A big war is being fueled by the same forces as 100 years ago.
On August 1, 1914, the German Ambassador in St. Petersburg, Count F. Pourtales, handed over to the Minister of Foreign Affairs S.D. Sazonov's note on the declaration of war by the German Empire. Russia entered the First World War. The worst enemies of the Russian people, clans, ruling and, managed to pit two great Aryan(Indo-European) people. The Russian and German empires, to whom cooperation and alliance relations brought peace and prosperity, came together in bloody war. You could say it was fratricidal war, since it was created on the lands of Slavic Europe, and a significant part of the Germans are genetically and anthropologically the same descendants of the Rus as the Russians.
We have observed a similar process in recent decades (especially active in the last two decades) in Little Rus', where, through information aggression, total zombification and distortion historical truth was created "Ukrainian chimera"– pseudo-people “Ukrainians”. In terms of genetics, anthropology, language and culture, they are still Russian (), but their consciousness is already affected by the “Ukrainian” virus. And the “Ukrainian Reich” should play the same role as Germany in 1914 and 1941. – start a big war in. The “Ukrainian Front” should become one of the main ones in the world. Second front(this is the already created Middle Eastern Front) - flaming, and aggressive Islamic, who announced that in a few years he plans to subjugate the lands of the Middle East, restoring the core of the historical caliphate. Third Front plan to open in the Asia-Pacific region, pitting each other against each other, inciting war on the Korean Peninsula and trying to put together an anti-Chinese coalition.
During the First World War, the Russian Empire and Germany were crushed. Their gold and other resources flowed into their pockets owners England and USA. Along the way, the Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman Empire, which, in the opinion owners, are outdated and have been condemned. Their place was to be taken by “independent” republics with elected presidents and parliaments, although heads of state, deputies, governors and mayors were “elected” in lodges and clubs, and the people still had no power. People were only given illusion of freedom, the power of the people. USA became a leading financial and economic power; instead of the previous gold parity, a regime of floating managed exchange rates was established. The US dollar and pound sterling became the universal reserve currencies. The actual financial hegemony Anglo-Saxon world.
More details and a variety of information about events taking place in Russia, Ukraine and other countries of our beautiful planet can be obtained at Internet Conferences, constantly held on the website “Keys of Knowledge”. All Conferences are open and completely free. We invite everyone who is interested. All Conferences are broadcast on Internet Radio “Vozrozhdenie”...
The Islamic terrorist organization “Army of Iraq and the Levant” unexpectedly captured almost the entire north of the Republic of Iraq. Government troops fled from the enemy so quickly that today there are questions about the future existence of this country - there was practically no one to resist the advancing extremists. Today, a lot of journalism has appeared on the topic of how this became possible, who is to blame for this, what role is played here by oil and gas, which this Middle Eastern region is very rich in.
Meanwhile, many analysts have completely missed the fact that this is not just about big geopolitics or control over energy resources. The radical religious confrontation between Sunnis and Shiites also plays its ominous role.
The fact is that the majority of Iraqis belong to the Shiite branch of Islam. However, under Saddam Hussein, Iraq's ruling elite was a Sunni minority. It is not surprising that after his overthrow, power passed to the Shiites, but the Sunnis took a hostile position towards the new government. It was they who became the main cadres for replenishing the local terrorist underground, which struck both the Shiites and the American occupiers. Over time, this underground grew into a formidable force - into the same “Army of Iraq and the Levant” that today threatens Iraqi statehood...
So what is the essence of the Sunni-Shiite conflict?
People of the Book
More than 90% of all people professing Islam are Sunnis (from Arabic: Ahl al-Sunnah - people of the Sunnah), their number today amounts to more than one billion people. Sunnis place special emphasis only on following the sunnah of the Prophet Muhammad (his actions and statements), on loyalty to tradition, on the participation of the community in choosing its head - the caliph. However, in some movements of Islam this takes extreme forms. For example, under the Taliban in Afghanistan, special attention was paid even to the nature of clothing and the size of the beard of men; every detail of everyday life was regulated in accordance with the requirements of the “sunna”.
It is not surprising, therefore, that the most radical schools in Islam were founded by Sunnis. For example, Wahhabism is a teaching within the framework of Sunnism, created in the middle of the 18th century by a religious figure Saudi Arabia Muhammad bin Abd al-Wahhab. The basis of Wahhabism is the idea of monotheism. Supporters of this teaching reject all innovations introduced into Islam (for example, the worship of saints and imams, as Shiites do) and demand strict worship of Allah exclusively, as was the case in early Islam. The teachings of al-Wahhab were at one time supported by many Arabian sheikhs. Including the family of Saudis, who united the Arabian Peninsula under their rule. Wahhabism eventually became the official ideology of Saudi Arabia and a number of other Arab emirates.
Many radical Wahhabis took part in the war in Chechnya. The largest ultra-radical terrorist organization of the Wahhabi branch of Islam is Al-Qaeda (Arabic for “foundation”, “base”), founded in 1988. After the withdrawal of USSR troops from Afghanistan, al-Qaeda directed the spearhead of the fight against the United States, the countries of the so-called “Western world” and their supporters in Islamic countries. The goal of the organization is to overthrow the secular regimes in these countries and create the “Great Islamic Caliphate”...
Today, all Muslims unanimously recognize that Allah is the only god, and Muhammad is his messenger. They all follow the five basic tenets of Islam, including fasting during the month of Ramadan; the main holy book for all is the Koran. However, if adherents of Sunnism in their practice of Islam pay special attention to following the teachings (sunna) of the Prophet, then Shiites consider their prophets - the ayatollahs - to be messengers of God on earth. Because of this, Sunnis often accuse Shiites of heresy, and they, in turn, point to the excessive dogmatism of Sunni teaching, which leads to the emergence of extremist movements such as Wahhabism.
Activist of the “Party of Allah”
Shiites stood out from the general mass of Muslims a very long time ago, in the 7th century, when a struggle for power began in the medieval Arab caliphate between the son-in-law of the Prophet Muhammad Ali and his opponents in the person of the Umayyad dynasty. A religious and political grouping (al-shia) of supporters of the rights of Ali and his children formed around his son-in-law. This group became the core of the Shiite movement.
Today, Shiites constitute the majority in Iran, Iraq, Azerbaijan, Lebanon and Bahrain. In addition, today they hold power in Syria in the person of the Assad family, with whom the local Sunni majority is at war. There are Shiites in Yemen, where Sunni authorities call them “separatist rebels.”
Finally, significant Shia minorities are found throughout the Arabian Peninsula: Qatar, Al-Hasa in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait. In Afghanistan, Shiites make up between 15 and 19 percent of the country's population. These include the Hazaras (mostly Shia Imamis, there are separate groups of Ismailis), some Charaimaks (followers of Ismailism) and Farsiwans. Shiism is professed by the Balti people living in Northern India and Pakistan, as well as the Burishi (Ismailis) and some Pashtun tribes: the Turis, the majority of the Bangash and some of the Orakzais. The majority of residents of the Gorno-Badakhshan region of Tajikistan also belong to the Ismaili current of Shiism...
Representatives of the “extreme” Shiites are Alawites. All Alawites are divided into a privileged group of “hassa” (“initiates”), who are the owners holy books and special knowledge, and the bulk - “amma” (“uninitiated”), who are assigned the role of novices-performers. The Assad family, Syrian Presidents Hafez al-Assad and his son Bashar al-Assad, belong to the Alawites. Alawites mainly live in Western Syria, as well as in Northern Lebanon and Turkey. In Syria, they make up up to 12% of the country's population.
Despite the apparent moderation, unlike the Sunnis, the Shiites are also not alien to extremist activities. Thus, the most significant Shiite organization, recognized as terrorist in many countries of the world, is Hezbollah (Arabic for “Party of Allah”), the Lebanese paramilitary Political Party, advocating the creation of an Islamic state in Lebanon modeled on Iran. Its ideological basis is the ideology of Ruhollah Khomeini, the leader of the Islamic revolution in Iran. In its 1985 manifesto, the organization declared its main goals: “expulsion of any colonial institutions from Lebanon”, “bringing Christian Phalangists to account for their crimes”, And “establishment of Islamic order in the country.”
Faith for life and death
Despite the fact that Shiites make up only about 10% of the total number of Muslims, they represent a serious political force, especially in the Middle East. Today, adherents of the two main sects of Islam are in a state of constant hostility with each other.
For example, according to Pew Research Center, 40% of Sunnis believe that Shiites are not true Muslims. And in Pakistan, Shiites are oppressed to the same extent as Christians and Hindus, calling them “collaborators of infidels.” According to Human Rights Watch, about 400 Shiites were killed in the country in 2012, and subsequently the number of victims increased significantly - 165 people were killed in January 2013 alone.
In this regard, in countries ruled by Sunni dynasties, uprisings of Shiites regularly break out with demands for increasing their legal status in the life of the country. An example of this is, in particular, the recent events in Bahrain. There, the Sunni dynasty regularly persecutes the Shiite opposition, and Bahrain's interior minister once said that the country's police forces had detained a large group of people suspected of involvement in a terrorist group associated with Iran. By the way, the United States is providing great assistance to the Bahraini authorities in pacifying the Shiites, since the largest base of the fifth navy- and the Shiite majority strongly opposes this presence...
However, the authorities are trying to influence not only with the stick, but also with the “carrot”. Thus, at the same time as Bahrain, Shiite protests also took place in Kuwait (February 2011), where 30% of the country’s residents are Shiites. The demonstrators accused ruling dynasty in huge spending on the royal family. The protesters were also angry about their powerless situation. In order to prevent unrest, the Sunni authorities of the country urgently allocated ten thousand dollars to each indigenous citizen of the country, and also raised wages employees of all state enterprises...
But most of all, the Shiite revolution threatens Saudi Arabia. In fact, since the spring of 2011, the country has been on the verge of a religious civil war, because here Shiites are discriminated against in almost all spheres of society. Back in 1927, under pressure from the Wahhabis, King Inb Saud issued the famous fatwa, according to which Shiites had to convert to the Sunni faith or leave the country. Those who remained essentially turned into powerless slaves of the Wahhabis.
However, Riyadh is convinced that behind the Shiite discontent are solely the intrigues of Tehran, which allegedly “ seeks to undermine the foundations of the ruling Al-Saud regime and ignite a wave of separatism in areas densely populated by local Shiites.” According to Saudi Arabia, final goal Iran comes down to the seizure of the Saudi eastern province, where not only many Shiites live, but which is also very rich in oil.
In the fight against Shiite Iran, the Saudi Arabian authorities are persistently seeking to enlist the support of the United States and Israel. The Saudi rulers have more than once provoked Israel to strike Iran. According to political scientist Vladimir Efimov, “The Saudis' enmity with Iran is not due to political, oil, nuclear or regional issues. The Saudis fear that Islam, as interpreted by the leader of the Islamic Republic, will reveal the hypocrisy and lies of Wahhabism as a sectarian doctrine on which the power of the Al-Sauds rests.”
According to the expert, the Shiites of the Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia can rebel at any moment and, uniting with neighboring Shiite diasporas, create a Arabian Peninsula big public education, very friendly to Iran. The political scientist associates the unresolved Shiite issue, first of all, with the resistance of Wahhabi theologians, who excluded the appointment of Shiite jurists to the Council of Supreme Ulema and the Saudi vision of Iran as a strategic adversary. In his opinion, entry into Saudi society will become possible if this situation changes radically. “But for this, Riyadh needs to integrate the Shiites into the country’s socio-political system without any discrimination and stop blaming Tehran for all the internal ills of the Saudi kingdom,”- the expert believes.
USA as a threat to any stability
On the other hand, orientalist Vladimir Dergachev believes, the surge in Shiite protests was largely provoked by American policy in the region. Just like in Iraq, where after the occupation the United States relied on supporting the Shiites oppressed by Saddam Hussein, putting them in power in the country. This kind of American “democratization” of the Middle East greatly inspired the Shiites of Bahrain, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, pushing them to new actions.
However, Iraq is rather an exception to American policy. For the pro-Iranian Shiite axis today is mainly supported by China, Russia and countries hostile to NATO or America, for example, Latin American states and Cuba. The West, represented primarily by the United States, supports the Islamist Sunni axis, which is directed against Syria, its Iranian allies and Hezbollah. Alexandre del Val, recognized geopolitician, former France Soir employee, teacher international relations at the University of Metz, explains why the West today does not feel the need to rely (like Iraq) on anti-Salafist Shia movements or on secular minorities (such as the Alawites in Syria and the Alevis in Turkey), or to protect the rights of Shia minorities in countries Persian Gulf and Pakistan or Christians in the East, who are also persecuted in all Sunni countries.
“The West today is driven only by oil and short-term interests, for the sake of which it continues to make deals with the powers of Sunni fanatics (Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Kuwait, etc.) and gives in to all their obscurantist and neo-imperialist demands. He never criticized or tried to hinder the achievement of the goal set by these states: the conquest (re-Islamization) of all Muslim countries with the subsequent Islamization of the West by financing (with the blessing of the NATO states still convinced of the reality of the Russian threat) radical Islamist associations that fight against the values of " infidel countries and the integration of Muslim minorities into their society,”- the expert believes...
... Thus, it becomes obvious that the confrontation between Sunnis and Shiites plays a huge role in the political processes taking place in the East today. But, unfortunately, instead of seeking a compromise between the two currents of Islam, the West is only encouraging division in the Muslim community. Yes, today this makes it possible to control the energy resources of the rich countries of the Persian Gulf, as well as to use their military forces in the struggle for their geopolitical interests. However, in the long term, such a policy could lead to an uncontrollable regional explosion.
This is exactly what we are seeing in full today in Iraq. The Sunni “Army of Iraq and the Levant” was actually created several years ago by the intelligence services of the United States and Saudi Arabia. The goal is to direct this “Army” against the Syrian regime of Bashar al-Assad, and at the same time remove Iraqi terrorists from the country. For this reason, the leader of these extremists, Abu Bakr Baghdadi, who headed the “Army,” was even released from an American prison.
The Americans and Saudis did not skimp on supporting extremists while they were fighting in Syria. However, over time, Bashar al-Assad’s troops inflicted a number of heavy defeats on the “Army of Iraq and the Levant.” And then the “Army” rushed into pro-American Iraq to establish the dominance of radical Islam here. It is noteworthy that the “Army” today is fighting with the weapons that the CIA generously supplied it with during the Syrian conflict...
In a word, the story with al-Qaeda, nurtured with American money and becoming the most formidable enemy of the United States, was repeated almost exactly. The Americans thereby “sowed” another big conflict in the Middle East, and no one will say today how it will end.
Yulia Chmelenko, specially for the “Ambassadorship Prikaz”
American “hawks” in the US government still achieved a positive result in the issue of providing military weapons to Ukraine. ABC News learned that the American leader should soon approve a program for the sale of anti-tank weapons. The total amount of “help” will be 210 anti-tank missiles and 35 missile launchers. A total of $47 million is allocated for defense assistance. If Trump approves the plan, the document will go to Congress for approval and then enter into force in the coming days. In turn, Senator John McCain, a supporter of providing military assistance to Ukraine, believes that providing Ukraine with Javelin anti-tank missile systems will create reliable conditions for defense security. On the website named after himself, he shared his vision of providing “help” to Ukraine. “On President Trump's decision to provide Javelin anti-tank missiles to Ukraine marks another important step in the right direction and sends a strong signal that the United States will stand with its allies and partners in the fight to defend its own sovereignty and territorial integrity,” McCain wrote. Senator McCain is known for his Russophobic views, so he is not at all embarrassed by his statement that Vladimir Putin is “undermining stability in Ukraine” and therefore “Ukraine needs protection from further Russian aggression, which will contribute to the creation of stable security conditions, which is necessary for the peaceful resolution of this conflict.” .It is still not clear what kind of peaceful settlement the American politician had in mind when he rejoiced at the supply of such a huge amount of military weapons to the Ukrainian state? But McCain is convinced that “providing defense assistance to Ukraine will not contradict peace in Ukraine.” The US State Department is of the same opinion. The State Department says the arms aid to Ukraine is an attempt by the United States to “deter further aggression” by Russia. In addition, the American department stated that the United States will send “enhanced defense potential” to the Ukrainian state. They just didn’t explain what kind of “defense potential” we are talking about. It is known that the Ukrainian leadership has been recent years constantly begs America for Javelin anti-tank weapons and “lethal military assistance.” Petro Poroshenko said in this regard that “American weapons are not for offensive”, but for “protecting civilians” and effective self-defense in accordance with Article 51 of the UN Charter. 2This is also a transatlantic vaccination against the Russian virus of aggression,” he wrote on his Facebook page. According to the latest data from the Geneva Center for Humanitarian Demining (GICHD) and the Stockholm International Peace Institute (SIPRI), Ukraine ranks first in the number of civilian casualties from anti-tank mines. These weapons not only kill people, but cause harm agriculture and infrastructure. The ATO headquarters has repeatedly stated that it will take 5-10 years to clear the Donbass mines. But as we see, the Ukrainian authorities are not concerned about such figures. Just as they are not worried by the fact that after the supply of American weapons there will be much more casualties in the east of the country, and the resolution of the conflict will drag on for more than one year. Earlier, the Head of the People's Militia of the LPR M. Filiponenko stated that weapons from America will “lead to an escalation of the conflict in the southeast of the country." He believes that these weapons will be directed by the Ukrainian army, including against civilians. The Russian side is also concerned. Politicians say the US government has "overstepped the mark" and is "inciting war." We have to agree with this.
In post-Soviet Russia, inflamed Civil War They blamed the Bolsheviks. They say they overthrew the “legitimate” Provisional Government, dispersed constituent Assembly, with their decrees they destroyed the bourgeois-democratic republic that had begun to take shape. They destroyed democratic Russia, which was following the path of reunification with European civilization. They unleashed the “Red Terror”, destroying the best part of the Russian people: the aristocracy, nobility, clergy, Russian intelligentsia, merchants and the bourgeoisie as a whole.
At the same time, Tsar Nicholas and his family were killed. This made it possible to create the myth that it was the Bolsheviks who destroyed the autocracy, overthrew the Tsar and destroyed the Russian Empire. And then, in order to retain power and create their own “bloody” totalitarian empire (in the West it would later be called the “evil empire”), they drowned the country in blood. The attempts of the “noble” whites to save Russia, “one and indivisible,” failed due to excessive “chivalry.” The Reds acted cruelly and bloodily, they were not afraid massacres. They drove crowds of peasants into their army, placed barrage detachments of internationalist revolutionaries (Chinese, Hungarians, Latvians, etc.) in the rear, and overwhelmed the small white troops with “cannon fodder.”
Thus, the Bolsheviks allegedly staged a bloody Troubles in Rus', which led to the death of “old Russia,” millions of victims and the creation of a “bloody” Red Empire, a “Soviet concentration camp.” This myth is very beneficial to the West, as it allows it to solve a wide range of problems. Firstly, to morally suppress the Russian people, to make them forever “guilty” of all possible and impossible sins. It turns out that the USSR was not the most advanced country on the planet, having made a leap forward for hundreds of years in creating a fair order in the interests of the people, but a “concentration camp” where the “best part” of the Russian people was exterminated and only “scoop slaves” remained.
Secondly, use this myth in information war against Russia, force them to make excuses, apologize. To create an image of the Russian “evil empire”, “Russian Mordor” in the eyes of the Western public. This makes it possible to use any methods in the fight against Russia and justify them in advance. They say that with “Russian subhumans (orcs)” it is impossible to do otherwise.
Thirdly, you can constantly pit Russians against small nations that still remain within Russia, or peoples that were separated during the collapse of the Union and the Russian Empire, and were also part of the socialist camp. Speculate on the topic of “Russian (Soviet) occupation”, unjust deportation, Russian colonialism, etc. It was already agreed that Stalin’s empire was worse than Hitler’s Reich and the Red Army did not liberate Europe, but “occupied it”. Also present all sorts of bills to Russia for “occupation” and “colonization.” All this is done easily, since in Russia itself the Soviet period is considered by a significant part of the “elite” to be lost and flawed.
Fourthly, you can conduct information work according to the final “recoding” (programming) of the top Russian Federation. She is gradually being declared the heir to the elite of the Russian Empire, removing the Soviet period. And for the “new nobles” in the West, partners. The USSR is a “mistake of history.” Russia is the periphery of Western (European) civilization, and not a separate, original Russian civilization. A bourgeois-democratic, capitalist, and essentially neo-slave-owning system is normal.
In reality, the Russian Troubles of 1917-1920. was caused by two determining factors. The first is the thousand-year confrontation between Rus' and the West. The masters of the West have been building a world slave order from century to century - this is their main goal. Complete, absolute submission of man to the will of the “chosen masters.”
Therefore, the masters of the West, seeing the weakness of the Russian Empire and the Romanov project (which was generally aimed at merging with the “enlightened West”), which was shown during the Crimean War, the war with Japan and the First Revolution, relied on destruction Tsarist Russia. All methods and tools were used: from drawing Russia into a suicidal world war and the destructive actions of diplomats and intelligence services to the activation of a large “fifth column”, which was provided with organizational and material support in organizing the revolution.
The main detonator for the destruction of the Russian Empire was the First World War, unleashed by the masters of France, England and the USA. The war was supposed to destroy the old empires - Russian, Austro-Hungarian, German and Turkish. This made it possible to build a “new world order” based on “democratic values.” In reality, all real power belonged to financial capital– “golden elite” (“financial international”, “masters of money”, “world behind the scenes”, etc.). “Democratically elected” presidents, prime ministers, governments, parliaments, governors, senators and deputies were only a screen for the real owners of the planet.
The war made it possible to explode the weakened internal problems Russia from the inside. The second factor that destroyed the Russian Empire and autocracy was fundamental internal contradictions. If the body of the Russian Empire were healthy, no external “viruses” could destroy it.
The West has already tried more than once to crush the Russian state, but all its attacks were repulsed - the war with the Swedish Empire, the invasion of Napoleon's pan-European army, the Decembrist uprising, the Eastern (Crimean) War, the attacks of Persia and Turkey provoked by Westerners. However, by the end of the 19th – beginning of the 20th centuries. it became clear that Russian empire seriously ill. The contradictions and fault lines that had accumulated over centuries had to be resolved by a “revolution from above,” otherwise unrest was inevitable. Nicholas I and Alexander III“froze” the empire, holding back destructive processes. Under Alexander II they tried to follow the path of liberalization and western path– the development of capitalist and bourgeois relations, which only “rocked the boat.”
Under Nicholas II, Russia approached the “breaking point.” It was necessary to resolve the pressing problems, or they and the beginning of the lag behind the advanced Western powers and cultural (the elite spoke Western languages, preferred to live in Western capitals, dressed in Western fashion, etc.), financial and technological dependence on them, made Russia a semi-colony. The government of Nikolai Alexandrovich pursued a contradictory policy - at the same time it tried to “freeze” the situation and reform Russia, indulging the Westernizers. This completely destabilized the situation. At the same time, St. Petersburg allowed the West to pit us against Japan, which became a rehearsal for world war and showed the Westerners the weakness of Russia. They were able to suppress the first revolution, but it was clear that a new big war could lead to a powerful social explosion and unrest. The most far-sighted people in Russia understood this very well - Stolypin, Durnovo, Rasputin, Alexei Vandam, but they were not heard. And Stolypin and Rasputin, who could influence the tsar, were physically eliminated. As a result, Russia was pitted against Germany, which allowed the masters of the West to organize February and crush the autocracy.
The masters of the West would not have been able to destroy the autocracy and empire of the Romanovs if Russia had not been ripe for this. Under the Romanovs, “mines” were laid in Russia, which led to the disaster of 1917. There were several main such “mines”. Firstly, under Nikon and later (especially under Peter I), Russian Orthodoxy underwent a split and was emasculated, losing its fiery essence. The best part of the Russian people - the Old Believers, with their ethics of conscience and spiritual purity, hard work, refusal of dope - tobacco and alcohol, were excluded from common life, subjected to severe repression and ultimately created their own world. Nikonian Orthodoxy has become official, a form without content. Russia has lost its “connection with heaven,” its spiritual nourishment. By 1917, the bulk of the population was indifferent to Christianity, only outwardly being Christians (by the end of the existence of the USSR, the same thing happened with communist ideology, which led to the disaster of 1985-1993). Hence the catastrophe of 1917 and subsequent years, when churches and monasteries were destroyed, the clergy were destroyed, and the mass of people looked on with indifference. The clergy lost the “holy spirit” (except for individual righteous people and elders) and ceased to be one of the pillars of the Russian state.
Thirdly, the Romanovs split the people not only into Nikonians and Old Believers, but also into “European nobles” and the rest of the people (more than 90%). The top of society “lived in Europe” - spoke German, French and English languages, dressed in European fashion, lived for a long time in Western Europe (often most of her life), read European literature, admired European achievements of art, science and technology, built palaces (instead of schools, factories and railways). And the means for " beautiful life"were sucked out of Russia and the people. The common people as a whole have preserved Russian culture and language.
Other mistakes arose from these fundamental mistakes. In particular, St. Petersburg's foreign policy was often in the interests of European capitals– Berlin, Vienna, Paris and London, not the Russian people. Russian soldiers were often used as “cannon fodder”. For example, a series of wars with France and Napoleon were in the interests of Austria, Prussia and England. But the Russians and French had no reason to kill each other. The First World War decided the global interests of the masters of the West, the strategic interests of the United States, Great Britain, and France. The Russians and Germans had no reason to kill each other.
Thus, the forces and resources, the time of Russia and the Russian people were wasted in the name of other people's interests. Although Russia's global interests were in the South and East. Russia had to solve the thousand-year task of conquering Constantinople-Constantinople and the straits. To secure the Caucasus, including the Armenian regions remaining under the Turks, to reach the southern seas in Persia and India. In the East - preserve and develop Russian America (the sale of Russian America is one of the most serious strategic mistakes of the Romanovs), taking control of the northern part Pacific Ocean, to gain a firm foothold in Korea and China. Japan could be our partner and ally, helping to contain the Anglo-Saxons in the Pacific Ocean. That is, the Romanov empire missed the opportunity to launch the process of Russian globalization. With the simultaneous accelerated development of the Russian North, Siberia, the Far East and Turkestan.
Not to mention the need to develop Russian education and science, educate the entire people, accelerated industrialization, resolve land and labor issues, eliminate imbalances in national politics (in particular, Finnish and Polish issues). The Romanovs did not do all this, which caused the collapse of their project. The Bolsheviks resolved these problems and contradictions.
To be continued…
The German bourgeoisie is reacting to the fiasco of American imperialism in Iraq by intensifying its campaign of militarization and war. On Tuesday, during her first official visit to the United States, German Defense Minister Ursula von der Leyen spoke in favor of a strong Bunderswehr (German military) participating in international military intervention.
Germany had "key positions and capabilities that other countries don't have," she said. The UN expressed hope "that Germany will one day host a UN peacekeeping mission" and the Ministry of Defense will consider greater involvement of the Bundeswehr.
Last weekend federal president Joachim Gauck repeated his call for a more aggressive foreign policy and more military interventions. He had "the feeling that our country may need to put aside the restraint that was necessary in previous decades because of a great sense of responsibility," the president told the Deutschlandfunk announcer.
Gauck has called several times for greater use of the military. In "the battle for human rights or for the survival of innocent people," he said, "sometimes it is necessary to use weapons." "Last resort" does not preclude "deployment of military means from the outset."
It is becoming increasingly clear that the military offensive of the German bourgeoisie is closely connected with the historical crisis of American imperialism. German media commented on the American military fiasco in Iraq with a mixture of fear, anger and shock. Under the headline "America's dangerous hesitation", Spiegel Online writes that the US is completing a "historic change of course on foreign policy" carried out under Obama. Washington no longer "feels the need to be the world's policeman" and has adopted a more restrained position. Although Islamic fundamentalist groups marched on Baghdad, America remained in the shadows and did not send ground troops, but only "a handful of soldiers." This despite that the “work” in Iraq is far from over, the newspaper writes.
Under the provocative title "Iraq: Imagine there is a war but no one intervenes." Josef Joffe laments in the current issue of Die Zeit about the end of America's "short reign." After "thirteen years of war in the Middle East, after 5,000 dead and $4 trillion in military spending," the United States is "tired" and in a state of "restraint." In Europe also, America no longer has a "military option"; The former 300,000 soldiers were "reduced to 1/10".
Joffe is a cynical war propagandist with close ties to American neo-conservatives who responds to every crisis with calls for massive military intervention. He accuses Obama of "backsliding" and "indecisiveness." Rogue countries such as Russia, China or Iran would be in a vacuum and develop their own “power politics,” he says. Visibly desperate and angry about widespread anti-war sentiment in Germany, he defiantly poses the question: "What happens if America no longer wants to be the world's policeman?"
The constant dissatisfaction with US "inaction" that runs like a red thread through German media commentary is obviously absurd. Obama sent warships to the region, and after the NATO bombing of Libya, he is again preparing a war that threatens to drown the entire Middle East in blood.
The German bourgeoisie accuses the US of "inaction" because it has concluded that the period in which it could pursue its geopolitical and economic interests behind the back of the United States is over.
The return of German militarism raises historical questions. While the German bourgeoisie tries to hide its great power ambitions under the guise of peacekeeping, human rights and stability, history teaches that German imperialism is one of the most unstable elements in world politics. In the 20th century, Germany twice tried to impose its imperialist interests against its competitors, and in doing so plunged the world into disaster.
At the moment, the German bourgeoisie has neither the political will nor the military power to pursue its own imperialist goals in open confrontation with the US or other great powers. Gauck, Steinmeier and von der Leyen repeatedly emphasize that there can be no German actions unilaterally, and that Germany is only seeking a greater role within existing alliances. However, there are deep historical roots that have their own logic. The reason for the return of German militarism is the crisis of capitalism, which led to two World Wars in the 20th century. In his 1934 essay, "War and the Fourth International," Leon Trotsky wrote that German capitalism, "dragged by its intolerable contradictions and the consequences of defeat," was "forced to break the straitjacket of democratic pacifism." The dire consequences are well known.
Today, in the struggle for spheres of influence, the imperialist powers cannot be peaceful in the long term. It is a historical irony that the US is now encouraging its main World War II enemies - Germany and Japan - to rearm again in order to support Washington's encirclement of Russia and China. Washington and Berlin also collaborated closely in fomenting the coup in Ukraine. But is there any doubt that the further struggle for control of Eastern Europe and Eurasia will lead to conflict between Germany and the United States?
The German ruling elite is already developing its plans to seize control over sources of raw materials, markets and cheap work force. On Wednesday, the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung called on Germany to develop an "African Strategy" and to "discuss German interests." "Raw materials, land, oil, gas and access to markets" were considered. The official website of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs once again made a claim to "leadership". The strategic document is called: "The Destiny of Germany: From Leading Europe to Leading the World" There is at least one useful result from constant calls for war and German "leadership". They explain that ruling class did not change his position. No one should have any illusions. When the German bourgeoisie last time sought to rule the world, she brought Hitler to power. It will use no less brutal methods today to suppress massive popular resistance and push through its rearmament.
The working class must not let this get this far. He must stop the warmongers before they can plunge the world into the abyss again. There is only one way forward. The Partei für Soziale Gleichheit (Socialist Equality Party, AKP) must be built as a center of opposition to the return of German militarism. The fight against war and its causes, capitalism, requires the mobilization of the international working class on the basis of a socialist program.
