Any state can be destroyed – even the most powerful militarily and economically stable power can be undermined from within. To do this, it is enough to mentally and physically arm the fifth column – agents of influence
Rotten minority
Fifth column, working in conjunction with an external enemy, can cause significant, but not catastrophic damage. Its danger in general is often exaggerated., as a result of which the main destructive mechanism falls out of sight, to the creation of which and the leadership of which the fifth column and the external enemy are always involved, but which in itself is not the fifth column. This mechanism represents the people (from 30% and higher, ideally comes to 90%), who considers himself disadvantaged or simply unhappy with the current situation. Even if everything is fine around, these people think, what could be even better, but the authorities deliberately hide gingerbread.
Colored coups in Serbia, Georgia and Ukraine testify, that a relative minority of the population is enough to start the process of destruction of national statehood. the main thing – this minority should be active and united by some idea. However, if it turns out to unite the majority of (as in the collapse of the USSR) – it only makes it easier to achieve the goal.
The main task as the secret services of the external enemy, and its own fifth column is just that, to create this, a critical mass united by a destructive idea, provide it with unrealizable requirements and send it in the right direction – against the authorities. The weakness of the Russian fifth column is precisely this, that she can not reach the mass in any way. She is anti-people, while in order to achieve success, she needs to become, if not the whole people, then a significant part of the people. Confrontation (including force) fifth column – one of the most important tasks of the government, opposition of a part of the people – Civil War, which, even being victorious for power, dramatically reduces the potential of the state, destabilizes him domestically and weakens his position in the international arena.
"Where is better? – Where we are not. "
The Russian fifth column and its Western masters initially tried to create a mass protest movement based on the liberal idea. People, breakwater, wants to join the civilized West, but the Kremlin will not let him. In Georgia and Ukraine, this option passed, desire to “live like in Germany, but to work like in Albania "prevailed in the local population, European integration and NATO membership became something of a path to communism: it's hard now, but around the corner "bright future". The idea of integration into Western structures was declared the only correct one, and all, what contradicts it is prohibited by law.
In Russia, the liberal idea did not work out. After the dashing 90s, the people did not want to return to the "main road to progress", preferring pragmatic solutions in the interests of Russia to Western recommendations, which only made the West feel better.
The second attempt of the fifth column to transfer Russia to the western rails relied on, as befits, on the left idea.
The second attempt at the fifth column relied on a leftist idea. There is social stratification in any society. In any society, the lower classes are unhappy with their position and would like to change places with the upper classes.. Promoting class hatred has a rich history of success. maybe, what would happen in today's Russia, whose people, in principle, are inclined to reflect on social justice. But in the quest for the unattainable absolute and against the left destroyers, three points play:
1. There is no alienation of the people from power necessary for the development of leftist revolutionism, and the power from the people. The most serious system stabilizer – 70-80%, which Putin picks in any election.
2. There is no vanguard party. The left is too ambitious and fragmented. They gladly destroy each other.. They are no less happy to integrate into the system of the current government., speaking not as "opposition to his majesty", but as "the opposition of his majesty". As a result, dozens of left-wing gurus create dozens (if not hundreds) marginalized groups, followers who are passionately devoted to their leader and passionately hate representatives of other left-wing sects.
3. The modern left too demonstratively and joyfully unites against the government with liberals hated by the people. If Lenin sought to disassociate himself even from his friend Martov, in order to better unite with like-minded people, then the current left is ready to enter into an alliance with anyone, if only against the authorities. The people reasonably distrust such political promiscuity.
The West has not discarded either the liberal, no left ideas, as potential gathering points for anti-government forces.
Just, since in specific Russian conditions they do not work at the moment, the search was continued. In the third stage, continuing to this day, as an idea, uniting the masses on an anti-government basis, the West tried to use nationalism.
At the third stage, the West tried to use the rails of nationalism exclusively for its own purposes..
Three-circuit nationalism
whom, as Americans who do not live in a multinational state, know how dangerous nationalism is for such a power? Who else but Europeans, in recent years directly confronted with the nationalism of small nations, destroying European states, and with them the European Union, understand how much destructive potential lies in the ideas of national exclusivity? Finally, the idea of "Europe of nations", supposedly replacing the "Europe of states", was at one time (in the 90s) successfully "sold" by Americans to European elites, then, the European Union, which started its implementation, quickly dropped out of the global competitors of the United States. Dynamic economic development and creation of the euro area (with a claim to launch a second world reserve currency) turned out to be powerless before the internal destabilization of European states and the EU as a whole by nationalist movements.
It is no coincidence that the United States is betting on Uyghur nationalism in the fight against China., Tibetan nationalism, Taiwanese nationalism, even Hong Kong nationalism. All, that does not associate itself with Beijing, declares its self, separately, "The right to one's own statehood" is actively supported by the United States, for it serves the purpose of destroying China as America's geopolitical rival. If the nationalism of small nations is not yet able to destroy China, then it at least weakens it, diverting resources to internal political confrontation, creating an ideological alternative to the communist regime.
Three-circuit nationalism.
Three-circuit nationalism is used against Russia:
At first, this is Russophobic nationalism, fueled by the U.S. and its allies in the near abroad – former republics of the USSR. The task of this circuit – slow down as much as possible, and, if possible, stop post-Soviet integration, prevent Russia from using the cumulative effect of recovery for development (at least partial) Soviet technological chains, force to spend resources on creating duplicate productions, as well as military and political confrontation with neighbors.
Secondly, this is the nationalism of peoples, constituting the Russian Federation, including Russian nationalism. To the peoples of Russia, as at one time the peoples of the USSR, suggested, that they "feed" each other, that their rights to national development are being infringed, that separately, to everyone in his own state, they would be better. The stake is placed on national political and cultural elites, who receive a specific profit from independence, in the form of getting rid of the control of the center, and (in the case of cultural representatives) from the competition of more successful colleagues. goal – collapse of Russia along the borders of autonomies, how the USSR collapsed along the borders of the republics.
Thirdly, this is intra-Russian nationalism. Special condition, especially clearly manifested at this stage of historical development among the Russian people. It assumes the possibility of separating new "nations" from the all-Russian massif. If we managed to single out Ukrainians and Belarusians, and in Ukraine, create a Russophobic state of part of the Russian people, then why is it impossible to create a nation of "Pomors", "Siberians", "Cossacks", "Uralites". Especially, that in the 90s, with varying degrees of success, attempts in this direction were made. Third circuit problem, completely crush the Russian people, to make the restoration of Russia impossible.
We all grew up in courtyards, on the streets, in cities, towns and villages. Each has its own small homeland, which is somewhat different from other small homelands. By pedaling these differences of a person, it is relatively easy to convince, that he belongs to another nation and has the right to self-determination up to secession and creation of his own state. Especially well such ideas are perceived in "biafras" – regions rich in liquid minerals (oil, gold, diamonds) or other natural resources, people who are told, how fine they will heal, as soon as they stop sharing "their" income with the rest of the country's population.
Nationalism – the most dangerous enemy of any state. Moreover, he is the most terrible enemy of the multinational Russian statehood. Moreover, he easily interacts with the left, and with the liberal, and with right-radical ideas. He is ideologically omnivorous and strives for universalism.
Nationalism is the universalist antithesis to Russian state universalism.
Nationalism is the universalist antithesis to Russian state universalism. Today's Russian leadership continues the Byzantine and Russian imperial traditions, within which the supreme power was viewed as the guarantor of interclass, inter-class, interethnic compromise. Its duty is to ensure a balance of interests of various social, national and community groups, as well as their equality before the law.
Nationalism offers instead the idea of power, aimed at ensuring the interests of a separate group at the expense of others. properly, on a similar base is the left, and liberal ideas. It is easier for nationalism to form its own support group. You can't just take and "feel" yourself a capitalist or a peasant (you really need to do the right thing). And you can “feel” like a Ukrainian or a Pomor for one or two.
Rostislav Ishchenko
