with limited targets) in 2015 in Syria. However, the United States (for which it has long been tactically more profitable to retreat in Syria, leaving Russia by itself to deal with a complex of local contradictions), without reasons dug their heels in, like the Germans outside Stalingrad. As a result, the local at first (although a strategically important operation) conflict turned into a global one, developing throughout Eurasia, Africa, and Latin America, with the active participation of the United States, the EU, Turkey, Egypt, Israel, the Persian Gulf countries (including Iran and Iraq), as well as China, Japan, and both Koreas. And the US is being defeated in this conflict.

Initially intended to be used exclusively in the zones of chaoticization, non-legal methods started to be used by the West against all its political opponents. Moreover, in the end, the US monopolised the right to use non-legal methods of struggle and started to use them even against its European allies.

Today, the unity of the West is a myth. It broke up into an Anglo-Saxon group (USA, Canada, UK), which is completely controlled by Washington, an “old Europe” group (France, Germany, Italy), which, feeling increasingly unfriendly US pressure, is looking for a new fulcrum in Russia (but so far slowly and uncertainly) and a “new Europe” group (Poland, Romania, the Baltics, and the associated Ukraine), which seeks to gain promotion from simple slaves to the chief lackeys of America, scrupulously defending US interests. New Europe also adopted the American principle of permissibility. Only, with no military strength and no economic weight to force pressure on opponents, these countries engage in historical and financial-economic vengeance, trying, by filing multi-billion-dollar claims in American-controlled international courts, to earn from unfair political decisions.

READ:  Poroshenko Rushed to Complain to Poland & Britain: Donbass Is Already Practically a Part of Russia!

In the last three or four days alone:

1. The Americans officially demanded that Iraq pay for the military base they had built for the convenience of their own occupation forces on its territory.

2. The Sejm of Poland approved a national version of history, which it is forbidden to deviate from (including for foreign scientists and politicians), and which holds the USSR (i.e. Russia, as its successor) responsible for unleashing, together with the Reich, the Second World War.

3. Naftogaz resumed the lawsuit against Russia in the international court in The Hague concerning lost property in Crimea.

Let’s start with the latter, especially since many experts have already stated that Naftogaz has violated its obligation to Gazprom. That’s not really true. Naftogaz had disputes with Gazprom over the spirit and letter of the signed contracts. Gazprom made a very serious concession when it recognised the wrong decision of the Stockholm arbitration and paid Naftogaz $2.9 billion. This concession could still come back to haunt Gazprom. But so far, its problems with Naftogaz have been settled.

Another thing is interesting about this lawsuit. A private company (Naftogaz, by the way, is no longer the first, since there are smaller Ukrainian companies that have won processes) is suing a state over its legitimate actions on its sovereign territory. Until recently, international justice has respected the principle of equality of the parties to a dispute. The exception was only the Human Rights Court (where a citizen could file a lawsuit against their state), as well as various war crimes tribunals, which in some cases could criminalise not only specific persons or organisations, but also the ruling regime as a whole.

States, however, sorted out each other’s territorial disputes (including the boundaries of exclusive economic zones) and resolved economic disputes within the framework of the WTO. In the event that a territory was disputed, by default, the right of the state controlling it to implement any measures of political and economic order (not violating international and humanitarian law) was assumed by default. Thus, for example, while not recognising the entry of the Baltics into the USSR de jure, the United States de facto did not try to challenge the sovereign rights of the Soviet government itself, nor to accept in its courts the claims of any private companies against the USSR.

However, in the last 2-3 decades, both national and international courts have quietly accepted the claims of private companies against sovereign states, motivated by the protection of private property rights. Russia’s mistake was to accept the jurisdiction of such courts, but this mistake was made during the romantic period of post-Soviet Russia’s relations with the West, when many in Moscow sincerely believed that a just world had been created with uniform rules of the game for all. It is obvious that after 2014, international justice became so biased and so controlled by the United States that if it is not possible to intercept control of the international judicial system, then it is necessary to completely refuse its recognition in the next year or two. Otherwise, Russia will soon demand compensation from the descendants of the Genoese who died as part of Mamai’s troops on Kulikovo field, or from the descendants of the crown of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, who lost their property as a result of the “Moscow occupation” of Smolensk.

But there is another aspect to this whole story (with courts, compensation, and their own versions of history). The United States and a pack of grunting-along jackals could brag until the moment when nobody could tell the hegemon what to do in general. The situation, however, is changing rapidly. The Americans are still successfully playing tricks with little things (like delaying the construction of Nord Stream 2), but are losing control of strategic territories (the Middle East). Russia is already not just pursuing an active foreign policy, but is also displacing the United States from key strategic positions on the planet.

Today, Moscow’s international activity is slowly gaining momentum. In power in the country is a team that remembers how the Soviet Union collapsed from imperial overstrain and is seeing the US move along the same path. It is a team that has restored Russia through an extremely cautious, adjusted to a millimeter, resource-saving foreign policy, a team that has accumulated resources rather than burned them in the furnace of imperial ambitions.

READ:  American Bots "Impersonating" Russians Is a Reality

But, in 10-15 years, Russia will be ruled by other people. Not another president, but namely another team. These will be people whose formation as politicians happened during the period of rapid growth of Russian power and authority, people who in many ways shared with society the hot desire to “grab and punch the adversary” who offends us. They will have in their hands the world’s most powerful army, a stable self-sufficient economy, and Russia’s huge international authority and accumulated huge financial reserves.

Perhaps these people will continue their previous cautious policies. But, as a rule, after Anastasia (stabiliser and accumulator) comes Justinian (expansionist and spender). So with a high probability, in 15 years Russia will pursue an active aggressive foreign policy. China, by the way, too. And the many allies of the new hegemons will fight in a paroxysm of hatred against the long-hurt United States and especially the trusted American jackals, and demand punishment for them, using the same mechanisms they have created.

Once upon a time, I wrote that things were changing and perhaps our children or grandchildren would witness the day when the Iraqi occupation army would force the Americans to judge and hang their own (American) president. Now such an option doesn’t seem so impossible for the future. But new hegemons tend to be strong and equable, so physical harm is not likely to come to pass. But nobody cancelled the transfer of resources in favour of the winner. And the surest case here is the international courts. Come on, dispute the decision in a hundred years. After all, it is not some “occupier” who invented it, but the independent court decided.

Now the Balts are trying to bill us for the events of 1940-1990. Israel attempts to undress Poland to the thread, making claims for the property of Jews expelled from Poland and killed, by both Germans and Poles in the 30s and 40s (including before and after World War II). The Poles themselves demand from the Germans multibillion-dollar reparations for the Second World War and occupation (well, they do not yet remember about the division of The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth). The Americans demand payment for their occupation services not only from Iraq, but also from Europeans.

All of them by their claims set a dangerous precedent for themselves. As it has already been said, in some 15 years they may face an absolutely different from today’s position of a Russia that is much more stronger than it is now, whereas they themselves will be much weaker.. With a position of cynical, cold, and mercantile. Both Russian society and the authorities will by then be quite ready to say: “Since you did not want to live according to the law, as we proposed, live in the system of lawlessness that you created.”

Is it difficult for the Americans to bill trillions: from the destruction of Indians and bison, to constant aggressive wars, atomic bombing of Japan, forcing the USSR into an arms race (which plunged it into unproductive spending)? There’s not much to come up with. Mexico alone may demand trillions for the use of land lost by it and for the labour of Mexican gastarbeiters in the US economy.

And if Americans demand payment for their occupation from Iraq and Western Europe, why can’t Russia demand occupation payment from those former post-Soviet and post-socialist countries that are constantly talking about Russian (or Soviet) occupation? Information about how much the USSR invested in the Comecon countries and what transfers went from the Union budget to the republics were fully preserved in the archives. So the evidence base is there. Moreover, “military bases” will occupy an absolute minuscule list (in contrast to the American case). They will mainly be built or restored factories, cities, schools, hospitals, universities, farms, scientific institutions, etc.

And payment can be demanded from Poland and Lithuania for 300 years of occupation of Russian lands. Documents that would indicate that they did not build anything during the possession of Smolensk and other Russian cities, but how much and what was destroyed by them in the same Smolensk under numerous sieges, assaults, and captures, are quite scrupulously (although not completely) listed.

And the English have something to present. They claim that it’s “highly likely” that we poisoned the Skripals, and Leskov wrote that they got Levsha drunk and he died as a result (and the noble was the master). And we will have a link, albeit to fictional, but still historical literature, and they only have it on some Internet.

READ:  The US and NATO: A Stake on Innovative Technologies in Military Affairs

In general, as the current activity of Americans shows, if you have enough strength and impudence, you don’t have to think about the justification of your actions – just demand money immediately (demand as much as you need).

So far, Russia has demanded nothing. But times change, public opinion changes, new politicians come (wishing, by the way, to show that they are much cooler than their predecessors). And precedents have already been set, grievances have been inflicted, hostility has been awakened.

And this is especially true of our dear bordering limitrophes. The US is fine – they’re far away and they have nuclear weapons, maybe they’ll sit it out somehow. What are they counting on?

After all, no one will even occupy them [bordering limitrophes – ed]. They will simply establish control over them. Because already now their behaviour has created in Russian society a thick and constantly expanding layer of people who believe that the lands that are watered with the blood of their ancestors should be returned, but do not want to live together with the people who inhabit these lands. And this sentiment is quite correlated with the inability to ensure an equally high standard of living for the whole planet. Someone has to live badly for someone to live well.

Why shouldn’t Russia establish a kind of sanitation procedure in the Eastern European territories (including post-Soviet ones) infected with the Russophobia virus. Determine who owes how much, since the time of Tsar Gorokh. Formalise this in the form of decisions of international courts. By the decisions of the same courts, appoint a temporary administration for the relevant states, the task of which will be to pump out resources, and for the population to preserve the citizenship of their states (turned into mandated territories).

Provide, as a measure of encouragement, the possibility of obtaining Russian citizenship (but set a quota of 5,000-10,000 passports per million population per year, which will make it possible to passportise each year 100-200 people). It is necessary to pass an examination in the Russian language, history, and Russia’s political system.

Against the background of progressive poverty and the utter darkness of their own territories, obtaining a Russian passport will become a ticket to a normal life. They’ll fight for it. So that their children can learn Russian language and history (thus getting a ticket to a normal life), they will themselves, at their own expense, create Russian schools and reformat underneath them former national ones.

Will you say that this is a cruel, degrading political model? But it is far more humane than the institution of non-citizens in the Baltics or the persecution of the Russian language by the same Balts and Ukrainian Nazis. Man is given free choice. Nobody forces him to do anything. You want to join the riches of Russian civilisation – so join it. If not – go to the national school and build a national state, as soon as you will finish to pay tribute for 300 years, you will immediately receive full sovereignty. If by this time there will be even somebody to receive it...

The most important thing is that all the components of this system – the institution of non-citizens or inferior citizens, the demands to pay for historical grievances that exist only in their imagination, international courts cases that satisfy the most delusional claims – have already been created, and not by us, but by the West. We have only to use all these “democratic” developments to the benefit of ourselves.

So, the West, and especially the limitrophes, must pray that Russia refuses to participate in judicial farces and starts to replace the system of international justice it destroyed with something that works normally and judges fairly. Because if Russia decides simply to take advantage of what exists, it will be very bad. For the Russian people are used to bringing to perfection even systems invented by others and to overfulfill their plans. If they improve the Western system of pumping out resources, they will pump out 200% and still will complain that it is not enough and think about how to pick up the leftovers.

Rostislav Ishchenko

Copyright © 2022. All Rights Reserved.