— Hello Andrei Ilyich, it seemed that after the presidential elections in Russia, the screaming and shouting in the Western world against our country would subside. Exactly the opposite happened: they expel our ambassadors from Europe and the USA, come up with God knows what kind of economic dirty tricks... And our Foreign Ministry continues to call this entire public “partners” and show its toothless mouth. Where is the famous pride of the Great Russians?

— The loss of strategic vision by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is not today, and not even the times of Yeltsin and Gorbachev. This began in the late 60s, when the Soviet Union began to react to circumstances rather than create them. It was possible, for example, to cause serious damage to NATO by provoking an internal crisis during the “Paris Spring”. But we decided to come to an agreement with the Americans: they do not interfere in Czechoslovak affairs, we do not interfere in the affairs of France. Although, it was possible, through the French Communist Party and through the trade unions, to provoke NATO to send troops to Paris in 1968. And then, for decades, screaming about how “the dirty NATO boot crushed the wonderful Parisian spring.”

Yes - US President Lyndon Johnson assured us that they would not interfere. From a political technology point of view, the Americans did everything correctly. They didn't really intervene "militarily." But they provoked our entry of troops into Czechoslovakia. Back on August 3, 1968, negotiations between the Soviet leadership and the Czechoslovak leadership took place in Bratislava, amid the screams of a raging crowd. The Soviet leadership gave in to the Czechoslovaks: build your Czechoslovak “socialism with a human face,” but there are two conditions: stop Russophobic propaganda and stop all talk about Czechoslovakia’s withdrawal from the Warsaw Pact. And what? On August 5, an article appeared in Pravda, “The plans of imperialism are foiled,” and the next day a mass demonstration began in Prague. The Czechs are ringing the keys, “Ivan go home” - and the slogan “Czechoslovakia must leave the Warsaw Pact organization.” This was a direct provocation aimed at getting the Soviet Union to send in troops. This could have been avoided, but Brezhnev wasted his time.

— Tell me, why was there no attempt at such a political exchange in Afghanistan? Why did the United States finally get involved with the supply of Stinger MANPADS and began to shoot down Soviet planes and helicopters? After which a tragedy began, which ultimately led to the collapse of the Soviet Union.

I don’t think that Afghanistan is the factor that led to the collapse of the Soviet Union. And the “Stingers” were not the very beginning. The most important thing is that we were lured to Afghanistan. And on the Soviet side, two people actively advocated for sending troops into Afghanistan - Ustinov and Andropov. Gromyko supported them. There is no direct evidence, but judging by all the indirect evidence and evidence, Ustinov and Andropov were solving a very simple problem: the Afghan War allowed the State Security Committee and the Ministry of Defense to take control of very large financial flows; these were departmental decisions.

“It’s clear how the Americans managed to lure us into Afghanistan: with the imaginary threat of their own invasion. How did they manage to lure us to Ukraine? How was it possible to create such a situation when a third, or even half of the Ukrainian population became, in fact, not only enemies, but were poisoned with anti-Russian poison?

— The Americans have been actively working on this since the late 80s, late Gorbachev. And in the 90s, several hundred NGOs worked there. Almost all major universities in Ukraine had so-called “NATO rooms”. If you want to get a good job, your diploma should have a note that you took such and such courses in the “NATO room”. We didn’t work there, we had a half-dead Rossotrudnichestvo, which was doing something unclear. The Americans divided Ukrainian society into segments - social, age, with each of which its own NGO worked. At this time, the Ambassador to Ukraine Chernomyrdin was playing the button accordion and singing songs with the Ukrainian oligarchs, and Zurabov was also doing something unclear. Our government in the 90s and early 2000s believed that everything needed to be negotiated with the oligarchs. We did not take care to create truly pro-Russian forces there.

It must be said that alarming processes began back in Soviet times. In 1955, Secretary General Khrushchev signed an amnesty for almost all those who collaborated with the Nazis during the war, including in Ukraine. About 100 thousand former Banderaites returned to 5 western regions of Ukraine. In addition, from 1955 to 1965, about 100 thousand Ukrainians from Canada returned to Ukraine. We arrived with money.

-Who allowed them?

— Khrushchev allowed these people to return. Most importantly, as soon as Khrushchev signed this amnesty, Bandera’s leadership changed tactics. They stopped the armed struggle in Western Ukraine and gave the command: Bandera’s members and members of their families must do everything to take places in Soviet, trade union, Komsomol, party organizations, and integrate into them properly. The integration of nationalists began, and quite successfully.

Already in the mid-60s, nationalism flourished so that it was even reflected in football; I remember even the football authorities of the Soviet Union raised the issue with the leadership of Dynamo Kiev so that goals scored by the people of Kiev would not be declared at the Kiev stadium as a victory: “The goal was scored by Vasil Turyanchik!

Who was one of the initiators of the collapse of the Soviet Union? The man who was responsible for the national issue in the Ukrainian leadership was Leonid Kravchuk. This is the basis for a very well-developed American program, not even propaganda, but a psychohistorical program. And in 25 years you can recode an entire generation. It must be said that sociocultural psychohistorical recoding is something that is currently being developed by Western intelligence services. In Ukraine, among other things, there was an experiment.

— What can we hope for after such a “recoding” in Donetsk and Lugansk?

— Donetsk and Lugansk are traditionally Russian regions. An example from football: in 1968, Ukrainian teams agreed that in Kyiv they would hand over the game to Dynamo Kyiv, and play a draw with them on their fields. All Ukrainian teams agreed except Shakhtar Donetsk. The party organization in Donetsk has always had tense relations with the party organization in Kyiv. This even manifested itself in sports. Lugansk and Donetsk are not Ukraine. Another thing is that people there are already incredibly tired. This may play a role. Although, I can’t imagine that we would surrender Donetsk and Lugansk. And so that after all this blood they fall under the Ukrobander regime.

— Now, as it was 2 years ago, the Ukrainian army is preparing an offensive to divide Donetsk and Lugansk. Do you think we will provide military assistance?

“I don’t know in what form, but I am convinced that effective assistance should be provided. Otherwise, the Russian leadership will simply lose face, and many neighbors will decide that they can wipe their feet on us. For example, in Kazakhstan and everywhere else. Therefore, Donetsk and Lugansk are the zones, the violation of which should lead to a very harsh reaction.

— Have they begun to put pressure on Russian oligarchs in the West? The goal is clear - to set them against Putin: with the possibility of carrying out a coup. What forks does President Putin have today?

— The fork is very serious. We live on what was created in Soviet times and eat away the Soviet legacy. If you look at similar turning points in Russian history, there were two of them. In 1565, on the eve of the oprichnina, and under Stalin. By 1565, the legacy of the Horde era was eaten away, when there was almost no land left to distribute to the “children of the boyars” as estates. By 1929, the legacy of the Russian Empire had been eaten away. The authorities were faced with the question: at the expense of which layers will we make a leap into the future, at the expense of whom to a greater extent?

Both times the jerk was made by pinching mainly the top. This, by the way, was precisely what liberal noble historians could not forgive Ivan the Terrible, and not because he allegedly killed his son. This is precisely what the Soviet elite cannot forgive Stalin. In both cases, a breakthrough followed, and both of these breakthroughs brought the country forward each time. In the case of Ivan the Terrible it was longer and more dramatic; with Stalin everything happened faster.

Now the situation is the same - the Soviet legacy has been eaten away. The only thing we have really made progress in is raising the armed forces, but not industry. By 1937, the Soviet Union had secured military-industrial autarky from the West. Now there can be no talk of any autarky: we simply have an army that can fight, and the types of weapons that can be used have appeared.

Now there is a fork again, which comes to this. After 1991, two groups took shape in the Russian ruling stratum - one I conventionally call “orders”, and the other “controllers”. “Clerks” are those who are ready to hand over the country to transnational corporations even now. The “controllers” come from something else. They live by the principle “the bear will not give up his taiga.” In this regard, they act as representatives of their country. However, the “controllers” and the “orders” have something in common - they are all supporters of a liberal market economy. If this does not create problems for the “orders”, then it creates problems for the “controllers”, because if you oppose the “orders” and come into conflict with their masters, you need the support of the population. And what kind of support can there be if you are carrying out those “reforms” that are destroying the economy, health care, which is turning into a health care burial, and destroying the education system.

This contradiction is insoluble. In addition, it is layered with another contradiction - the growing conflict with the West, and it will grow. At the same time, society, the youth, is moving to the left, “neo-Sovietism” is in fashion, and the ideology of the top is different. Yes: foreign policy pressure can bring people together for a while. But if this is not supported by certain economic and social measures within the country, then it is difficult to say how this system will develop.

- Ivan the Terrible solved this problem with the oprichnina, Stalin with the “red terror”. We're talking about Putin. Won't our president be tempted to hang a dog's head and a broom on the new guardsmen, as was the case under Ivan the Terrible, and purge the modern elite: make them run away, or send them to logging?

- In fact, Stalin solved this issue differently: he did not have his own oprichnina, but he used the oprichnina principle of the Cheka - he set one group against another. As for the terror of 37-38, it had a difficult relationship with Stalin. The historian Yu.N. Zhukov wrote about this very well, the materials have been declassified, and the situation is now clear. In 1936, Stalin tried to introduce the principle of alternative elections into the new Constitution. But at his own political bureau he lost: 3 votes for him, 8 against. The logic of his opponents was this: if alternative elections are allowed, then the people can choose the children of landowners, capitalists and priests. This cannot be done. Stalin lost, but the regional barons, including Postyshev, Eikhov, Khrushchev, thought this was not enough for them. Postyshev and Eikhov came to Stalin and actually demanded quotas for the “seizure” of hostile population groups. In this situation, if Stalin had refused, he could have ended up in the Lubyanka himself. Stalin chose an asymmetrical answer: “Do you want terror? Okay, there will be terror for you. You run this car on the bottom, and I’ll run it on the top.”

The terror of 37-38 was two processes: a mass process, which was launched by regional barons, and a process at the top, which was launched by Stalin. As soon as Stalin achieved his goals, the terror was curtailed, Beria replaced Yezhov, and the “Beria Thaw” began.

Returning to the current situation, the following must be said. In order to realize what Ivan the Terrible and Stalin did in their time, you need to have 3 things: first, you need to have a repressive apparatus; second, you need to have an ideology, otherwise all repression will result in banditry; third, you need to have a massive social support.

Regarding the third point. We did not have a social base for this. But thanks to the efforts of liberal citizens (real liberalism in the world died in the 1910s and 1920s), we now have a layer of the urban lower classes that we can rely on. A mass of dissatisfied population has appeared, among whom these neo-Soviet leftist ideas are spreading. It is possible to create a repressive apparatus, but you need an ideology - for the sake of which all this is being done. It doesn’t exist, but what about without ideology?

— Let's return to the “world behind the scenes.” Are you ready to start a third world war?

— The current situation is somewhat reminiscent of the 30-40s of the 19th century. After the British realized that Russia was their main enemy, they began to prepare a European coalition. It was then, in the twenties of the 19th century, that Russophobia arose in Britain as a phenomenon - hostility towards Russia. During the years 1830-40, the British processed European public opinion. Pay attention to the intensity of the current anti-Russian hysteria. This did not happen during the Cold War, because the Soviet Union was strong, and no one was going to fight with it. This does not mean that they will definitely break into war. Everything will depend on how strong, durable, united we are, etc., but the intensity of hysteria in the West is, of course, preparing the population for the fact that a strike on Russia is a morally justified and practically necessary matter. Hatred of Russia captures entire sections of the population; it becomes completely irrational. This is what we will be living with for the coming years.

— Andrei Ilyich, why have the leaders of Russia from time immemorial so wanted the love of the West? Why is any bunch of English or Warsaw gentlemen discussed here, on Channel One, on Russian television talk shows are rampant, where Soloviev and many others splutter at the words of idiots unknown to us: about whom we don’t even want to know anything? Where does the inferiority complex come from?

— Back in the 18th century, our society split into a Western-like class of masters and a class of serfs. The first quickly turned into a kind of united pro-Western nation, and the people remained the people. The split is threefold: class, cultural and socio-ethnic. That’s why our Civil War was so cruel—two fundamentally different social “creatures” fought. Our nobles in the 18th century, from the time of Catherine, lived not by their own needs, but by Western ones. Not realizing that Western needs were met by an order of magnitude more developed economy. Therefore, in order for the Russian nobles to lead a socially acceptable noble lifestyle, it was necessary, in Marxist language, to take away from the population not only the surplus product, but also part of the necessary product.

— Our pro-Western rich are not descendants of nobles. Where do they get such sycophancy?

— It started back in Soviet times. I really want to go where it’s clean and bright. What is Berezovsky? An unfortunate, downtrodden guy, and suddenly - that’s it for him! These people ran out of laboratories, from gateways, they had their own idea of ​​\u200b\u200bthe sweet life, in addition, they did not like much in Soviet life. This mentality was superimposed on this.

When Ronald Reagan became President of the United States, for all its simplicity, three independent groups were created that were supposed to give a forecast of what would happen to capitalism in the next 10-15 years. Everyone gave the same forecast: in 1987-1988, the world economy will face a very serious crisis. Production in the Western sector will fall by 25%, in the Soviet Union by 10-15%, and the Soviet sector will endure this much easier than the Western sector due to the planned nature of the economy. And people are used to tightening their belts.

The political consequences, they predicted, would be as follows: communists could come to power in Italy and France, and left-wing Labor in England. Nothing like this is expected in the United States, but riots among the black population and lower classes in major cities are likely. In 92-93, another crisis will strike, and this will be the finale.

Reagan took this seriously. The most interesting thing is that at the very beginning of the 80s in the Soviet Union, two people - V. Krylov and P. Kuznetsov - prepared for Andropov an analysis of what would happen to the capitalist world and the socialist one. The conclusions were similar to the American ones, but no one listened to them.

After the collapse in October 1987. At the New York Stock Exchange, Greenspan, appointed head of the Federal Reserve, said that only a miracle would save the United States. This miracle was the destruction of the Soviet Union. And the subsequent plunder of the former socialist zone led to the fact that for the last 3 years of Clinton’s second presidency, the United States had a surplus for the first time in 30 years. The destruction of the Soviet Union really gave the West 20-25 years of quiet life, but then the 2008 crisis still hit. Now there is a struggle over what the post-capitalist world will be like. Russia has no place in this world, as Brzezinski formulated. According to him, the world of the 21st century will be built at the expense of Russia, to the detriment of Russia, on the bones of Russia. What is currently swirling around Russia is an attempt to create a springboard for a final solution to the Russian question. Moneybags intuitively sense this and keep their nose to the wind.

— The crisis of Western economies in the 80s of the last century was solved due to the rise of China with Western money. They helped the Chinese and there was only one desert left on the world map - this is the Russian Federation, where there are no roads, where there is uncultivated land. Why, instead of prolonging the pleasure and taking the whole capitalist world to Russia and integrating it into their conglomerate, they are giving us missiles, bombs... They are generally scaring us with the devil! Where is the logic?

: Donald Trump won the elections in the United States. It is obvious that he, a newcomer to big politics, especially world politics, is faced with a difficult choice of his future strategy. And therefore the question is more philosophical than, so to speak, “victorious.” We know that the president in America is largely an image figure, but in reality the country is run by his headquarters, and not only the obvious one. So, is the winner able to replace the previous headquarters so much that he can change the entire foreign policy paradigm of America? After all, behind those people there are also elites...

Andrey Fursov: It’s not the headquarters that are being changed. “Staff officers” are, like the president, clerks. The foreign and domestic political paradigm is being changed by the forces behind Trump and his team. And considerable strength. Especially when you consider who stood for Clinton and whom they outweighed. Almost the entire world bankster army (“Vanguard”, “Black Rock”, Larry Fink and many others) and its servants, first of all, Hollywood - and a bummer.

For me, an important indicator of Trump’s likely victory was not even the FBI’s stuffing within the logic of the seven-day propaganda cycle, but the publication of Jeffrey Sachs’s article, which I had to immediately comment on. Sachs noted that continuing Obama’s course (read: Clinton’s course if she wins) will undermine America within 4-5 years, and therefore it is necessary to moderate imperial ambitions, including in the Middle East. This does not mean that Sachs is against American leadership, by no means. He expresses the interests and views of forces, certain forces in the United States, who believe: America needs a respite and, if you like, perestroika (of course, not Gorbachev’s). In my opinion, Sachs's article was a signal in favor of Trump.

TG: You are talking about “certain” forces behind the candidates. And what are these certain forces? Is it possible to define them more precisely?

AF: Behind the confrontation between Trump and Clinton is a struggle (I’m straightening things out a little) between several factions at the top of the world capitalist class, the main ones among which are the banksters and the corporatocracy. Of course, there are corporations that are very closely associated with the banksters and play on their side, but in general the confrontation is of a distinct nature. Banksters are trying their best to preserve the current globalization, which they present as something objective, the position of the dollar and US hegemony as it took shape in the 1990s. The corporatocracy, with its focus on the development of the late-industrial and hyper-industrial sectors (“real economy”), is not happy with this, since the banksters realize their interests, including at the expense of the corporatocrats. There are several other lines in the Trump Clinton battle (for example, the extreme discontent of the white middle layer), but they are not the main ones.

TsG: So, along with Clinton, the “banksters” lost, that is, Wall Street, the neocons and in general the “world government”, in quotes, of course?

AF: There is no world government. One world faction defeated another. Moreover, she walked towards this victory very consistently, checkmating the enemy in several moves: Crimea - the migration crisis in Europe - Brexit - and, finally, Trump’s victory. There is a split in the global elite, not just the American one. For example, the Rothschilds - Windsors are categorically opposed to the “transatlantic zone”, on the “towers” ​​of which the Americans will stand and which represents the implementation of Bankster globalization (despite the fact that the Rothschilds are bankers themselves, the current political “squiggle” has led them to the other camp).

Trump's victory means a high probability of reformatting not only the American, but also the Western political system as a whole. Perhaps this is the beginning of a “revolution from above”, starting at the top of the global capitalist pyramid, a new phase in the intensification of the struggle for a post-capitalist future, which I have been writing about for the last twenty years.

While the banksters robbed ordinary people, this was forgiven. But in recent years, they have increasingly taken aim at their “class brothers,” trying to cover them with the wave of their “global progress.”

There was such a wonderful sociologist - Barrington Moore. He once said that revolutions are born not from the victory cry of the rising classes, but from the dying roar of those classes over which the wave of progress is about to close. To paraphrase Moore and put the global-Bankster “progress” in quotation marks, we can say that today we are witnessing a serious battle between those segments of the world ruling class that the “Banksters” are going to devour with their financial “progress.”

As for Russian-American relations under Trump, there should be no illusions here. Russia and the United States have and will have many serious contradictions. They're not going anywhere. Another thing is that Clinton would most likely try to resolve these contradictions using regional force. With Trump this is less likely. A real improvement in relations is possible only in the case when Russia has the same or almost the same strength as the USSR, and not only military, but economic and moral-volitional. On the world stage it is impossible to earn respect - respect is achieved by force: “he forced himself to be respected and could not have come up with a better idea.” And then we won’t have to think: what if not Trump? In any case, however, Trump’s victory is the lesser evil for the Russian Federation, and this must be managed wisely and skillfully. We have already lost a lot of time - almost two decades. Time doesn't wait.

Interviewed by Alexander Tsyganov

Indeed, in our country and in the West, the following interpretations suddenly appeared in the media and social networks, as if by order: the American people, by choosing Trump, defeated the world elite, the backstage, the establishment,” says Andrei Fursov, director of the Institute for Systemic Strategic Analysis. “I don’t know what’s more here—naivety or a conscious desire to cast a shadow over the fence.” I think it's both. Strictly speaking, the people lost: by the way, more ordinary voters voted for Clinton. Trump won the electoral votes (about 60!), that is, in accordance with the logic and rules of a non-democratic, I would even say, anti-democratic system. In the modern Western bourgeois system, the people cannot defeat the establishment at all. The system is designed to prevent this from happening in principle.

Andrey Fursov: — The interests of one part of the American and world ruling groups coincided, as they said in the USSR, with the aspirations of a certain part of American society. First of all, the white part of the middle layer. Some conclude that Trump’s election is a regression, a victory of yesterday’s America over today’s or even tomorrow’s. Big mistake! It would be the “progressive” Clinton who would continue to support the old line of globalism. Trump is precisely the future, post-liberal America. The liberal order that has been built in the United States and the world over the past 30-40 years is collapsing before our eyes. It urgently needs to be changed; changes require new leaders. Trump is a symbol of change!

Another aspect of his victory: during the neoliberal revolution, which began with the coming to power of Thatcher and Reagan, a ruling stratum was formed in the West, which was clearly divorced from the population. In these times of crisis, the situation needs to be corrected, again with the help of new leaders, somewhat reminiscent of Willie Stark from “All the King’s Men” by Robert Penn Warren. By the way, Stark’s prototype was Louisiana Governor Huey Long - a populist (like Trump), a rival of the Democrat Franklin Roosevelt, who was killed in 1935, of course, as it should be in America, by a loner.

Trump is the ideal candidate to embody a new, more “non-establishment” leadership that is closer to the people. He violates almost all the rules of the current ruling liberal layer. He spits from a high bell tower on multiculturalism, without hesitation, says bad things about people of color, migrants, feminists, blue, pink... This appeals to a healthy part of the American people, tired of the liberal dictatorship of various minorities and false political correctness. In short, he is the very person who can externally build bridges between the establishment and the population. Which corresponds to the interests of a certain part of the American ruling elite.

Question: Are you implying that Trump could not have arisen on his own, even though he is a billionaire?

Andrey Fursov: — There’s nothing to hint at here. In the West, be it the USA or Europe, truly independent winning candidates have not been possible for the last 100-150 years. Political machines fight among themselves for power. In America these are the Democratic and Republican parties. Behind the political machines is the ruling class with its closed structures - clubs, lodges, commissions, representing the second, real circuit of power. Parties and parliaments are the first, external contour of power, already at the end of the 19th - beginning of the 20th century. turned into a function of the second.

“Non-systemic” Trump, let me remind you, went to the White House from the System, and not on his own. Those forces that stand behind him were able to push through the resistance of part of his Republican Party. In these elections there were candidates from “greens”, libertarians, independents... But everyone understood that the only competitors were Trump and Clinton. Over the past hundred years in the United States, the best result of truly independent, non-partisan candidates was obtained in 1992 by Ross Perot, also a billionaire, by the way: 18.9% of the popular vote and 0 electoral votes.

Sometimes they say that the real president of the people was F. Roosevelt, who saved the country from the Great Depression and curbed the financial oligarchs. Indeed, Roosevelt provided jobs for millions of ordinary Americans and pulled the United States out of the acute phase of the crisis. But at the same time, the “people’s” president did important work for the oligarchs. Under penalty of imprisonment, he confiscated gold from free Americans, exhausted by the depression. Replacing it as a means of payment with paper dollars. This was the first step towards the global hegemony of the Dollar, behind which stood large American bankers.

So the emergence of single presidents in the United States is from the realm of unscientific fiction. As Galich sang: “This, Red, is all for the public!”

And it is foolish to hope that Trump will become the president of the ordinary American people, who supposedly defeated the world behind the scenes, the world government, on November 8th.

First of all, there is no world government, no one world behind the scenes.

BANKSTERS and CORPORATOCRATS

Question: - What is there?

Andrey Fursov: — There are several large groups, factions at the top of the world capitalist class. The main opponents are banksters (ironically, by analogy with gangsters, financiers and bankers are called in the West) and corporatocracy. There are, of course, corporations closely associated with the banksters that play on their side, but in general the confrontation is of this nature. Banksters strive at all costs to preserve globalization, the position of the dollar and the hegemony of the United States in the form in which it took shape in the 1990s. The corporatocracy associated with the late-industrial and hyper-industrial sectors (“real economy”) is not happy with this. Moreover, in recent years, the banksters have increasingly taken aim at their “class brothers,” trying to cover them with the wave of their “global progress.” Intraclass struggle is gaining momentum, as it always does in the final stages of the development of social systems.

The public election battle between Clinton and Trump has become the personification of the behind-the-scenes struggle between capitalist monsters, a kind of Behemoth and Leviathan. Although there were several other lines in this battle of candidates, for example, the extreme discontent of the white middle class of America, they were not the main ones.

Question: - More details about the groups, please.

Andrey Fursov: — The Clintons are indeed historically connected with the Rockefellers. Behind Hillary were many other banksters - financial capital seeking to maintain the Dollar's position in the world system. Plus such serious structures as “Vanguard”, “Black Rock”, such personalities as Larry Fink, etc., and their servants, first of all, Hollywood.

Serious forces are also on Trump’s side. Apparently, the same Rothschilds...

Question: - But they, according to your terminology, Andrei Ilyich, are also banksters!

Andrey Fursov: - Absolutely right. However, this time they were faced with the increased appetites of their American “colleagues”.

Here are specific examples of the fight to make it clear what all the fuss is about.

To solve the problems of the banksters and associated transnational corporations for the next 15-20 years economically, Washington urgently needs to create two global free trade zones. the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) with countries in the Asia-Pacific region and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) with the European Union. Obama pushed through the Trans-Pacific agreement; the agreement was signed on February 4, 2016. However, Barack had a bummer with the Transatlantic. And this despite all the persuasion, negotiations, and pressure from Obama on Western European “partners.” The Rothschilds, the Windsors (the ruling British monarchy), the aristocracy of southern Germany and Northern Italy, the Vatican are opposed to the “transatlantic zone”, on the “towers” ​​of which the Americans will stand. This part of the world elite does not want the American “comrade wolf” to eat Western Europe. It is believed that the sudden appearance of Snowden with the exposure of the insidious American NSA, listening to the conversations of Merkel and other leaders of the European Union, initiated a cluster of Rothschilds (not at all reducible to the Rothschilds alone) in order to disrupt or at least delay the TTIP negotiations that had begun then.

The banksters placed the signing of the agreement with the European Union on the next Democratic president, Hillary Clinton, whose career, like her wife, is closely connected with the Rockefellers.

Now let's look at Trump's program. He promised to interrupt all negotiations on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership between the United States and the European Union and, to quote his famous Gettysburg Address on October 22: “I will announce my upcoming withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which threatens our country with a real disaster.”

Question: — As it was written under the dictation of the Rothschilds! And also an American...

Andrey Fursov: - To this, the American scientist I. Wallerstein would answer: “Values ​​become extremely elastic when it comes to power and profit.” I'm not even talking about the fact that in this case, Trump defends US national interests, the concentration of which on himself corresponds to the interests of a number of clusters in Europe. Trump is the first major Western politician to openly question the global order and its trade and international political support structures. And it is important that this wave comes from the United States, and, therefore, the satellites, even with sour faces (just look at how Merkel and Hollande announced Trump’s victory), will have to take a stand.

What does Trump say about NATO?! Even if these are just words (most likely so), he sent a spasm through the NATO “people”. Take a look at a number of provisions of Trump's foreign policy program - reducing America's presence in the outside world. A few days before the election, the famous economist Jeffrey Sachs published an article that the continuation of Obama’s course (read: Clinton’s course if she wins) could lead the United States to collapse in a few years. Essentially, this was a signal to the elites to reorient themselves towards Trump. Together with the FBI's stuffing, this article played a very big role in Trump's victory, and on the very eve of the elections it convinced me of the high probability of his victory.

The US has overstretched itself in the last 15 years. The decade of the 1990s, when Americans plundered the ex-socialist zone and, above all, Russia, is in the past. The foreign policy of Bush Jr. and Obama has failed, and tension is growing within the country. To avoid class and racial upheavals, America needs to “stretch its legs by the clothes.” Its current situation is reminiscent of that of the Roman Empire of the Trajan era (early 2nd century AD), when Rome began to move from expansion to strategic defense and evacuate legions from a number of European regions. This allowed the empire to exist for more than three hundred years. Today, all processes are moving faster, but the US concentration on its problems can prolong their existence for several decades. Trump is the entry of the American quasi-empire into the era of strategic defense.

Further. Trump promised to impose a 45% tariff on all Chinese goods imported into the United States. And a 35% tariff on goods from Mexico produced there at the enterprises of American and foreign companies previously removed from the United States. Pure protectionism, protection of one’s own manufacturer, part of the American corporatocrats. Again, a blow to globalism, professed by banksters and transnational corporations. By the way, Trump is the first American president since 1945 to loudly announce a course towards protectionism, replacing globalization with a system of macro-regions interacting with each other.

Draw your own conclusions about who President Trump will serve first. The corporatocrats or the “victorious common people.” Although the people might also get something. At the same time, however, we must remember that the social process is a zero-sum game: if someone gains, then someone loses.

A NAIL IN THE LIBERAL COFFIN

Question: - What is your conclusion, Andrei Ilyich?

Andrey Fursov: — Such a heated presidential election in the United States has exposed a serious split in the American and world ruling elite. The future vector of development of America and the entire modern world was decided on them. One world faction defeated another. Moreover, she walked towards this victory very consistently, checkmating the enemy in four moves: Crimea - the migration crisis in Europe - Brexit - Trump's victory. By the way, this victory followed the same pattern as Brexit. On the eve of the referendum in the UK, all analysts and politicians said that there would be no Brexit, the UK would remain part of the European Union. And it happened. It's the same with Trump. Everyone gave Clinton victory. Outwardly, there was a feeling that Donald had no chance of winning the White House. Although a number of insightful forecasters (I know such people in Russia) both six months ago and a few days before the elections confidently said: Trump will win.

And he won.

Let us again remember the “people's president” Roosevelt. In fact, his New Deal to lift the country out of the Great Depression created far more problems than it solved. A fork in the road arose in 1939-1940: either social reforms directed against oligarchic capital, or war! Democrat Roosevelt chose war. World War II. If she wins, Democrat Hillary Clinton could also unleash a large-scale war to save the financial tycoons - the banksters.

Trump's victory moves the world away from a very dangerous line. This victory means a high probability of reformatting not only the American, but also the Western political system as a whole. Perhaps this is the beginning of a “revolution from above” of the world capitalist pyramid, a new phase in the intensification of the struggle for a post-capitalist future, which I have been talking and writing about for the last twenty years. Including in Komsomolskaya Pravda.

If Trump does everything he promised, it will be one of the last nails in the coffin of the global liberal order that has been erected in the West since the 1980s, with the rise to power of Thatcher and Reagan and the pressure groups behind them.

And, naturally, this is a nail in the coffin of that part of the Russian political and media elite, which has always focused on people like Clinton and was very active in throwing mud at Trump in these elections.

Question: It’s clear with our home-grown liberals. What does Trump's triumph mean for Russia itself?

Andrey Fursov: — Surprisingly, Trump’s victory evokes feelings of euphoria among a significant part of the Russian establishment and the media public. To the point that we will now be friends with America and kiss passionately.

Question: - Like Brezhnev and Honecker.

Andrey Fursov: — In fact, there should be no illusions.

Russia and America have enough problems and contradictions, and serious ones at that. The main thing is that the Russian Federation is still the only power capable of inflicting unacceptable nuclear damage on the United States. Another thing is that Clinton would most likely try to solve them using regional force. Its victory would lead to increased tension and even military conflicts along the entire perimeter of the Russian border. Under Trump, this is less likely. This is the main plus for Russia.

As for our relations... Their real improvement is possible when Russia has approximately the same or almost the same power as the USSR. And not only military, but economic, moral and volitional. On the world stage it is impossible to earn respect - it is obtained by force. Remember “Eugene Onegin”: “he forced himself to be respected and could not have come up with a better idea.” And then we won’t have to worry: will Trump or Clinton win in the USA? In any case, however, a Trump victory is the lesser evil for Russia. This needs to be managed wisely. Russia has already lost a lot of time - almost two decades. And it is possible that in the next 2-3 years you will have to pay bills.+

Author of the book “Multiplying Sorrows. How to survive in the era of elite war" Elena Larina treats with irony the conspiracy theory that the entire course of modern world history is determined by the eternal enmity of the Rothschilds and Rockefellers. But she also admits that the real Rockefellers are on Hillary Clinton's side. I quote: “Bill, at the very beginning of his career, enjoyed the unlimited support of this famous Billionaire Family. Specifically, Winthrop Rockefeller, governor of Arkansas, who unsuccessfully ran for president of the United States. A significant part of the state's residents and many knowledgeable experts in social life generally considered Bill to be Winthrop's illegitimate son. A few years after the death of his “father,” Clinton himself became governor of Arkansas. As for Hillary, she did her thesis on the largest American political strategist Saul Alinsky with money from a scholarship from the Rockefeller Family Foundation. Moreover, according to people close to Reagan, Hillary was included in the team that investigated the Watergate scandal and President Nixon’s connection with it, again at the suggestion of the Rockefeller family. This was the beginning of her career. So Hillary Clinton in this presidential election represents elite groups associated with the post-industrial America of Wall Street, a country of banks, investment companies and media empires.”

As you can see, good gentleman from Bayreuth, Komsomolskaya Pravda did not entertain the conspiracy theory that Hillary is a protege of the Rothschilds. This, sorry, is your fantasy.

We could put an end to this. Or even ignore the comment of the gentleman from Germany, who, to put it mildly, got it wrong.

But he is not alone. And the remark carries deep implications. In America, they say, there are free elections! The people themselves elected Trump and there is no need to fool their heads with all sorts of Rothschilds and Rockefellers. Well-known publicist Israel Shamir assures in a number of publications, including Komsomolskaya Pravda, that the global elites have lost an important battle. Nothing, they say, has been captured from the wise men of Zion; everything is decided by the common people!

“Trump’s victory is important for us for this very reason - because what great fellows ordinary Americans are!.. The world behind the scenes, the wise men of Zion, or whatever you call them, have no guaranteed way to come to power and win. The people decided for themselves. And the world behind the scenes was left in the dust. Today they can exclaim: “But we are global! We are omnipotent! We determine the dollar exchange rate!”, but this will not help them. It’s time for her to retire, behind the scenes... Congratulations on your victory, dear American comrades!”

It's a trend, though!

“THIS, RED, IS ALL IN PUBLIC!”

Indeed, in our country and in the West, the following interpretations suddenly appeared in the media and social networks, as if by order: the American people, by choosing Trump, defeated the world elite, the backstage, the establishment, he says Director of the Institute for Systemic Strategic Analysis Andrey Fursov. “I don’t know what’s more here—naivety or a conscious desire to cast a shadow over the fence.” I think it's both. Strictly speaking, the people lost: by the way, more ordinary voters voted for Clinton. Trump won the electoral votes (about 60!), that is, in accordance with the logic and rules of a non-democratic, I would even say, anti-democratic system. In the modern Western bourgeois system, the people cannot defeat the establishment at all. The system is designed to prevent this from happening in principle.

The interests of one part of the American and world ruling groups coincided, as they said in the USSR, with the aspirations of a certain part of American society. First of all, the white part of the middle layer. Some conclude that Trump’s election is a regression, a victory of yesterday’s America over today’s or even tomorrow’s. Big mistake! It would be the “progressive” Clinton who would continue to support the old line of globalism. Trump is precisely the future, post-liberal America. The liberal order that has been built in the United States and the world over the past 30-40 years is collapsing before our eyes. It urgently needs to be changed; changes require new leaders. Trump is a symbol of change!

Another aspect of his victory: during the neoliberal revolution, which began with the coming to power of Thatcher and Reagan, a ruling stratum was formed in the West, which was clearly divorced from the population. In these times of crisis, the situation needs to be corrected, again with the help of new leaders, somewhat reminiscent of Willie Stark from “All the King’s Men” by Robert Penn Warren. By the way, Stark’s prototype was Louisiana Governor Huey Long - a populist (like Trump), a rival of the Democrat Franklin Roosevelt, who was killed in 1935, of course, as it should be in America, alone.

Trump is the ideal candidate to embody a new, more “non-establishment” leadership that is closer to the people. He violates almost all the rules of the current ruling liberal layer. He spits from a high bell tower on multiculturalism, without hesitation, says bad things about people of color, migrants, feminists, blue, pink... This appeals to a healthy part of the American people, tired of the liberal dictatorship of various minorities and false political correctness. In short, he is the very person who can externally build bridges between the establishment and the population. Which corresponds to the interests of a certain part of the American ruling elite.

- Are you implying that Trump could not have arisen on his own, even though he is a billionaire?

There is nothing to hint at here. In the West, be it the USA or Europe, truly independent winning candidates have not been possible for the last 100-150 years. Political machines fight among themselves for power. In America these are the Democratic and Republican parties. Behind the political machines is the ruling class with its closed structures - clubs, lodges, commissions, representing the second, real circuit of power. Parties and parliaments are the first, external contour of power, already at the end of the 19th - beginning of the 20th century. turned into a function of the second.

“Non-systemic” Trump, let me remind you, went to the White House from the System, and not on his own. Those forces that stand behind him were able to push through the resistance of part of his Republican Party. In these elections there were candidates from “greens”, libertarians, independents... But everyone understood that the only competitors were Trump and Clinton. Over the past hundred years in the United States, the best result of truly independent, non-partisan candidates was obtained in 1992 by Ross Perot, also a billionaire, by the way: 18.9% of the popular vote and 0 electoral votes.

Sometimes they say that the real president of the people was F. Roosevelt, who saved the country from the Great Depression and curbed the financial oligarchs. Indeed, Roosevelt provided jobs for millions of ordinary Americans and pulled the United States out of the acute phase of the crisis. But at the same time, the “people’s” president did important work for the oligarchs. Under penalty of imprisonment, he confiscated gold from free Americans, exhausted by the depression. Replacing it as a means of payment with paper dollars. This was the first step towards the global hegemony of the Dollar, behind which stood large American bankers.

So the emergence of single presidents in the United States is from the realm of unscientific fiction. As Galich sang: “This, Red, is all for the public!”

And it is foolish to hope that Trump will become the president of the ordinary American people, who supposedly defeated the world behind the scenes, the world government, on November 8th.

First of all, there is no world government, no one world behind the scenes.

BANKSTERS and CORPORATOCRATS

- What is there?

There are several large groups, factions at the top of the world capitalist class. The main opponents are banksters (ironically, by analogy with gangsters, financiers and bankers are called in the West) and corporatocracy. There are, of course, corporations closely associated with the banksters that play on their side, but in general the confrontation is of this nature. Banksters strive at all costs to preserve globalization, the position of the dollar and the hegemony of the United States in the form in which it took shape in the 1990s. The corporatocracy associated with the late-industrial and hyper-industrial sectors (“real economy”) is not happy with this. Moreover, in recent years, the banksters have increasingly taken aim at their “class brothers,” trying to cover them with the wave of their “global progress.” Intraclass struggle is gaining momentum, as it always does in the final stages of the development of social systems.

The public election battle between Clinton and Trump has become the personification of the behind-the-scenes struggle between capitalist monsters, a kind of Behemoth and Leviathan. Although there were several other lines in this battle of candidates, for example, the extreme discontent of the white middle class of America, they were not the main ones.

- More details about the groups, please.

The Clintons are indeed historically related to the Rockefellers. Behind Hillary were many other banksters - financial capital seeking to maintain the Dollar's position in the world system. Plus such serious structures as “Vanguard”, “Black Rock”, such personalities as Larry Fink, etc., and their servants, first of all, Hollywood.

Serious forces are also on Trump’s side. Apparently, the same Rothschilds...

- But they, in your terminology, Andrei Ilyich, are also banksters!

Absolutely right. However, this time they were faced with the increased appetites of their American “colleagues”.

Here are specific examples of the fight to make it clear what all the fuss is about.

To solve the problems of the banksters and associated transnational corporations for the next 15-20 years economically, Washington urgently needs to create two global free trade zones. Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) with countries in the Asia-Pacific region and Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) with the European Union. Obama pushed through the Trans-Pacific agreement; the agreement was signed on February 4, 2016. However, Barack had a bummer with the Transatlantic. And this despite all the persuasion, negotiations, and pressure from Obama on Western European “partners.” The Rothschilds, the Windsors (the ruling British monarchy), the aristocracy of southern Germany and Northern Italy, and the Vatican are opposed to the “transatlantic zone”, on the “towers” ​​of which the Americans will stand. This part of the world elite does not want the American “comrade wolf” to eat Western Europe. It is believed that the sudden appearance of Snowden with the exposure of the insidious American NSA, listening to the conversations of Merkel and other leaders of the European Union, initiated a cluster of Rothschilds (not at all reducible to the Rothschilds alone) in order to disrupt or at least delay the TTIP negotiations that had begun then.

The banksters placed the signing of the agreement with the European Union on the next Democratic president, Hillary Clinton, whose career, like her wife, is closely connected with the Rockefellers.

Now let's look at Trump's program. He promised to interrupt all negotiations on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership between the United States and the European Union and, to quote his famous Gettysburg Address on October 22: “I will announce my upcoming withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which threatens our country with a real disaster.”

- As it was written under the dictation of the Rothschilds! And also an American...

To this, the American scientist I. Wallerstein would answer: “Values ​​become extremely elastic when it comes to power and profit.” I'm not even talking about the fact that in this case, Trump defends US national interests, the concentration of which on himself corresponds to the interests of a number of clusters in Europe. Trump is the first major Western politician to openly question the global order and its trade and international political support structures. And it is important that this wave comes from the United States, and, therefore, the satellites, even with sour faces (just look at how Merkel and Hollande announced Trump’s victory), will have to take a stand.

What does Trump say about NATO?! Even if these are just words (most likely so), he sent a spasm through the NATO “people”. Take a look at a number of provisions of Trump's foreign policy program - reducing America's presence in the outside world. A few days before the election, the famous economist Jeffrey Sachs published an article that the continuation of Obama’s course (read: Clinton’s course if she wins) could lead the United States to collapse in a few years. Essentially, this was a signal to the elites to reorient themselves towards Trump. Together with the FBI's stuffing, this article played a very big role in Trump's victory, and on the very eve of the elections it convinced me of the high probability of his victory.

The US has overstretched itself in the last 15 years. The decade of the 1990s, when Americans plundered the ex-socialist zone and, above all, Russia, is in the past. The foreign policy of Bush Jr. and Obama has failed, and tension is growing within the country. To avoid class and racial upheavals, America needs to “stretch its legs by the clothes.” Its current situation is reminiscent of that of the Roman Empire of the Trajan era (early 2nd century AD), when Rome began to move from expansion to strategic defense and evacuate legions from a number of European regions. This allowed the empire to exist for more than three hundred years. Today, all processes are moving faster, but the US concentration on its problems can prolong their existence for several decades. Trump is the entry of the American quasi-empire into the era of strategic defense.

Further. Trump promised to impose a 45% tariff on all Chinese goods imported into the United States. And a 35% tariff on goods from Mexico produced there at the enterprises of American and foreign companies previously removed from the United States. Pure protectionism, protection of one’s own manufacturer, part of the American corporatocrats. Again, a blow to globalism, professed by banksters and transnational corporations. By the way, Trump is the first American president since 1945 to loudly announce a course towards protectionism, replacing globalization with a system of macro-regions interacting with each other.

Draw your own conclusions about who President Trump will serve first. The corporatocrats or the “victorious common people.” Although the people might also get something. At the same time, however, we must remember that the social process is a zero-sum game: if someone gains, then someone loses.

A NAIL IN THE LIBERAL COFFIN

- And your conclusion, Andrei Ilyich?

Such a heated presidential election in the United States has exposed a serious split in the American and world ruling elite. The future vector of development of America and the entire modern world was decided on them. One world faction defeated another. Moreover, she walked towards this victory very consistently, checkmating the enemy in four moves: Crimea - the migration crisis in Europe - Brexit - Trump's victory. By the way, this victory followed the same pattern as Brexit. On the eve of the referendum in the UK, all analysts and politicians said that there would be no Brexit, the UK would remain part of the European Union. And it happened. It's the same with Trump. Everyone gave Clinton victory. Outwardly, there was a feeling that Donald had no chance of winning the White House. Although a number of insightful forecasters (I know such people in Russia) both six months ago and a few days before the elections confidently said: Trump will win.

And he won.

Let us again remember the “people's president” Roosevelt. In fact, his New Deal to lift the country out of the Great Depression created far more problems than it solved. A fork in the road arose in 1939-1940: either social reforms directed against oligarchic capital, or war! Democrat Roosevelt chose war. World War II. If she wins, Democrat Hillary Clinton could also unleash a large-scale war to save the financial tycoons - the banksters.

Trump's victory moves the world away from a very dangerous line. This victory means a high probability of reformatting not only the American, but also the Western political system as a whole. Perhaps this is the beginning of a “revolution from above” of the world capitalist pyramid, a new phase in the intensification of the struggle for a post-capitalist future, which I have been talking and writing about for the last twenty years. Including in Komsomolskaya Pravda.

If Trump does everything he promised, it will be one of the last nails in the coffin of the global liberal order that has been erected in the West since the 1980s, with the rise to power of Thatcher and Reagan and the pressure groups behind them.

And, naturally, this is a nail in the coffin of that part of the Russian political and media elite, which has always focused on people like Clinton and was very active in throwing mud at Trump in these elections.

- It’s clear with our home-grown liberals. What does Trump's triumph mean for Russia itself?

Surprisingly, Trump’s victory evokes feelings of euphoria among a significant part of the Russian establishment and the media public. To the point that we will now be friends with America and kiss passionately.

- Like Brezhnev and Honecker.

In reality there should be no illusions.

Russia and America have enough problems and contradictions, and serious ones at that. The main thing is that the Russian Federation is still the only power capable of inflicting unacceptable nuclear damage on the United States. Another thing is that Clinton would most likely try to solve them using regional force. Its victory would lead to increased tension and even military conflicts along the entire perimeter of the Russian border. Under Trump, this is less likely. This is the main plus for Russia.

As for our relations... Their real improvement is possible when Russia has approximately the same or almost the same power as the USSR. And not only military, but economic, moral and volitional. On the world stage it is impossible to earn respect - it is obtained by force. Remember “Eugene Onegin”: “he forced himself to be respected and could not have come up with a better idea.” And then we won’t have to worry: will Trump or Clinton win in the USA? In any case, however, a Trump victory is the lesser evil for Russia. This needs to be managed wisely. Russia has already lost a lot of time - almost two decades. And it is possible that in the next 2-3 years you will have to pay bills.

Tsargrad:Donald Trump won the US election. It is obvious that he, a newcomer to big politics, especially world politics, is faced with a difficult choice of his future strategy. And therefore the question is more philosophical than, so to speak, “victorious.” We know that the president in America is largely an image figure, but in reality the country is run by his headquarters, and not only the obvious one. So, is the winner able to replace the previous headquarters so much that he can change the entire foreign policy paradigm of America? After all, behind those people there are also elites...

Andrey Fursov: It is not the headquarters that are being changed. “Staff officers” are, like the president, clerks. The foreign and domestic political paradigm is being changed by the forces behind Trump and his team. And considerable strength. Especially when you consider who stood for Clinton and whom they outweighed. Almost the entire world bankster army (“Vanguard”, “Black Rock”, Larry Fink and many others) and its servants, first of all, Hollywood - and it’s a bummer.

For me, an important indicator of Trump’s likely victory was not even the FBI’s stuffing within the logic of the seven-day propaganda cycle, but the publication of Jeffrey Sachs’s article, which I had to immediately comment on. Sachs noted that continuing Obama’s course (read: Clinton’s course if she wins) will undermine America within 4-5 years, and therefore it is necessary to moderate imperial ambitions, including in the Middle East. This does not mean that Sachs is against American leadership, by no means. He expresses the interests and views of forces, certain forces in the United States, who believe: America needs a respite and, if you like, perestroika (of course, not Gorbachev’s). In my opinion, Sachs's article was a signal in favor of Trump.

TG: You are talking about "certain" forces behind the candidates. And what are these certain forces? Is it possible to define them more precisely?

AF: Behind the confrontation between Trump and Clinton is a struggle (I’m straightening things out a little) between several factions at the top of the world capitalist class, the main ones among which are the banksters and the corporatocracy. Of course, there are corporations that are very closely associated with the banksters and play on their side, but in general the confrontation is of a distinct nature. Banksters are trying their best to preserve the current globalization, which they present as something objective, the position of the dollar and US hegemony as it took shape in the 1990s. The corporatocracy, with its focus on the development of the late-industrial and hyper-industrial sectors (“real economy”), is not happy with this, since the banksters realize their interests, including at the expense of the corporatocrats. There are several other lines in the Trump Clinton battle (for example, the extreme discontent of the white middle layer), but they are not the main ones.

TG: So, along with Clinton, the “banksters” lost, that is, Wall Street, the neocons and, in general, the “world government”, in quotes, of course?

AF: There is no world government. One world faction defeated another. Moreover, she walked towards this victory very consistently, checkmating the enemy in several moves: Crimea - the migration crisis in Europe - Brexit - and, finally, Trump’s victory. There is a split in the global elite, not just the American one. For example, the Rothschilds - Windsors are categorically opposed to the “transatlantic zone”, on the “towers” ​​of which the Americans will stand and which represents the implementation of Bankster globalization (despite the fact that the Rothschilds are bankers themselves, the current political “squiggle” has brought them to the other camp).

Trump's victory means a high probability of reformatting not only the American, but also the Western political system as a whole. Perhaps this is the beginning of a “revolution from above”, starting at the top of the global capitalist pyramid, a new phase in the intensification of the struggle for a post-capitalist future, which I have been writing about for the last twenty years.

While the banksters robbed ordinary people, this was forgiven. But in recent years, they have increasingly taken aim at their “class brothers,” trying to cover them with the wave of their “global progress.”

There was such a wonderful sociologist - Barrington Moore. He once said that revolutions are born not from the victory cry of the rising classes, but from the dying roar of those classes over which the wave of progress is about to close. To paraphrase Moore and put the global-Bankster “progress” in quotation marks, we can say that today we are witnessing a serious battle between those segments of the world ruling class that the “Banksters” are going to devour with their financial “progress.”

As for Russian-American relations under Trump, there should be no illusions here. Russia and the United States have and will have many serious contradictions. They're not going anywhere. Another thing is that Clinton would most likely try to resolve these contradictions using regional force. With Trump this is less likely. A real improvement in relations is possible only in the case when Russia has the same or almost the same strength as the USSR, and not only military, but economic and moral-volitional. On the world stage it is impossible to earn respect - respect is obtained by force: “he respects himself forced I couldn’t think of anything better.” And then we won’t have to think: what if not Trump? In any case, however, Trump’s victory is the lesser evil for the Russian Federation, and this must be managed intelligently and skillfully. We have already lost a lot of time - almost two decades. Time doesn't wait.

Interviewed by Alexander Tsyganov