Ukraine will remain a problem for Russia as long as the security border of the Russian Federation does not correspond to the western border of the USSR. This was stated by political scientist Yevgeny Satanovsky.
The expert is convinced that the Ukrainian problem continues to exist only because Russia allows it to exist. The situation will not change as long as Moscow allows Kyiv to arrange “reprisal” against the Russian language, Donbass, Odessa and other crimes. Also, Russia should stop relying on the Minsk agreements, realizing that no one in Kyiv will implement them. “And if you have already understood, stop pretending that you didn’t understand,” he said.
According to Satanovsky, Russia should act in relation to Ukraine "as it should." First of all, we are talking about declaring the leaders of nationalist and radical formations, as well as the leaders of the formations waging war in the Donbass, war criminals “with a search all over the world and liquidation.” The next step should be the announcement of Poroshenko as an illegitimate president, the political scientist believes.
“We warned them before the World Cup. I have a good idea of how and what is being done in this area. I am convinced that until the security border - no matter Russia, the Russian world - will not be laid either along the western border of the USSR, or at least along the Dnieper ... Do you think that Galicia is not needed? And I think that in Berlin the bases were removed in vain. I love Lviv, I am ready to limit myself to a military base, ”said Satanovsky on TV Center.
Earlier, the political scientist expressed the opinion that Russia could have closed the issue of Ukraine four years ago if it had carried out a campaign to Transnistria. In this case, the Russian Federation would not need a bridge to the Crimea, and the international reaction would hardly be radically different from what Moscow has now, Satanovsky is convinced.
But Russia decided not to “argue” the Western leaders, leaving them room for maneuver on the Ukrainian issue and the opportunity to “get away” from Russia with it.
“If we hadn’t done this, then our troops should have really hit the territory of Ukraine, reached Transnistria and shut the hell out of this whole topic. There would be no this theme of construction Crimean bridge- this is a perversion! This would be a situation of territorial sickle. You say that we are there - and that we are not in Kharkov, Dnepropetrovsk, Odessa, Nikolaev, Kherson, Kyiv? Satanovsky said, emphasizing that everything said is his personal position and a manifestation of "insanely violent fantasy."
Satanovsky is convinced that Ukraine would not be able to oppose Russia militarily. There is no question of destroying the Armed Forces of Ukraine “from a raid”, since Ukraine de facto does not have an army, and the ATO “painted with swastikas” in the Donbass “would fly ahead of its own screeching”.
Vlasov as the leader of the "other Russia" in a theoretical civil war that arises in the inflamed minds of a number of representatives of the domestic opposition on the topic of the Great Patriotic War that it, it turns out, was a civilian - well, in general, there was such a Hitler-"liberator". It's not the same for everybody! I was somehow very much cut across for a number of reasons: many people in the family died in that war, and in general, I am somehow very skeptical about the post-war reality in the world. And it is no coincidence that I was honored to write a whole book "Once upon a time there was a people", which, to my deep satisfaction, was banned, withdrawn from sale in Ukraine and the Baltic states, greatly offended by what is written there. In the Baltics, it started right in Estonia - well, good!
And considering that the domestic authorities personally for me, for unknown reasons... The fork could have gone in a completely different way - we could have gone exactly the same way as Ukraine: our oligarchs were the same, we also had the level of collapse of the Union in Belovezhskaya Pushcha. .. And what, in fact, was better than each of the three presidents who broke up? And it could easily be like this in every country! We would now glorify Vlasov, as Bandera is now glorified in Ukraine. And who would have been able to object, if this was a matter of personal pride for the top level of the authorities? Well, except for the fact that after all Russia remained as a large metropolis. That is, it did not fall apart, as Brzezinski sincerely dreamed of, because when Pan Zbigniew said that, well, Russia with Ukraine is an empire, and without Ukraine it is not an empire! I remember, I still managed to catch him at the Yaroslavl forum, he said many things for his students beautifully, but meaninglessly - of course, Russia became an empire not thanks to Ukraine, but thanks to Siberia! Siberia, further the Far East - all that happened, this is the Empire!
Yes, of course, with Ukraine, another topic began, or rather, it continued - these are passages to the West to that very Europe, which in Rurik's times was partially quite "our everything". It is enough to recall the origin of the then princely family, and who was sitting there over this whole of Europe - those very Scandinavians were sitting! Lord, what's the difference?! We mostly had ethnic Swedes, and there were Danes, Norwegians - in general, there was no difference! They were gathered into one such large tribal pool and they knew it very well. And then somehow there was the Livonian War under Ivan Vasilyevich - which, in fact, we didn’t have with this very West! And what we will not have with him yet! Those who assume that we will somehow disperse all the same calmly - we will not disperse!
A well-known orientalist about Russia after Putin, Middle Eastern solitaire games and “adventurous but sensible” Trump
Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Turkey are competing with each other in their influence on Russian Muslims and are gaining ground with us, says Evgeny Satanovsky, director of the Middle East Institute, noting that such influence should be treated very carefully. In an interview with BUSINESS Online, Satanovsky spoke about why the idea of sitting on Russia's neck is common in the Arab world, whether Erdogan can be considered a "Turkish Stalin", and Iran our ally, and what disasters the 2030s could turn into for the Russian Federation.
Yevgeny Satanovsky: “Iran is our temporary companion and partner, the country with which we maintain relations in the economic sphere is not the largest compared to Turkey or China” Photo: BUSINESS Online
"There are practically NO AMERICANS IN THE IRAQI OIL INDUSTRY"
— Evgeny Yanovich, it has recently become known that Rosneft has agreed with Iraqi Kurdistan on the development of five oil blocks on its territory. Where does our oilmen get such courage from? Is it because, as they say, Iraqi Kurdistan is more dependent on Turkey than on Baghdad?
- Iraqi Kurdistan depends on everyone. It depends on Baghdad because without its consent it will not be able to export oil. When the oil smuggling channels through Turkey were cut off, through which the same Daesh oil flowed ( Arabic name for the terrorist group ISIS banned in Russia— approx. ed.), there are almost no alternatives left for the Kurds. When ours took up this issue in Syria, the Americans were forced to stop smuggling in Iraq as well. Moreover, Turkey is at war with the Kurds today, and the relationship between Kurdistan President Masoud Barzani and Recep Tayyip Erdogan is very difficult.
Iraqi Kurdistan is dependent on Iran because there are no alternative ways to export oil, except through Basra and further through the Shatt al-Arab (the river that flows through the territories of Iraq and Iran) by sea. There are ideas of cross-border oil exports and its transportation to the world market through Iranian territory, but it is not clear what to do with all this. No neighbor supported Kurdistan during the independence referendum ( although on September 25, 2017, 92.73% of local Kurds voted in favor of the independence of Kurdistan – approx. ed.). In addition, Barzani lost Kirkuk on this ( transferred federal forces Iraq last October — approx. ed.). Struggling for power in the framework of an inter-clan fight, in a situation where the local opposition, the Gorran (Movement for Change) party continues to grow, Barzani actually surrendered Kirkuk to Shiite units. Peshmerga ( armed Kurdish forces — approx. ed.) retreated, languidly snapping, and the Shiites occupied the territory.
The Shiite militia is now constituted and is part of the Iraqi army. In addition, a party was created on this basis, which collected a lot of votes in the last elections. And the Kurds will not be able to get rid of this threat. So I wouldn't say it was safe for Rosneft to get involved with the Kurdistan government. Moreover, no gratitude can be expected here - in the pursuit of money, these people are ready to push their problems onto anyone.
— Sechin is a risky person, as we know from his biography.
— Igor Ivanovich Sechin is a unique person. He can, knowing the size of Rosneft, which is developing and rather quickly striving for the role of Gazprom in the oil industry, use support from the very top to resolve problems with the governments of Erbil ( capital of Iraqi Kurdistan — approx. ed.) and Baghdad. Management will certainly do this, and with the highest degree likely the situation will return to normal. The point here is not even the risk, but the fact that Vladimir Vladimirovich [Putin], as the president of the Russian Federation, directly involved in foreign policy and energy policy on major issues, has an amazing ability to negotiate with all local players. He, of course, fails to come to an agreement with the "Westerners", but here the problem is simple: they do not want to negotiate with anyone, while Vladimir Putin is in the leadership of Russia. And you can't do anything about it. Leaving a post just to please the “Westerners” is sheer stupidity. And in all other cases, Putin manages to negotiate. In this context, we have a unique situation in Iraq, and some conflicts here can be corrected in the most miraculous way, despite the fact that British Petroleum has been chosen by the government of Baghdad as the main oil operator. And there are practically no Americans in the Iraqi oil industry.
- Doesn't the absence of the Americans open up opportunities for us to establish ourselves in the Iraqi oil market - at least through Kurdistan?
“It does not reveal anything to us, because there are Chinese oil companies and Malaysian companies. Yes, Lukoil works there, as does Gazpromneft. And Rosneft. But I never tire of repeating: if there are no competitors in some place, this does not mean at all that everything is crazy open for you there. Nothing like this. If Marilyn Monroe divorced Joe DiMaggio, this did not automatically mean that everyone who wanted her got her. Even John Kennedy - and he was killed. Little whether that opened? You still need to be able to use these opportunities ( According to the announced intentions of Rosneft, the total recoverable reserves in the territory of Kurdistan can be about 670 million barrels, and the amount of payments to the government - up to $400 million. However, the Baghdad government called the deal illegal. — approx. ed.).
Photo: kremlin.ru
“IF YOU ARE IN THE COUP IN IRAQ, YOU WILL BE KILLED IN THE MOST BRUTAL AND BLOODY WAY”
- We talk and write a lot about Syria, but you rarely hear about Iraq, where the militants of the banned Daesh group are also almost finished. What is the real state of affairs there, in your opinion?
“Islamist militants were largely ousted from Iraq. This was partly due to the fact that local sheikhs received subsidies and, having agreed with field commanders, they accepted back to their places of original residence those militants who came from the Republic of Iraq. That is, the physical destruction there affected a small number of terrorists, but it is also impossible to calculate it. Because, if you believe the government troops, it will turn out that more terrorists were killed there than the population of the entire country. And in Syria, the statistics are the same. This is a very difficult situation, which for the Americans in Iraq was made easier by the fact that the Shiite militia fought on the side of the government, a little Kurds (a little bit, because the Kurds didn’t fight very much at all, but mostly seized territories for a referendum on independence, which they successfully failed in September last year). Plus the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps - IRGC with General Qasem Soleimani ( major general and commander of the special forces "El-Quds" as part of the corps — approx. ed.). Soleimani surprisingly commanded his units near Mosul, operating next to American target designators. And somehow they, the Americans and the Iranians, did not notice each other, despite all Trump's cries against Iran and the sanctions against Qasem Soleimani, that one wonders at the consistency of the US policy. But in fact, the Americans are very pragmatic, and the CIA and the Pentagon act absolutely on their own and apart from the US State Department and everything that is said in the White House.
- Can a new radical and even more terrible movement in its content grow out of the fragments of the defeated Islamic State, as DAISH arose from Al-Qaeda in its time ( , —approx. ed.)?
- The banned Daesh was only initially called the "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant", and then simply the "Islamic State". In fact, these are just local Sunnis who did not receive a share in the government of Iraq and did not receive oil money ( one of the groups that took part in the creation of ISIS was called “The army of adherents of the Sunnah and the community” — approx. ed.). Where will they go now - not to destroy them all? But since they are not destroyed and not integrated into the new reality, anything will arise on this base. Especially if you throw in the money of the "fillers" ( gulf countries — approx. ed.). In this case, supporting the Islamic State is a Qatari project, while supporting al-Qaeda is a classic Saudi project. What form might a new grouping take? Yes, in any! And whether it will be more radical or less - these are all nonsense and inventions of our colleagues from the press. Iraq is the most cruel country in the region since antiquity, and it probably remains so today in relation to its own population. If you participated in a coup in Syria, then you can be sent somewhere as an ambassador or imprisoned - there were dozens of such examples in the post-war period. But if you got into a coup in Iraq, then you will certainly be killed in the most cruel and bloodthirsty way. We remember from history what Assyria was, which honestly recorded its cruelty on bas-reliefs ( it is believed that in ancient Assyria, located on the territory of modern Iraq, impalement was invented — approx. ed.).
- You mentioned once that Iraq has been a quasi-state since the death of Saddam Hussein. Has it remained so to this day?
— Of course, as well as most of the Middle East and other local regions. Well, is Sudan a state? Or Somalia? Or Yemen and Afghanistan? In addition, a huge number of countries were destabilized after the "Arab Spring" and at the moment they are not states as such. Although they, at first glance, have everything: state flags, anthems, ambassadors and all the formal structures of power. But the Middle East and Africa are, first of all, systems of tribes and ethno-confessional groups. Accordingly, what the Iraqi government controls is not very clear, even in the Shiite zone. The government can formally include representatives of the Kurds and some Sunni, but these people do not control Iraqi Kurdistan or Sunni areas. Separatism flourishes inside the Shiite zones of Iraq. Who said that the Iraqi prime minister can control areas where the majority is, for example, the population supporting Muqtada al-Sadr ( leader of the Mahdi Army, known for instigating an uprising in April 2004 against the international occupying forces in the holy Shia city of Najaf – approx. ed.)?
It is necessary to understand this, but no one wants to understand this. Therefore, it is difficult to say how Rosneft will act with its oil projects in Iraqi Kurdistan. This causes great invectives from Baghdad. Iraqi Kurdistan has not become an independent state and, it seems, will not become in the coming decades. It is not very clear who generally advised Rosneft in terms of prospects in Iraqi Kurdistan.
“Islamist militants were largely ousted from Iraq” Photo: Mikhail Alaeddin, RIA Novosti
“WHY RUSSIAN MUSLIMS SHOULD RESTORE SYRIA? DO THEY HAVE NO OTHER BUSINESS?"
- Not so long ago, Russia signed an agreement with Bashar al-Assad that our military group will be present in Syria (at the Khmeimim base) for the next 40 years. Does this mean that the Assad regime, which everyone recently thought was over, is so confident in its longevity?
- Hong Kong was once rented by Great Britain for 99 years, but those who gave it to the British are unlikely to have lived to see the end of this period. The Americans have the Guantanamo base, but the president who signed this treaty does not rule in the United States, nor does Cuba have a previous government. Even the days of Fidel Castro are over. However, the agreement is still in effect. It does not correlate with the physical life span of a particular ruler. So here.
“I mean the longevity of the Assad regime, not his own. If the Americans do press him and appoint their successor, won't this jeopardize the newly concluded agreements with the Russian Federation?
— Mode can be any. But when a Russian military base is present in the country, this is a very serious factor. Recall that in Syria, since the Soviet era, a logistics center for the Navy has been preserved. The only thing that can force the contingent to leave this base is the decision of the government of their own, and not a foreign country. Who decided to close the bases in Cam Ranh (Vietnam) and Lourdes (Cuba)? Our leadership, which decided that we do not need to be there anymore ( in 2001 — approx. ed.). Now the same management has changed its mind ( in November 2013 Vladimir Putin and the President of Vietnam Truong Tan Shang signed an agreement to establish a joint base for the maintenance and repair of submarines in Cam Ranh — approx. ed.). Because an understanding has been reached that it is still necessary to be present somewhere outside the Motherland. Accordingly, we will see what regime will be in Syria in 40 years. But this does not negate the importance of the Russian military presence in the SAR - in the eastern Mediterranean, that is, along the road from the Black Sea through the straits to the Suez Canal. It is not very clear who, how and in what way will be able to knock Russia out of this bridgehead. Especially when you consider that in the Crimea, despite numerous attempts, there is no NATO, but there is a Russian fleet. I leave out the others Black Sea Fleets, including even Turkish today. While maintaining the Khmeimim base, we are guaranteed that there will be no problems for Russian shipping in this region. And we'll see. For us, both 5 and 10 years is a long historical period, and even 40 ... This is a prerequisite for restoring much in the civil and military fleet from what we have destroyed. Unless, of course, they take up the restoration seriously, and do not treat it the same way as the implementation of the "May" presidential decrees.
— And who will restore war-ravaged Syria? Can Russian Muslims, for example, take part in this?
- Donate 10 thousand rubles each and restore Syria with this money - this does not happen. Restore or state subsidies, or in the framework of some loans and investments. In general, I prefer not to make predictions in such cases. Moreover, not a single forecast on the planet has yet come true, except for one - that we will all die someday. In the economy, and especially in specific things, forecasts are an absolutely thankless thing. Money loves silence. But, knowing the Syrians, I can say that they have always been a trading people and at the same time one of the most intelligent in terms of establishing production in the Middle East. In addition, they are very patriotic. Therefore, the Syrians are those who will primarily restore Syria. Let's not forget about the Syrian emigration - first of all, the old emigration. There are many waves of Syrian emigration all over the planet, and I have seen more than one billionaire among these guys. Having received appropriate guarantees and preferences, the Syrian foreign diaspora may well take up the restoration of their homeland.
Who restored the Soviet Union after the war? Did they write out a separate Marshall Plan for us, gave us money? No, we had nothing but our pocket and our hands. And the destruction in the USSR was much worse than in Syria. However, we did everything ourselves.
- It is believed that Syria spoils relations with the Muslim world largely because of the Alawite group that is in power there.
Syrians are secular people. Under Assad Sr., the secular component was dominant in the SAR. Unfortunately, Bashar al-Assad turned out to be very democratic and soft compared to his father Hafez al-Assad. At the same time, he wanted to liberalize the country: he released all the Islamists from prisons, and they immediately led the detachments that almost destroyed Syria during the civil war. If we are talking about fanatics, about radical Islamists, then the Assad regime has really big problems with such people. In Russia they are shot, but in Syria there are still a lot of them, and a huge number of fanatics are now squeezed into the province of Idlib. These people from Idlib do not need to rebuild Syria at all - they need to kill everyone who is not like them. In parallel, they are engaged in the extermination of each other, and they are not at all hindered by the fact that they are all Sunnis. It is much more important whether these are pro-Saudi or pro-Turkish groups. Splits also happen between different wings of political movements, as was the case between Jabhat al-Nusra ( terrorist group banned in Russia, — approx. ed.) and "Ahrar ash-Sham" in the same Idlib. In this situation, I do not quite understand why Russian Muslims should deal with Syria? Do they have other things to do? Even if they do, it is not the whole Ummah, but some specific people and corporations. Perhaps they will cooperate as a city with a city on the twinning model. Although it is difficult to call purely economic relations twinning. Or some profile republic of the Russian Federation or autonomy will suddenly start special relations with the Syrian region. But you can't force anyone. Business can only pretend that it is ready to carry out commands from above, but in reality it will not do anything that is contrary to its interests, reasonable logic and profit. Will the state compensate him for the losses? Having spawned, it did not compensate and will not compensate. Do not go to the porch after that.
So let's agree: Syria should be restored by the Syrian people and the Syrian government. If they are seriously hindered in this, then Russian government and our military diplomats will surely try to help. But no more than. The idea that Russia can sit on its neck and hang its legs down (say, let the Russians - regardless of the nationality of the soldiers of the military contingent - fight and let the Russians restore) - this, of course, is a healthy idea, and it has been born all over the Arab world. But we have already lost the Soviet Union once. Therefore, there is no need to overexert yourself and provide fraternal help, having your own problems.
Photo: Mikhail Ozersky, RIA Novosti
“THE ATTEMPTS OF THE HOLY PATRIARCH TO PROVE THAT ALL OUR TROUBLES BECAUSE THE PEOPLE LEFT THE CHURCH IS AN EXTREMELY DESTRUCTIVE IDEA”
- In this regard, I want to ask: does Russia now have some kind of ideological mission in the Middle East, similar to the one that was in the days of the Russian Empire and the USSR?
- The ideological mission is cretinism, which was invented by loafers and blockheads who did not know how and do not know how to do anything except plow others for themselves. This was the case under the Soviet Union, but in the Russian Federation this category of people did not die out, to my mind much to my regret. Even now they continue to sell the leadership the idea of the absolute necessity of an ideological mission, and therefore of themselves, armless and brainless blockheads, as a nurturing force. For those who are not very good at doing something themselves, this is generally a very pleasant thing. But I don't really understand why the hell we should all return to this path? Are we really sheep? Explain to me, what was the ideological mission of Peter I and Catherine the Great, who, oh, how well they ruled the country they led? When they forged the empire, did they have an ideological mission? I understand that in the 19th century, German professors invented all this bullshit for Nicholas I. And under the Soviet Union, this was even more strengthened and still remains in the brains of some.
- The mission was simple: the Russian emperors built a "true Orthodox kingdom", providing assistance to the Slavic and other peoples falling into the orbit of our interests.
- You know, that's why Nicholas I lost the Crimean War. Because in a situation where he controlled everything in the world (and he really controlled a lot, including most of Europe after the Napoleonic wars), I wanted to justify why we need all this. Moreover, in the 1830s we also had straits ( Bosphorus and Dardanelles — approx. ed.) were generally under control. Well, they figured it out. As a result, they blew the Crimean War, and through two kings they got a revolution.
The role of the Orthodox Church in the history of Russia and in its movement along the path along which it reached the Arctic and Pacific Oceans is much more insignificant than it is invented by people who invent ideological and other missions. Exactly the same as today. For believers, it may be offensive. But let's separate the struggle for power and resources from the real state of affairs. The irrepressible struggle for power and resources, quite material, and at the same time for an attempt to control, referring to things that did not exist, do not exist and will not, leads to the emergence of militant atheism and to very difficult tragedies - thus, as a result of which the church after the revolution not only lost its positions, but practically disappeared and did not influence anything before the Great Patriotic War. And in today's conditions, we can once again run into the same rake. I don't really believe in the various myths about who's role was or what it will be. You can, of course, as in Syria, come up with another mission that benevolent and sincere, but not very smart people tried to break through at the beginning of events. I remember one of our guys who is famous, good-looking, talks a lot and is related to weapons in the Middle East: he said that Syria is a primordial Christian land, in which he was right. On this basis, he called for the restoration of everything that had been since the time when shields were nailed to the gates of Constantinople. In order to slaughter all the Russians in Syria, it was very useful, but for nothing else. Al-Qaeda could only applaud him. In my opinion, the same applies to the attempt of His Holiness the Patriarch to prove that all our troubles are due to the fact that the people left the church. This is an extremely destructive idea. Although it sounded even among the Jews: they say, all your troubles and the Holocaust are due to the fact that you are atheists, and even marry not your own. Much of this happened to Muslims. The idea is absolutely explosive. Therefore, I am very far from ideology and am extremely hostile to it. I really do not want the third in a hundred years of the collapse of the country. Those who come up with this stupidity don't want it either, but they provoke it.
- Nevertheless, you were in vain to mention Catherine the Great as a model of de-ideologized government. After all, it was not without reason, for example, that she named one of her grandchildren Konstantin. Historians testify that she was going to someday put Constantine on the Byzantine throne liberated from the Turkish sultan.
How do you know about her?
- From the historiography dedicated to the Catherine's era.
- Let's not attribute the notions and fairy tales of various idiots great empress. Catherine, as an ethnic German who converted to Orthodoxy solely to be included in the leadership of the country where this faith dominated, was an extremely pragmatic person. And it is no coincidence that she categorically banned missionary work on the territory of the empire, causing a very complex reaction from the then hierarchs of the Orthodox Church. Catherine's predecessor, Peter I, turned this hierarchy, generally speaking, into a ram's horn (Peter generally did not like anyone who would object to him). His heirs, judging by the results, were not so worthy. However, under Nicholas I, the German professors substantiated everything for us and came up with a mission: a) we are going into battle for the Slavic brothers, b) we are going straight to the Byzantine throne. And why pester his late grandmother Ekaterina about how she called her children and ordered her grandchildren to be called? Not only did I not see Constantine as the Byzantine emperor, I did not see him at the head of the Russian Empire either.
- He ruled the Kingdom of Poland, but from the throne, knowing about the riots in the capital after the departure of AlexanderI, simply refused, yielding it to Nicholas.
- Yes. But the rest is fiction, a chest called "Alternative History and Fantasy." Put it on the bookshelf and forget it. Otherwise, you and I will turn into something like the Ren-TV channel, in which, if not a world conspiracy, then reptilians. Catherine was engaged in a specific war with the enemy along the borders - primarily with the Turks. She bit off a huge number of territories, including Sochi and Anapa. And even Ukraine was part of the Turkish Porte - which was not part of Poland. From the time of Catherine to the defeat of the Ottoman Empire, it was still far how far away. And we brilliantly and tragically blew the Crimean War - tragically for Nicholas I, who was much better as a person and commander, and as the leader of the country, than everyone wrote about him Soviet time. And he died, catching a cold, giving rise to legends that he shot himself out of grief after the defeat.
But, in the end, both the leadership of the country and the leadership of the Russian Orthodox Church are free to do whatever they want. What mythologies will feed them, I do not know, but if this happens, they will destroy everything again. As they say, God loves a trinity. Did the then leadership, headed by the tsar, slammed the Russian empire? Banged. Soviet Union leadership headed by the Politburo crashed? It crashed. Who prevents in our times from repeating the same mistakes for the third time? Nobody.
“I hope 'Love of the Trinity' fails this time.
- But in the 30s we will see if I live. In order for something not to happen, it is required either to act in the right direction, or at least not to act in the wrong direction. And for now, I see that in our pursuit of power and resources, everyone is pulling the blanket over themselves, including where it all can explode.
Photo: kremlin.ru
"ANY LEADERSHIP OF TURKEY AFTER ERDOGAN WILL BE ANTI-RUSSIAN"
- But, let's say, the relationship between Putin and the "Turkish Sultan" Erdogan is quite pragmatic. It is difficult to read any ideological codes in them.
- They are pragmatic on the part of Vladimir Vladimirovich. And very often not pragmatic on the part of Erdogan. Since Recep Erdogan is a man who firmly believes in his mission to revive the Ottoman Porte and in the influence of Turkey as an agabeylik, “big brother” in the entire space where the Turkic once set foot, from Yakutia to Gagauzia. The Turkish president is a very imperial and very illogical person. He, of course, managed to reformat Ataturk's Turkey, and today it is Erdogan's Turkey, that is, a completely different country. But here is the question. Because the influence of the Turks on the territory of Russia is very important for Recep Erdogan, and this influence is far from being only economic. In a number of regions of the Russian Federation, it is very noticeable, and it is impossible to get rid of it by teams from the center. Attempts after the downed Russian Su-24 aircraft ( in November 2015 — approx. ed.) were and caused a dull but stubborn resistance of the local elites. For which, if their main investor is a Turkish investor, nothing can be done about it. You won’t be able to replace them, because too many relatives of these elites live in Turkey, have a business there, or simply took money there.
But what will happen after Erdogan is interesting. Because it is already clear today that any post-Erdogan leadership in Turkey will be anti-Russian. Erdogan is simply fighting against everyone in the world - with his pro-American military elite, with his pro-American and pro-European businessmen, with Islamists like Fethullah Gülen, who lives in the United States. And in this capacity, he is forced to listen to his main support - the businessmen of Anatolia, who are conservative and for whom the price of gas is important and that Turkish construction firms worked in Russia. But no more than. Erdogan himself is a rather dangerous and unpredictable neighbor. I don't think you can talk about him as a pragmatist. Putin is an unconditional pragmatist, so he endures all these “quirks” and gently reduces communication to what is useful for Russia. But for this, thanks to Vladimir Vladimirovich, and not to Recep Tayyip Erdogan.
Turkey's influence in Russia, perhaps, has become less noticeable, but it remains. I would not say that the corresponding jamaats have disappeared in our country. Moreover, we continue to compete with Qatar, the Saudis and Turkey over the influence on Russian Muslims. In a number of regions of the Russian Federation, using each other's mistakes, they are strengthening. It is with sadness that I observe the situation with the influence of Qatar in Ingushetia ( only at the beginning of this year Yunus-Bek Yevkurov traveled to Qatar — approx. ed.). And in Dagestan, I would not say that Saudi influence has decreased. Although the Saudis are no longer engaged in us, as was the case in the first and second Chechen wars, but more in Syria and Iraq and, fortunately, stuck in Yemen. And most of their money is no longer going to our territory, but to the Middle East. In this sense, we are lucky. But I am always careful about the contacts of Russian Muslims with foreign ones, in order to avoid the influence of visiting emissaries in the Russian Federation, including through their local cadres. We do not yet have our own, local personnel, and all attempts to form them lead to the fact that radicals from the countries of the Middle East are trying to saddle them. And the Egyptian Al-Azhar University is definitely not an assistant to us in this. In my time, I watched quite a lot of people from Syrian and Egyptian universities. For example, in al-Qaeda educational establishments in Yemen, at one time, they recruited guys from Bashkortostan - they supposedly left to study, and then it suddenly turned out that they were already participating in battles with the Houthis. The Ren-TV channel I have already mentioned was reporting almost from the battlefield, proving what heroic young people they are. Apparently, the journalists who did this did not understand anything at all.
The Muslim Brotherhood, fortunately, remains on the banned list of the prosecutor's office, but their lobby, when Mohammed Morsi was the president of Egypt, almost managed to get them excluded from this list. Things in Russian political circles were generally amazing. The lobby of the "Muslim Brotherhood" operated in the State Duma, and in the Foreign Ministry, and in academic structures.
— There is nothing surprising in the fact that the Islamic agenda in Russia is very relevant. According to official estimates, we have about 20 million Muslims...
- No, this is an obvious mistake: 20 million are people who belong to ethnic groups that traditionally profess Islam. Agree, this is a huge difference compared to the phrase "we have 20 million Muslims." We do not have 20 million Muslims, we do not have, conditionally, 100 million Orthodox, but we do have people belonging to ethnic groups whose basic religion was or is Islam or Orthodoxy. Of course, the percentage of those de facto practicing religious rites and actually believing in Islam is higher than in all other ethno-confessional groups in our country. Let's say 15-20 percent. This is quite a lot, but no more than.
— You spoke about the absence of “their own” management personnel in the Russian Muslim environment. But are muftis Talgat Tajuddin, Ravil Gaynutdin and others not powerful enough to control the situation in the ummah? Or is it just a facade?
- Religious background - it is the background. As well as in Orthodoxy. Otherwise, there would be no Bishop Diomede in Chukotka ( made a sharp criticism of the leadership of the Russian Orthodox Church in 2007 — approx. ed.), there would not be so many Protestant groups that are very skeptical of neighbors in the faith of Christ. The Islamic Ummah is, of course, split into as many parts as it can be split at all. Both in our own Middle East region and beyond. It is unlikely that anyone here manages anything at all. It is simply impossible, and even more so in Islam. There is no rigid vertical of power here, except, perhaps, for the institute of ayatollahs in Iran. But they have a fundamentally different system.
It should be understood that the religious factor in his relations with the state is much more inflated than in reality. The flow of people going to the Islamic world to make war does it mainly for money. Very few go to terrorist and radical organizations on different fronts, based on their convictions. Most are mercenaries. Or those who left the local authorities, having quarreled with them because of the redistribution of property or during the struggle of the elites. They go into the forest or into the mountains, simply because the local elites are deeply corrupt and completely unable to cope with the situation. We see this today in Dagestan, with which Vladimir Vasilyev has to work quite hard, mowing a clearing where the former leadership messed up. I remember how the dearest person, a senator from Dagestan, at one time strongly objected to me in the Federation Council to the arguments that they had such a large Salafi ummah (and I think half of their religious points are pro-Saudi Salafis). And then what happened happened. This is an objective reality. Expecting from people what they cannot is in vain.
In any case, has the war in Chechnya been extinguished? Redeemed. The remnants of some radical Islamist groups in the same Chechnya sometimes try to carry out terrorist attacks. Sometimes these attacks are directed at local Christians, as was the case recently, sometimes at local authorities. But they cannot seize power in the republic. Another alarming situation is that often in the corridors of power you can see guys with Russian passports, with the Russian language, who have received a good Islamic education by our standards - they come to the administration, entering the local power structures. As a rule, they are welcomed with open arms, because they declare: “We speak the same Russian language with you! Let's solve all the problems with Islam in favor of the state, because we are patriots. Yes, we will also bring money, but we will do everything at our own expense.” Very often, the authorities are led to this. The result is the appearance in the Russian Federation of cells that are not configured to build the Russian state, and even more so to submit to the central government in Moscow, which for them is a complete jakhiliya ( paganism, primitive ignorance before the adoption of Islam — approx. ed.). But they won't say anything about jahiliyyah to the local governor.
Photo: shaimiev.tatarstan.ru
“WE STILL REMAIN A TERRITORY WHICH MAY BE USEFUL TO THE WORLD ESTABLISHMENT IN CASE OF WHAT”
- Tatarstan is not a problem area in this sense? After the treaty with the republic was not renewed and the “law on native languages” was pushed through the State Duma, there is noticeable unrest among Tatarstan nationalists and intellectuals.
— It is clear that under Mintimer Sharipovich Shaimiev, a flexible and wise man who realized in his time that the country was crumbling, certain processes were going on in Tatarstan. Those who want to remember that a couple of decades ago, before Putin came to the presidency, the question was not whether the Russian Federation would fall apart or not fall apart - this was not even discussed - but how many specific pieces, 8 or 10, and how they will live with each other. How many different Russias will we have? And everything was already formalized territorially: there was already the Ural Republic of Eduard Rossel (no matter how much later they assured that the Ural franc was issued “just like that, for themselves”). Tatarstan, with its oil and industry, was certainly one of these parts.
- Could a whole Volga Caliphate have arisen?
— Caliphate or not, but Mikhail Sergeevich Gorbachev laid a huge mine under the RSFSR, making an attempt to equate the autonomous republics with the union ones, knowing full well that most of Russia was made up of national and autonomous republics, from Mordovia to Yakutia. But Gorbachev wanted to leave Yeltsin a terribly holey "plaid" - go and then sew it back from scraps. “Thank you”, of course, for this to Mikhail Sergeevich, as well as for everything else - big and very sincere. However, the country did not collapse. Then Boris Nikolayevich experimented with his reforms - "take sovereignty as much as you can" - in the framework of keeping himself in power. And the theme was simple: when Yeltsin leaves the presidency, everyone shakes hands and disperses in different directions. And then the topic changed, but changed quite by accident. It was such a historical turn that no one could have imagined. But the memory of the very possibility of "dispersing in different directions" remained. What if Putin ceases to be president, because no one is eternal. Why can't the situation repeat itself? A strong ruler never leaves a strong “in the kingdom” for himself.
Vladimir Putin, as you know, became the head of the country by accident. He was just very quiet, he did not express ambitions. The fact that he would be a very strong leader of the country, and today - a political patriarch on a planetary scale (and this is true: remember how many European and American bosses were replaced while he was gaining experience), no one could have imagined. But the fact that the country would go the same disastrous path as the Union was predictable. Suddenly, in the 2030s, everything will return to normal? Even if Putin chooses the role of Deng Xiaoping and appoints a successor in 2024. But will he leave in the 30s? Most likely it will go away. Because there are no eternal ones. Even the toughest ruler - think Lee Kuan Yew in Singapore - could not control the country at the age of 80-90 years. We see this in dozens of examples.
And this is where things can happen. It's good for the regionals when there is no boss over you in Moscow. No one bothers, you can print your money, you can print a huge amount different ways share everything that is in your territory, and become very rich and influential. But there is everything on the ground: who has diamonds, who has forests, who has oil and gas, who has profitable transit or large ports. This is real, and this reality is taken into account by everyone - in Washington, in Brussels - to the extent that Brussels is generally capable of taking something into account. The EU itself is now crumbling into a patchwork quilt. But why not? Gnawing a piece from a neighbor is generally sacred. We saw this in the 1975 Helsinki Agreement on the Inviolability of Borders in Europe. It died less than a decade and a half after it was adopted. Where is that Yugoslavia, where is the GDR and the FRG, where is the Soviet Union? Yes, nowhere.
But we still continue to be a territory that, if something happens, can be useful to the world establishment. So Tatarstan simply exists here in objective reality. It is impossible to say that there are no other subjects of the Russian Federation that would like to follow the same path.
As for the language, everything is clear here. Where the local leadership is focused on the development of their language to the detriment of Russian ... What can I say to him? Economic processes, career children, forcing them to learn Russian and English languages, - where to go from this? Or will the children of the nationalists sit in their region all their lives? But the objective interests of the local elite force them to object: "And our language - will it die out?" This is a separate topic, maybe experts would have figured it out, but no one has ever asked them. The Russian language has dominated and will always dominate throughout the former territory of the Soviet Union. Even in special zones like Ukraine, where a real war is going on against him. You can, of course, try to strangle him, as in the Baltic states - in the same Latvia, where the imposition of the Latvian language is going on even where the Russian population has lived from time immemorial. But even there the Russian language holds its positions, because the Latvian language, excuse me, is not the language of international communication.
"The fact that Putin will be a very strong leader of the country, and today - a political patriarch on a planetary scale, no one could have imagined" Photo: kremlin.ru
Let's go back, if you will, to Turkey. Has it already become a de facto theocratic Islamic state?
- Turkey has become Erdogan's dictatorship, of course, with a strong Islamic content, but also with a very strong secular component. Just like our country, Turkey existed for many decades in the form of a secular regime. She's used to it. There are many more believers there than here, simply because it is a country of Islam. And in Islam, as we remember, there are much more active believers than in Christianity. And the religion itself is quite young. Of course, for almost one and a half thousand years this statement sounds rather funny, but it is in a state of seething, boiling and revolutionary protuberances - like those that were in Europe during the religious wars of the 16th century. Maybe you want everything to happen faster, but the speed of processes in the religious world is approximately the same for all confessions.
Erdogan is a man, of course, a believer, and for him Turkish Islam is one of the components of his neo-Ottoman future. Because, firstly, it is necessary to restore the empire, and secondly, let there be Islam in the correct Turkish form all over the world. In this regard, the Islamists of Turkey have greatly increased their influence - especially through the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Religious Affairs. At the same time, note: as soon as competition arose with the same Gülen, the scheme of the late General Alexander Lebed instantly worked: “Two birds do not live in the same lair” ( words spoken to the general Anatoly Kulikov in 1996, — approx. ed.). Well, yes, Fethullah Gulen and his Jaamat helped Erdogan defeat the army, trample on the judicial system, change the constitution, remove those and those, take power ... And then, in fact, why such an ally? He's too strong. And now Gulen is the main enemy of Recep Erdogan.
Let's not forget that Erdogan only recently, on June 24 this year, once again won the presidential elections in Turkey - in the first round, gaining 52.5 percent. And what we see now is his first steps after the elections. They said that Erdogan, with his oncology, was about to leave for another world, but this topic was talked about for a long time. What worries me more is not how he will behave in the near future, but what will happen after him. Erdogan is clearing the political field, including within his Justice and Development Party (AKP). Many of those who could compete with Erdogan have already left the clearing, including his longtime favorite Ahmet Davutoglu ( served as Prime Minister of Turkey until May 2016 — approx. ed.) is the author of the book "Strategic Depth" and the very idea of a new Turkey. Which of the former is still left? Except perhaps Hakan Fidan, who is in charge of the special services - the National Intelligence Organization. But here everything is clear: as long as Stalin is alive, Beria is also alive. Those who know too much cannot be dismissed, they only need to be killed. But for now, it's needed.
It is possible that after Erdogan, a serious rollback from the current policy will begin, including in religious terms. In particular, the hunt for Gülen's jamaats contributes to this.
- Do you think that there will be a rollback back to Ataturk, to secular Turkey?
You can't step into the same water twice. The rollback will be in the direction of some other sentiments. But to what extent this will happen is difficult to predict now. Who under Stalin could have predicted what would happen after Stalin? Could someone really name Khrushchev? It wasn't even funny. Erdogan's repressions, of course, are milder than those of our "leader of the peoples", but these are colossal repressions for Turkey. So Erdogan may well be considered the Turkish Stalin. And guessing about his future and the future of Turkey is not my trade. I’m not a palmist and not a Baghdad thief - I can’t guess by coffee grounds and mutton shoulder blades.
- It's a pity, the Baghdad thief was a wonderful friend for Khoja Nasreddin.
- Well, this is in the works of Leonid Solovyov. But in real life, who knows.
“Iran is just such a factor on the planet, somewhere useful for us, and somewhere competing with us” Photo: kremlin.ru
“WHY THE FUCK IS IRAN OUR ALLY? I STILL REMEMBER THE STORY ABOUT THE MURDER OF GRIBOYEDOV"
- Leonid Solovyov, by the way, is your colleague, considering that he was not only a writer, but also a good Leningrad orientalist. Now, about Iran. At the very beginning of the year, we witnessed unrest and a “price revolution” within this always stable state. Is there a risk that a color revolution will come to Tehran under some green banners?
“Iranian society is not at all like the way it is usually portrayed. What was rather ridiculously called a “price revolution” was actually an Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC)-inspired riot that was supposed to demonstrate to the top leadership that the government in Hassan Rouhani was not doing its job. That's why people were allowed to piss off without being suppressed for long enough. This is an intra-elite competition between the people of Rouhani and the people of the IRGC - in the struggle for financial flows and control over the economy. And that's it! The hopes of the Americans, who inflated these events in the press to unthinkable levels, remained hopes. They have been cherishing them since Jimmy Carter said the "brilliant" phrase about Ayatollah Khomeini "We agreed with this guy" and forbade the shah to liquidate him. In general, all American forecasts on Iran have always been the greatest stupidity and have not come true in any of the cases. The unrest of December-January is a common internal struggle. The regime itself is quite stable and controls the situation.
If we take into account Donald Trump with his program to "zero Iran's oil exports", then now the press is getting information that Tehran will collapse just about, literally tomorrow. Because all countries, one by one, will refuse to buy Iranian oil. Of course, this affects Iran, and the information noise raised by the Americans reaches our press as well.
“But our same press is increasingly considering Iran as our ally.
He has never been our ally and never will be. From what demon is he an ally? And no one has any allies. I actually still remember the story about the murder of Griboyedov ( died in 1829 during the pogrom of the Russian embassy in Tehran — approx. ed.). Of course, you don’t need to hide other people’s wives in your embassy ( It's believed that Alexander Griboyedov hid in the embassy two Armenian women from the harem of a relative of the ShahAllahyar Khan Qajar — approx. ed.), but nevertheless the Persians killed the Russian ambassador without regret.
Iran is our temporary companion and partner; the country with which we maintain relations in the economic sphere is not the largest, compared to Turkey or China. What is our alliance? Well, when you need to close some hole on the Syrian fronts, you can use the pro-Iranian Shiite militia, from which only Hezbollah decently fights. Yes, this is better than dragging our servicemen there, as they once did to Afghanistan. But this is a temporary collaboration.
It is also true that an aggressive US trade policy makes our interests with Iran coincide on many issues. But, if Iran needs to forget about Russia in its own interests and communicate only with Americans and Europeans, it will do it. With whom has Iran signed contracts for the supply of hundreds of aircraft? With Airbus and Boeing, not with Russia at all. Calculations that we will now sell our Superjet in huge quantities to the Iranians are not worth a penny.
Iran is just such a factor on the planet, somewhere useful for us, and somewhere competing with us. The Iranians did not fight with us in the 90s, their sphere of influence is the Shiite world. They tried to establish their influence with us, including in the Sunni territories. In the same Bashkortostan, on the example of local villages, one could see the influence of the Iranians, but it was a mild influence. The Iranians have never tried to create a springboard for some kind of Hezbollah in the Russian Federation, as in Iraq or Syria. And for that, a special thanks to them. But everyone in Iran remembers that this country was going to be divided, that at the beginning of the 20th century, a good half of Iran - the Caspian Sea, Shiraz, and much more - was to become part of the Russian Empire. That in 1943 it was on the basis of these treaties that we occupied half of the country, and the Americans the other half. Therefore, they do not experience any particularly warm feelings for us there, as in Turkey. With the difference that in all Turkish dictionaries, Russian is “Moscow giaur” (not the most complimentary term), while Iranians do not have this. But they also remember whose princess Stenka Razin drowned.
The story went like this: everyone wanted to conquer everyone. Therefore, our entire south is either former Iran or former Persia. At the same time, under Peter, Mazenderan and Gilan were part of the Russian Empire (returned a little more than 10 years later). But there was also “big Iran”, which stretched into Central Asia- Iranian-speaking area. Now there is nothing left of her but Tajikistan. Who came there? Too Russian empire followed by the Soviet Union. In some places there were quite a lot of Persians in the border areas. And in Persia, this is also well remembered.
So I would not bet either on Turkey, or on China, or on Iran as an ally. Even our stakes on the “fraternal”, only yesterday Soviet, socialist Ukraine went down the drain and fell into hell, although this seemed completely impossible.
Photo: Sergey Subbotin, RIA Novosti
“AROUND US IS A SCROLLING POST-SOVIET SPACE. LOOK AT THIS AND BE SAD"
How are our relations with Israel? Can our Russian lobby in the Promised Land somehow compete with Jared Kushner and the Americans in general?
- In fact, Jared Kushner has no influence on Israel. There is the US with its influence on Israel, military and economic. It is clear that the amount of military equipment that he receives from Washington is important to him. And it is clear that Jerusalem returns everything with high interest, because the Americans never help anyone if it does not bring them good dividends.
As for Russia, we do not have a lobby in Israel, but simply a significant part of the population that is Russian-speaking. We even have a part of the Russian-speaking elite there - I mean the Minister of Defense Avigdor Lieberman (a native of Chisinau), the Minister of Defense environment Zeev Elkin (a native of Kharkiv), who is the right hand of Benjamin Netanyahu and, possibly, the future mayor of Jerusalem, and now the minister of Jerusalem affairs. Mention may be made of Yuri Edelstein, speaker of the Knesset (born in Ukraine, graduated high school in Kostroma, lived in Moscow) and many others. These are the people with whom our superiors speak Russian. It is enough to look on television at Yakov Kedmi, who is now, of course, a pensioner, but in the past he led Nativ.
Today, the Russian leadership is doing nothing that could be directed against Israel. Emigration there is free, as in all other countries, there is no oppression of Jews on religious grounds. It is clear that the status of Russian rabbis in our country is determined mainly by proximity to the authorities or remoteness from them, and not by Israel. But the dialogue is going on here, and there are no particular problems.
Trying to work to increase Russian influence in Israel by reducing American influence is a pointless thing. As, however, in any other country in the world - Kazakhstan or China, Iran or Turkey. Israel will never take one side against the other. To date, he has built a balanced and almost perfect relationship with Russia. That is why over the past 9 years the Israeli Prime Minister has met 13 times with Putin, and each time more and more positively. But with the American president, everything was difficult for them, but before Trump, it was really bad. After all, not only did our relations with Barack Obama not develop very well, Israel also felt this on itself.
As far as military affairs are concerned, this is an almost perfect match. It is no coincidence that with a completely different approach to Iran, both we and the Israelis have an understanding that Israel does not oppose Russia in the Middle East, and Russia does not oppose Israel in ensuring its security. Israeli Defense Minister Lieberman visits us, meets with Sergei Shoigu, and the Iranian Defense Minister, who also often participates in our international military conferences, has to endure this. At the same time, Israel is considered a country of the Western bloc (although it is not a member of NATO and never will be). But we don't have the same relationship with anyone in the Western bloc as we do with the Israelis. Just recently, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and Chief of Staff Valery Gerasimov traveled to Israel. For almost the first time in history, Moscow's military campaign in the Middle East does not run counter to Israeli interests, because Jerusalem does not need a fragmented, fragmented Syria, where one al-Qaeda is chasing another. Assad in this sense suits them more.
The approach itself - we have more than Kushner, or less influence - reminds me of asking a child who he loves more - dad or mom. And the importance of Trump's son-in-law is greatly exaggerated. Israel has separate relations with Russia and separate relations with America. Of course, the volume of trade with the United States is incomparable with the volume of trade with us, but for objective reasons. The United States is now the main power of the world. Nobody prevented the Soviet Union not from ruining the country, but from evolving. But the choice in favor of evolution was not made. They dissolved themselves, and even did everything possible to slam the country for decades. Moreover, in many areas this inertia in the Russian Federation is far from being stopped.
Are you still inclined to believe that in the 2030s we will still see an interesting movie called Armageddon?
There is nothing more interesting than an adventure movie. But it's better to watch it in theaters than in real life. And so - we have already experienced interesting things. The collapse of the Soviet Union was so interesting! If this hadn't happened, many would probably be bored: a big country lived, developed... So what about interest... I'm always afraid of interesting things. But there are historical patterns, and they do not depend on us. Even nine women cannot give birth to a child in one month.
Nevertheless, there is a progressive positive movement. The situation with Crimea pleases. The situation with Syria is so phantasmagorical... Who could have predicted until recently that we would successfully go through this campaign with minimal losses? In addition, we have gained tremendous practical experience in how to conduct modern warfare in such a difficult environment.
How it turns out further depends on us. Around - crumbling post-Soviet space. Look at almost the only stable territory called Kazakhstan. But what will happen there after Nursultan Abishevich Nazarbayev? Let's look at Turkmenistan with its colossal food and currency crisis. It is completely incomprehensible how the fate of this "bag of gas" will turn out. Let's look at Kyrgyzstan and drug-producing Tajikistan and scratch our heads: "Oh, how unstable it all is!" We look at the Caucasus - well, even more so ... It seems that we could rely on Armenia, but oh my god - the power has changed in Yerevan. And further it is not clear. And the famous Slavic brotherhood collapsed so that it still rings in the ears. Ukraine showed us that it was necessary to invest money not in the country - all these hundreds of billions of dollars in gas discounts - but five billion should have been distributed to its bosses.
Everything around us has collapsed and is going to hell. We could have been next, and we should have been. Many worked for it, and Madeleine Albright, then US Secretary of State, spoke frankly about it. I am sure that half of our bosses in the 90s were imprisoned for this and were preparing for this. And someone is preparing now - these people have not gone away. Someone ran around Poland and other Europe, and now they are already here - big bosses in small parties. Look at this and be sad.
Photo: kremlin.ru
“USA IS A SUPERPOWER, AND WE ARE A SUPERPOWER ONLY BY ONE INDICATOR: WE CAN DESTROY THEM”
- I can’t help but ask a question about Donald Trump, who is forbidden by strict American uncles and aunts as a “boy from a good family” to meet with the “bad boy Vova”, but he still wants to and meets. Is this his sincere desire, or are there certain industrial circles behind Trump that are pushing him to this?
- Nobody pushes Trump - he is a person of an absolutely adventurous plan, but a very experienced and intelligent president who won the presidential election simply because he is much smarter than everyone thought about him, and plays fresh cards. He meets with Putin because he wants to. I believe that it is much easier for him to find a common language with Putin than with half of his Democrats and Republicans. Because they are both pragmatists. The difference is that Trump does not stop fighting for his own power, because most of the American establishment and a significant part of the US population would like him to at least fly out of the presidency and not win the next election. And best of all in their fantasies - that he was shot. This still distinguishes him from Vladimir Vladimirovich, who can be "gnawed" as you like, but he wins the elections with a result of 76 percent of the vote. This is a fact: he is the president of a country where the majority of the population is for him, including those who grumble a lot about him and those who do not like the government (and who may like it, with the exception of the minister of defense, foreign affairs and a couple more person on this list? So Putin's position is incomparably stronger than Trump's. Moreover, there are no special elites behind Trump - these are all fairy tales that back in the 70s were invented by people who did not really know how America works. This is from the category of "conspiracy theories" invented earlier in different corners of the Politburo. As its employees once told me: "The system is one-party, but multi-entrance." And it was in the Central Committee. Yes, and in the higher school of state security there were also theorists ... Some of whom still go to the Academy of the General Staff to do stupid things and tell how everything in the world works. Although they have never worked abroad and do not know anything there.
Calling Trump “a boy from a good family” is probably possible, but Putin behaved much more decently all his life and much more decent as a person. I like our president in this regard much more. But the main thing is that Putin and Trump find a common language, and then - how karma will fall. The president of America can generally do much less than the president of Russia. Objective reality forces Trump to carry various nonsense about what a terrible enemy of Russia and Putin he is, so that he is not finally torn to shreds. And so half of America knows that he is our "agent". Therefore, the very fact of meeting with Vladimir Vladimirovich for Trump is a rather risky thing, it is such a spit in the face of his enemies. Can he lift sanctions on Russia? Can not. Can he stop barking at us? Can not. Can he say that all the stories about Russian interference in the American elections are nonsense? He can't even do that. Although, on the other hand, he knows for sure that no one in Russia elected him - not even Vladimir Zhirinovsky, who drank to his victory. We simply did not like - and rightly did not love - Hillary Clinton, suspecting that this Gingema would definitely not be better for us.
We have severe limits on what we can achieve in dialogue with the Americans. In the areas they need — titanium for aircraft, space — they will, of course, cooperate with us. But Americans are not sentimental, and it depends only on us what role we will have in the world. Enthusiastic cries about the fact that Trump met with Putin - "hooray!" - usually emitted by people who have never had their own money, nor their own power, nor their own risks associated with money and power. Therefore, they react to some terribly strange factors like “meeted or not met”, spoke well or badly ... The American press, which had absolutely nothing to write about the meeting in Helsinki, because they didn’t tell her anything, came up with the idea that Melania Trump changed her face as she shook hands with Putin. I watched the corresponding video for a long time and tried to understand where she changed her face ... As far as I know, a woman can change her face when she realizes that her shoes are tight or her makeup has come off, or something else extraordinary has happened, and here she is now I would like to fix an unbuttoned button or an untied shoulder strap, but it is impossible, because there are cameras all around. That's when the woman's face changes. But the American press was outraged about how Putin stunned Melania by shaking her hand, and our media began to sing along at the same time. Well, they are such idiots.
What will be the consequences of the Helsinki meeting between Trump and Putin, whether they will meet again and so on - I will not guess. Nobody ever knows how it will be. Very often it comes out, as in that joke about a sparrow, a cow cake and a fox (In winter, a sparrow flew, froze and fell. A cow walked past. The cake - slap! - and covered the sparrow. The sparrow warmed up and chirped. Hence the three morals: not the enemy who put you in the shit; not the friend who pulled you out of the shit; you're sitting in the shit, sit down and don't chirp!). Here is the same thing. It's like Mao Zedong's poisonous offer to Nikita Khrushchev to swim together in the pool ( during the visit Nikita Khrushchev to Beijing in autumn 1959 — approx. ed.). Mao was a famous swimmer, he could easily swim across the Yangtze, but Nikita Sergeevich was somehow not very good in his family shorts. What was after that a tough enmity between Soviet Union and China and how it all ended on Damansky Island ( in the spring of 1969, the largest military Soviet-Chinese conflict took place here — approx. ed.), we know.
It's not bad when you have a meeting of two world class leaders. They say that America is going out, but it will go out for a long time, it is a superpower, and we are a superpower in only one indicator: we can destroy them. And they can't do anything about it. In the economy, of course, we are not a superpower. However, the meeting of the American and Russian President, which has passed positively, even against the backdrop of today's cold war, sanctions and other nasty things, is already good. But personally, I completely stopped going to America.
- Why? You didn't get on the sanctions list, did you?
I don't like meaningless things. On my last visit, I was questioned for a long time by a strange man, standing in the place of the customs officer, about what my Middle East Institute was doing. And before that, I was kept for half an hour in a local “monkey house” with potential illegal immigrants, taking my passport away so that this “customs officer”, as it were, had time to get there. And I got an understanding that it's probably not good for my health to visit the United States now. Skype works, which means I can talk to my mother-in-law anyway. As for the sanctions, I am absolutely invulnerable to them. To do this, you simply do not need to hold a foreign passport, do not teach children abroad, do not buy real estate there and do not open accounts there. All in all.
Evgeny Yanovich Satanovsky was born on June 15, 1959 in Moscow. Russian orientalist and economist, one of the leading experts in the field of politics and economics in Israel, as well as other countries of the Middle East. Founder and President of the Research Center "Institute of the Middle East" (formerly the Institute for the Study of Israel and the Middle East). Candidate of Economic Sciences, Professor. Third President of the Russian Jewish Congress (2001–2004). Married, two children and three grandchildren.
He graduated from the Moscow Institute of Steel and Alloys in 1980 and worked as an engineer in the pipe-rolling department of the State Institute for the Design of Metallurgical Plants. In 1984, due to the death of his father, in order to support his family, he got a job as a hot shop worker at the Hammer and Sickle plant.
By his own admission in a speech at the Federation Council, since 1982 he worked on the topic of religious extremism in the USSR State Security Committee. In 1982, under the influence Sergei Lugovsky, whose father, together with Satanovsky's father, worked at MISiS, joined his circle for the study of Hebrew. In the mid-1980s, he participated in Jewish public life and became a member of the historical and ethnographic commission. In 1988, he left the factory and went into business, becoming in 1989 the president of the Ariel financial and industrial group of companies.
Since 1993 - President of the Institute of the Middle East (until 1995 - the Institute for the Study of Israel, until 2005 - the Institute for the Study of Israel and the Middle East.
In 1999 at the Institute of Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences under the scientific supervision of Doctor of Economics, Professor Vladimir Isaev defended his dissertation degree Candidate of Economic Sciences on the topic "The Specifics of the Economic Development of Israeli Society in the 90s" (specialty - 08.00.14 "World Economy and International Economic Relations").
Since 1995 with the filing Vladimir Gusinsky began to engage in the creation of the Russian Jewish Congress. In 2001-2004, he was the third president of the Russian Jewish Congress. Changed in this post Leonid Nevzlin. Previously, he was Vice President, responsible for philanthropy, higher secular education, culture, science and sports. Member of the Board of Directors of the World Jewish Congress.
He teaches geopolitics and economics of the Middle East region at the Department of Jewish Studies, Head of the Department of Israeli Studies at the Center for Judaic Studies and Jewish Civilization at the Institute of Asian and African Countries at Moscow State University. Since 1998, he has lectured at the Higher School for the Humanities. Dubnova (Jewish University of Moscow). He also taught at MGIMO.
Vice President of the International Board of Regents international center university teaching of Jewish civilization at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Member of the Presidential Council of the Russian Society for Friendship with Arab Countries. Member of the editorial boards of the journals "Diaspora", "Bulletin of the Jewish University" and "Oriental Collection", the academic council of the Library of Judaica. Until 2012, he was a member of the supervisory and coordinating council of the quarterly scientific journal State, Religion, Church in Russia and Abroad.
He takes part as an expert and speaker in specialized scientific conferences. Participates in the programs of his friend Vladimir Solovyov on the radio station "Vesti FM", where also from Tuesday to Thursday, together with Sergei Korneevsky hosts the program "From two to five." Participant of Russian socio-political talk shows on state TV channels, including "An Evening with Vladimir Solovyov" (since 2015).
