Who actually won the Cold War and what the future holds for the world


Who won the Cold War? After the collapse of the USSR, that is, from the very beginning of the 90s, as well as the next twenty years or so, the answer to this question to most people in the West, and in our country, seemed quite unambiguous - the Soviet Union lost. We, that is.


We ourselves recognized the communist ideology as erroneous and unpromising for further development, the huge Soviet empire collapsed into several parts, the "Eastern Bloc" in Europe ceased to exist, like the entire Soviet sphere of influence in the rest of the world, the troops stationed abroad were pulled back, and often on not only unprofitable, but simply on absolutely shameful conditions, the state economy went into a steep "peak", and the so-called privatization finished it off almost completely, the people became impoverished, and only a faint shadow of the partially preserved Soviet nuclear triad remained of the former military power. This, apparently, was the only thing that at least somehow ensured the then new Russia, which became the nominal international legal successor of the USSR, a kind of independence.

At that time we had not yet come under complete external control, but we were dependent on and under the influence of the West - yes. Gigantic amounts of capital and resources were flowing abroad, American controllers-overseers were sitting in our secret enterprises, and the first Russian president on all important issues not only consulted, but simply reported to the United States, just like a metropolitan colony ... Well, why does it still look like, if not a defeat in the war? This is how it was perceived in the world. And the Americans, and with them, as it were, the rest of the "consolidated West" as a company, rightfully, as they quite naturally thought, considered themselves the winners in this "cold" war, and we were the losers. It seems like there were even thoughts of giving out some awards, such as orders or medals, "For victory in the Cold War." So that's it. And, of course, in full accordance with this, they began to behave with us - as a winner in relation to the vanquished.

Russia is not the USSR


Russia is not the Soviet Union. It seems to be a completely logical statement. But the question is who and what meaning is put into this phrase.

In the West, from the beginning of the 90s of the last century to the present day, it sounds and understands something like this: the Russian Federation, unlike the USSR, is no longer a highly developed world superpower, which has the right to its own independent domestic and international policies, as well as on their own national interests, including those outside their own borders.

In Russia itself, apparently, this same statement is now perceived from a completely different side: the Russian Federation, unlike the USSR, is not the country that collapsed, having lost its own ideology, economy and army, but an absolutely new independent and rapidly developing state world-class, with a new political, economic and social structure, as well as with its own national interests, both on its own territory and beyond, based precisely on the fact that this new country is the legal successor of the Soviet Union in the international and historical field ...

And these very two fundamentally opposite understandings of the same, seemingly, for all indisputable fact, inevitably come into conflict with each other. This contradiction, in turn, results in confrontation in the international arena. Since neither side wants to retreat from its understanding of the phrase "Russia is not the USSR", and both do it all exclusively, as it is presented, proceeding from the instinct of their own self-preservation. And the confrontation emanating from a sense of self-preservation, that is, the existential danger felt by the sides of the confrontation, inevitably leads to war. The only question is in what form this war will be waged (or is already being waged), as well as if the ultimate goal of the rivals is the complete destruction of the enemy or is it still achieving some kind of "status quo".

To understand all this better, one must first understand what the Cold War is all about, who took part in it or is participating in it, what are its goals. From this, the fact of victory or defeat in this war, if any, will become clearer. And also, based on this, and the current situation.

Who started the Cold War


I’ll say right away - not us. The very term "Cold war" appeared in the West back in 1947 to explain, apparently, initially to themselves and their peoples, what, in fact, this very West was already doing in relation to the USSR. Since the overwhelming majority of the population, quite recently, the states allied to us in the Second World War, with this understanding, had serious problems. The "honor" of the invention of the Cold War belongs to the long-term adviser to several US presidents on foreign and economic policy, businessman and multimillionaire Bernard Baruch, who first used this name in his speech on April 16, 1947. Moreover, as usual in America, this speech itself was initially devoted to purely internal affairs - calls for the continuation of the mobilization of the US economy, which was already strongly mobilized during the war, lengthening the working week, restricting the rights of trade unions, refusing to hold strikes, etc. ... etc. Since the world war ended, ordinary American citizens had reasonable questions about the need for all this. And here, please, there is an explanation - a new "cold" war with the Soviet Union.

And this war itself was started by the "Westerners" too, and much earlier. It's not a secret for anyone today that even before the end of World War II in Europe, being officially in allied relations with the USSR, the British and Americans were already hatching plans to strike the Soviet Union, and even using parts of the German Wehrmacht and SS, together with their own armies. But the military and industrial power of the USSR at that time was so great that even after the Americans had a working atomic bomb in 1945, the hopes of the Western "allies" for their own victory in such an adventure seemed rather illusory to them. And when in 1949 its own atomic weapons appeared in the Soviet Union, all feasible Western plans for confrontation finally turned exclusively into a "cold" form - the "hot" one was already threatening mutual destruction. Moreover, it must be honestly noted that at that time there were no real plans of an attack on Western Europe, and even more so the United States, on the part of the USSR - the country was occupied by something completely different after the terrible war it had endured.

It was necessary to restore literally everything and everyone, including Eastern Europe, which was in the Soviet zone of control. After all the horrors of the Second World War, a certain theory about the possibility of the spread of the "World Revolution" by force, which had previously existed among some "hot heads" in the communist party elite, has finally sunk into oblivion. And the expenditure of considerable resources on armaments was then precisely a reciprocal, defensive nature. And all the available historical facts only confirm this. The clearest example is the openly anti-Soviet military bloc NATO was created by the Americans in 1949, the "Warsaw Pact" emerged only six years later and exclusively in response to this.

The consolidated West, thus, unleashed this very "cold" war against us, simply out of fear to fight for real. And this war was fought, but with a different weapon - economically, the media and propaganda, espionage, an increase in the arms race, indirectly - through local conflicts in third countries, etc. That is, as if surreptitiously, despicable and cowardly, so that God forbid not to really run into it. Perhaps after the Second World War they finally realized what Otto von Bismarck had in mind when he urged Western peoples never to openly fight with Russia.

The "consolidated West" is not exactly the West


We often use the term "consolidated West", and this phrase is also often criticized for its vagueness and ambiguity. I think that here, in order to understand the situation, again, it is necessary to formulate more precisely what it is all about. From my personal point of view, at this moment in time this is not some kind of amorphous concept, but a very specific and well-established list of states. Namely, countries with Anglo-Saxon and Germanic cultural and linguistic roots. From overseas, it includes the United States, Canada and Australia, in Europe these are the British Isles, the Scandinavian states, Germany, France, Switzerland and Benelux. All the other allies who have joined this consolidated West at the moment are what are called weather vane states - wherever the “wind blows,” they turn there. Moreover, in this rather extensive list of "weathercocks" there are really large and developed militarily and economically, such as Turkey, Italy or Spain, as well as openly aggressive and, as it were, deliberately pro-Western members of NATO, such as Poland or the Baltic states.

But all of them, from a historical perspective, one way or another to this very consolidated West, as well as to the conditional East, have repeatedly changed their relationship and alliance, and dramatically. And this happened, almost always, under the influence of the outside, and not because of a spontaneous change in some internal consensus of these countries and their leaders. None of them simply can afford this in the modern world order. Therefore, they can be written into rigidly "consolidated" with this very "real" West only very conditionally and with great reservations - the political wind will once again change and ... blow away all this consolidation in some other direction, as, I repeat, this has already happened more than once. So the list of our real enemies is quite specific and not that great in comparison with the rest of the world. And it is not at all tantamount to everything that we are used to identifying with Western civilization, as such, the "golden billion" or even with members of the North Atlantic Alliance. It is much smaller.

The situation is even more complicated with the population of these countries - even in the most consolidated West, the policy of their states in relation to the conditional East, as well as the widely advertised modern Western "values" are not approved by a much larger number of their own citizens (in percentage terms) than the same, for example , in Russia or China in relation to the West. And in these very "weathercocks", especially in Eastern Europe and the Balkans, most peoples have big problems both with Western "values" that are often very alien to them, and in general with self-identification of themselves, as a part of the Western community in its modern, not much to their liking, the form. Yes, thirty years ago they were all there, to the West, quite openly aspired. And now the realization came that either they did not come quite where they wanted, or the very goal of this striving in real life turned out to be not quite what they expected.

What are we fighting for?


If we do not take into account various long-standing conflicts in Europe itself, when a certain prince from one state did not marry a certain princess from another, and thereby insulted some royal family, as well as religious clashes of about the same or even earlier period , then all serious wars are fought for resources in one way or another. For the last hundred years, so sure. These resources can be very different - land, access to something, mineral wealth, water and even the population of certain territories as an available labor force and markets for their own goods (now they are beautifully called "spheres of influence"). That is, all this as a result is purely material wealth. But the pretexts for this can be very diverse - who has enough imagination for that. This is religion, and some long-standing disputes between peoples, and ideological differences, and support for certain rights or freedoms, and protecting someone from something and vice versa, and restoring some kind of justice, etc. and so on, almost ad infinitum. Here I mean, of course, the advancing side - with the defenders, everything is more or less clear. And all this in order to give aggression some semblance of legitimacy and / or arouse among the masses, who, in fact, are doomed to shedding blood and other victims in someone's personal or state interests, a feeling of the necessity or inevitability of such actions.

The most honest of the major world aggressors in this regard was, strange as it may seem, Adolf Hitler - he immediately said that he needed new territories and resources to enable the development of the German people, which seemed to lack their territory. He even promised his soldiers to share the conquered lands directly with them. And the destruction of communism, the restoration of justice after the defeat of Germany in the First World War, etc. already, as it were, in addition to the main goal.

And with the "cold" war of the United States against the USSR, everything is the same. But not so honestly - no one spoke about resources there. They spoke exclusively about ideological differences and the threat from the Soviet Union. Ideological differences consisted in the fact that in the USSR there was a different political and economic structure, which was in some ways better, but in some ways it was not at all - just different. And the threat lay in our very ability to adequately confront the United States in the military sphere. Another such country or even a group of countries in the world simply did not exist at that time. This was what annoyed me. That is why they began to fight with us, but not for real (because of the possibility of this most adequate answer), but so, carefully, "in a cold way." Because you can fight to the death only for an idea, or defending yourself and your land. And here the war, whatever one may say, is all the same for resources and finances, but why are they needed if you are ultimately destroyed?
The incontestable proof of the absolute "lack of ideology" of this very "Cold War", and the motivation of everything by purely material considerations on the part of the West, are just the events of our days.

Cold war 2.0


Many times we can hear arguments about whether or not it is possible to talk about the continuation of the Cold War, which, with the collapse of the Soviet Union, was supposed to end. This topic has entered the public discourse especially seriously after the introduction of various Western sanctions against our country, as well as with the onset of the Ukrainian crisis in 2014. The very last reason for the next discussion of this issue happened just the other day, when American President Biden openly insulted Vladimir Putin, calling him a murderer - no one had ever allowed himself anything like this in relation to the leaders of Russia and the USSR. But this is still being discussed with us, I repeat. And if you open the English-language sources, we will see an interesting thing - the terms "Cold War 1.0" and "Cold War 2.0" that have been used there for a long time. As for the first "Cold War", 1.0 according to their classification, then everything is clear, it dates from 1947-1991, this is the moment of the collapse of the USSR and, as it were, the victory of the West. The title of the Second or "New Cold War" first appears publicly back in 2008 in a book by British political analyst and journalist Edward Lucas. And from that moment on, it was firmly included in the political vocabulary of the West. At the same time, it is absolutely clear to everyone that there could be no question at that time about any threat to the West in general and the United States in particular from Russia, I'm not talking about some kind of ideological confrontation - the system is already the same, capitalist, market. At that time, the Russian Federation is headed by President Medvedev, who is very handshake in the West, and the country itself is inscribed in all Western political and economic institutions, as they say, "there is nowhere at all ...". So what's the problem?

And the problem happened like this - for the first time since 1991 Russia "raised its head" and really showed that it will no longer put up with absolutely everything that is imposed on it from the outside. First, this was voiced by Vladimir Putin in his famous "Munich speech" in 2007, and in 2008 the Russian army suppressed the aggressive actions of Georgia towards South Ossetia and the peacekeeping contingent of the RF Armed Forces stationed there. In short, our country has again awakened to an independent life, which inevitably entails an awareness of the existence of its own national interests. The need for the absence of which we have been convinced for so long. And for the Western "partners" all this meant nothing more than a possible close end to the profitable and unpunished robbery of everyone and everything as the only winner in the last world war, albeit a "cold" one. To which they have become accustomed for almost twenty years. That is, again, someone is economically hurt, the possible loss of "spheres of influence", and this is the reason for the war. And if it is really scary to fight (and they are scared), then again "in a cold way." So a new "cold" war has begun for our resources and against our interests. Or continued, as you look at. But in any case, we did not go “on the offensive” again.

True, in the case of "Cold War 2.0", from the point of view of the West itself, again, there are some significant differences from that "first" - not only Russia (like the USSR once) is indicated as an adversary, but also China. It is these two powers that are considered to be violators of a certain "world order" in the Western understanding of it, and if we simplify it greatly, they simply refuse to obey the will of the United States in everything. That is, if earlier the consolidated West fought only with the Soviet Union (the Warsaw bloc, Cuba, Vietnam and other socialist countries-allies were really only satellites of the USSR without much independence in their decisions), now it is already a full-fledged war on two fronts, with two strong different and truly independent opponents. Moreover, each of these opponents is highly developed in certain, one might say, complementary areas, and is also strong enough in and of itself, without even entering into some kind of anti-Western coalition with each other. And this, together with its own growing internal political and economic problems, makes the position of the United States and its allies much more precarious than in the previous Cold War.

From a historical perspective


Recently, on various programs or in political conversations, I often hear the following:

"History teaches us that it does not teach anything" - the phrase itself is initially stupid. Therefore, it is very strange to hear it from the lips of some respected public and political figures who regularly appear in our media space. In every school there are children who study well, and there are poor students. And this is not because the school doesn’t teach the students with poor students, but because some, for various reasons, cannot or don’t want to study. It is the same with historical experience - history does not teach anything only to those who are not capable of it. But such “pathological failures”, unfortunately, are enough among political leaders of the highest level. Only this is a different question - about who this or that state is able to choose as its leader, and about the quality of the elites in these states in general. The leaders of modern Russia, China or Israel, for example, are hard to reproach for neglecting historical experience. But in Ukraine, in the structures of the EU or the United States, typical failures are now in power. In terms of history, of course ... Although he is a Losers, he is a Losers, everywhere and in everything. For the same problems in the fight against coronavirus, the situation with the economy and the domestic political agenda, you can compare exactly the same countries that I mentioned above. And what will we see? In the Russian Federation, China and the same Israel, and according to these indicators, everything is much better than in Ukraine, the EU and the United States. So history, apparently, should be treated more attentively and respectfully. And she teaches almost everything, you just have to want it and be able to use it.

So just on the basis of historical parallels, one can also consider the events of the "cold" wars. Since, in essence, it is still a war, it is quite possible to compare them with a real war - "hot". I use "cold" wars in the plural, since this is a classification of their own apologists and inventors - those who started both of these "cold" wars against us. Although from our point of view, all this can be perceived as one and the same war. In general, there is no difference - on a historical scale, the result will be the same, only the comparisons are different. But from whatever point you look, there are common features - the "cold" war is a global process, that is, it should be compared with World Wars. There were two of them. One after another, two decades apart.

If we take from the point of view of the West, that is, that there are two wars, then we need to start with the First World War. As a result of this war, Germany and Austria-Hungary were defeated, in fact, losing vast territories and statehood, and were also placed by the Western allies in an extremely humiliating, as well as economically and politically dependent position. Russia withdrew (or rather was withdrawn) from hostilities due to internal contradictions, also with the loss of the state system and vast territories, both those that originally belonged to it and those that were due to it in the event of a victory over the Austro-German Union. Yes, and Russia itself, taking advantage of the internal turmoil, the former Western allies also decided to plunder well, and they even succeeded in something. But what is such humiliation for really strong and developed nations? And this is nothing more than the effect of a compressed spring, which sooner or later will try to take its original form. This is exactly what happened. Taking into account the educated public, I will not cite here the well-known facts, describe the history of the Second World War and the accompanying events of the interwar period. But this "spring" quite naturally unclenched after about twenty years. And as a result, it seemed to no one, including the winners of the First World War, who created all possible prerequisites for the Germans to unleash the Second. But at that time, these same winners survived - do not forget that in that war both the USSR and China were just on the same side with them. Although here I extend the comparison with the spring to the Soviet Union as well.

If we consider the "cold" war as one continuous action, then there is also a parallel with the events of the closest to us historically World War - the Second. Let us remember how Hitler's Germany, having already managed to "consolidate" around itself practically the entire analogue of the modern European Union by force, went on the offensive against the USSR. Then as now, we lost gigantic territories with millions of our people, a huge blow was dealt to the economy and industry, and our military forces seemed to have practically lost the ability to resist. But it seemed so to our enemies. They already buried us, prepared a parade on Red Square and were also going to receive their awards for the victory over the USSR. They again forgot about a strong, developed and strong-willed people, as well as about the effect of a compressed spring, which again worked. As a result, those who thought they had conquered us flew back even further than where they originally came from. And we got ours back, and even with a little extra.

If we consider this parallel, then now the events are approximately consistent with the winter of 1942-43. There are still many of our lands in the power of the enemy, but there have already been the first serious victories, the partially restored economy and industry have already begun to provide the necessary support to the front, and the morale of the newly gaining strength of the army has also recovered after the constant setbacks of the initial period of hostilities. The "spring" slowly but surely went in the opposite direction.

In 2021, a war is going on against us, it doesn't matter if it is "first" or "second" in someone's classification. It is important that it is there, and it is important how we feel it on ourselves. Yes, we are under pressure, they continue to attack us on all fronts, it is still hard for us. But it is already clear that our powerful internal "spring", compressed by the force from the outside, has already inexorably gone in the opposite direction. And how strong its back blow will be depends only and exclusively on ourselves. And from no one else. Our enemies against us will still use everything they have, all their strength and capabilities, regardless of whether we strike with full force. So you have to hit with all your might at once - the harder we hit, the more we will achieve. We may not have a chance for another try. As then, in 1942, there is nowhere to retreat. These are the rules of any battle and any war, even "cold" - economic and political, even "hot" - with tanks and missiles.

Or maybe just not to fight?


In 1991, we ourselves ended the Cold War, or at least actually tried to do it. Proceeding from the fact that they themselves believed in the Western, and their own, to be honest, the propaganda that told us about a certain ideological background of the Cold War. They abandoned ideology, changed the economic and political system, heeded everything that was told to us from the West and integrated into their "coordinate system". And what did you get in return? “They brought us to our knees, robbed, humiliated and took away the territory. Everything happened the same as if a real war had been lost.

And as soon as they suddenly raised their heads and hinted at their own interests, a new war was immediately started against us. And what's the difference as it is called - "cold", "hot" or, for example, "hybrid". It's still a war. The purpose of which is not to let us develop and take away what we have. Everything, at the root. And we don't need to make ourselves illusions that our enemies will always be headed by "Losers" - we are now just so lucky. In a period of danger and consolidation, strong personalities often come to power. And they can turn to history and quickly understand, if they have not yet realized that the only way to prevent the spring from unclenching is to destroy it completely or break it into small safe pieces.

And if we ourselves, trying to move forward, do not learn to look back into history and learn from our own and others' mistakes, then others will do it faster than us. Victory in any war can only be the destruction of the enemy, either physically or as a state education. So that the "spring" does not suddenly unclench back again. After the collapse of the USSR, the West decided that this was the final victory, not taking into account the fact that Russia itself is also a separate and completely independent and self-sufficient state education, unlike all the former republics of the Union. Now they got it, but too late - the "spring" has already gone back.

But we shouldn't expect that we will somehow push the enemies back now, and they will leave us alone - nothing like this will happen. Now we must destroy them and sign the imaginary Reichstag again. If not physically, then as strong and centrally controlled state entities of a global scale - the United States and the EU. And then this very concept of "consolidated West", which is hostile to us, will disappear. Now, by the way, the Americans and their allies themselves have made this work easier for us by making the PRC an enemy, which is in fact the world's number one economy, with a population of one and a half billion and its own modern army, including its complete nuclear triad and space grouping. And, as you know, "the enemy of my enemy ..." in this case, if not just a friend, then certainly a situational ally. And now it is necessary to use it. Both to us and to the Chinese. Based on our own rich historical experience of communication with this most consolidated West. And the conclusions from this experience are very simple - to voluntarily integrate into their system means to sign a death sentence for oneself, and not to destroy this consolidated West, at least economically and politically, means to keep the death sentence that they signed to us long ago. And there is no third option.

This is how one should treat this "Cold War 2.0" and behave accordingly. In war, as in war. How would this war be called.

Objectives based on this:

1. Conclude an official military-political alliance with China. It is clear that we have many contradictions and different interests, but, as in the Second World War between the USSR and the Anglo-Americans, one common goal at the moment is clearly more important for us and for the Chinese. In this case, the entire consolidated West, even with all its capabilities, will still immediately become a weak position - there is simply nothing to oppose the joint power of the Russian Federation and the PRC in the world today. Even if it does not come out with an alliance, then at least jointly and in coordination with China to carry out all important economic and political actions on the "western front".

2. To work actively at the SCO and BRICS sites - the consolidated West is far from the whole world. We need to spread our influence and look for our own, albeit situational, but allies. Expand your own spheres of influence.

3. Use economic, political and informational levers to tear apart this very Western consolidation as much as possible. And do not be ashamed of this - we are still accused of this anyway. Start with the “weather vane”, the positions of which are the weakest. Then purposefully "sow the seeds of discord" both within Europe itself and in the EU-US transatlantic pact. And in this, too, there is nothing new and impossible, all this has happened historically and more than once. The main thing is to remind Europeans more often that they are still separate, independent and distinctive nations, and not some kind of common mess, into which the United States wants to turn them in its image and likeness. And by the way, it is also much more convenient to deal with all this together with the PRC - in this case, we will be able to offer the Europeans together, even in economic terms, exactly more than the States.

4. To do with the US itself exactly what it did to us throughout this "cold" war - to bring in and in every possible way inflate there all possible internal contradictions and conflicts on national, racial, political, historical, economic and other grounds. And the situation is now very favorable for this - the country is politically split, there are racial problems and a huge issue with illegal migration, the situation in the economy also leaves much to be desired and rests solely on the "printing press" of the FRS and exchange manipulations. And the United States can be split from within, depriving it of its status as a world superpower. There is nothing impossible in this. In 1985, too, no one in the USSR would have believed that in five years this superpower would simply begin to fall apart ... And they must be split in such a way, knowing the history, so that their "spring" no longer had a chance to unclench.

In no case can we just defend ourselves anymore, we must immediately go over to the offensive and actively involve any possible allies. Otherwise, the aggressor will finally squeeze us ... Everything is exactly the same as in the winter of 1942. The war is on ...
Ad
We are open to cooperation with authors in the news and analytical departments. A prerequisite is the ability to quickly analyze the text and check the facts, to write concisely and interestingly on political and economic topics. We offer flexible working hours and regular payments. Please send your responses with examples of work to [email protected]
73 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Miffer Offline Miffer
    Miffer (Sam Miffers) 23 March 2021 08: 56
    -1
    what Otto von Bismarck had in mind when he urged Western peoples never to openly fight Russia.

    In my student years I had to get acquainted with the ideas of Bismarck, but I could not remember such "calls". It would be nice to formulate this message of Bismarck in the form of a quotation with a direct speech.
    1. Pishenkov Offline Pishenkov
      Pishenkov (Alexey) 23 March 2021 13: 19
      +1
      Bismarck, in general, spoke out quite a lot and often on this topic.
      These are some of the most famous phrases, but not all -

      Erwarte nicht, dass wenn man einst von Russlands Schwäche profitiert hat, dass die Dividende für immer fließen. Die Russen holen sich ihr Geld immer ab. Und wenn sie kommen - verlass Dich nicht auf irgendwelche Abkommen, von dem Du glaubst sie würden Dich von Schuld freisprechen. Sie sind das Papier nicht wert, auf dem sie geschrieben stehen. Aus diesem Grund sollte man mit Russen ein faires Spiel spielen - oder es ganz sein lassen

      Führt NIEMALS Krieg gegen Russland. Gleich welche List ihr anwendet, sie wird durch deren unberechenbaren Stumpfsinn honoriert

      If you, as you say, got acquainted with the ideas of Bismarck, you should understand. If not, Google translator is at your service
      1. Miffer Offline Miffer
        Miffer (Sam Miffers) 23 March 2021 15: 10
        0
        If you, as you say, got acquainted with the ideas of Bismarck, you should understand. If not, Google translator is at your service

        You have a funny train of thought. And as a person who studied English, I can tell you that it does not contain the letter "ь", therefore, the translator will
        "Google [guːgl] noun"

        Never fight with Russia, for every trick of yours will be answered with unpredictable stupidity.
        1. Pishenkov Offline Pishenkov
          Pishenkov (Alexey) 23 March 2021 17: 08
          0
          I hope you "studied" English better than Bismarck. "Google" is a joke if you don't get it. And as a person who not only "studied" English, but also speaks it well enough, I will surprise you even more: not only is there no soft sign, they generally have 6 letters less laughing and it is almost impossible to project English pronunciation with Russian signs, as, in fact, and vice versa

          And with Bismarck, you got a piercing ... wink
          1. Miffer Offline Miffer
            Miffer (Sam Miffers) 23 March 2021 17: 22
            +1
            they generally have 6 less letters laughing

            Yes, yes, in the "Russian" alphabet there are 33 letters, in the "English" - 26 letters. Less by "as much as 6".

            And with Bismarck, you got a little piercing ...

            Just like you have 33 - 26 = a whole 6.
            1. Pishenkov Offline Pishenkov
              Pishenkov (Alexey) 23 March 2021 18: 26
              -1
              Y-yes ... Here are 33-26 = ... just your level. Here I will even believe that you may have studied it ... With Bismarck and other complex things, everything is clearly worse.
              You know, in modern Russian, some do not consider the letter E as a separate letter. But again this is already very difficult ... request
              Well, okay, let's assume that you beat me here - by 7
              Moreover, I personally like the letter E. good
    2. Dear sofa expert. 23 March 2021 14: 05
      +1
      In my student years I had to get acquainted with the ideas of Bismarck, but I could not remember such "calls".

      You seem to have studied very badly if you do not know the famous quote:

      “Man kann die Russen nicht besiegen, das haben wir über Jahrhunderte gelernt. Aber man kann den Russen falsche Werte einbläuen, dann besiegen sie sich von selbst. "

      Whether Bismarck said it or not Bismarck, and it is in this or that form, one can certainly try to argue, this is a separate question, but the very fact that it is this particular quote is attributed to Bismarck is indisputable.
      1. Miffer Offline Miffer
        Miffer (Sam Miffers) 23 March 2021 14: 52
        0
        You seem to have studied very badly if you do not know the famous quote:

        This quote is known to me, therefore, I did not study very badly.
        The training was in Russian, and in Russian it sounded like this:

        Over the centuries, we have realized that the Russians cannot be defeated, but you can instill in them false values, and then they will defeat themselves.
        1. Dear sofa expert. 23 March 2021 16: 52
          +1
          and in Russian it sounded like this:
          "Over the centuries, we have realized that the Russians cannot be defeated, but you can instill false values ​​in them, and then they will defeat themselves."

          Well, that's right. You yourself are now confirming what the author of the article had in mind.

          So what is the semantic contradiction with what has been said ?:

          what Otto von Bismarck had in mind when he urged Western peoples never to openly fight Russia.
    3. Miffer Offline Miffer
      Miffer (Sam Miffers) 23 March 2021 15: 22
      -1
      ... Otto von Bismarck, urging Western peoples never to openly fight with Russia.

      So, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, it is not at all clear from the testimonies presented by the witnesses what exactly the author wanted to say in the highlighted phrase ... Bismarck urged never to openly fight, urged the type to fight "closed", how exactly? - Bismarck, drawn here by the ears, will never say this, and the author, even more so.
      At this point, the court session is declared closed.
      Thanks to everybody, you're free!
      1. Pishenkov Offline Pishenkov
        Pishenkov (Alexey) 23 March 2021 18: 38
        -1
        You, dear, no one here authorized to cover and close anything, and even more so to judge someone. There is nothing to say - be silent in a rag.
        An article about the Cold War, and this is not an open way of war ...
        It seems to me that there are simply too many letters in this text for you - your thought is lost in them. wassat
        1. Miffer Offline Miffer
          Miffer (Sam Miffers) 23 March 2021 21: 17
          +1
          It seems to me that there are simply too many letters in this text for you.

          1. When it seems to you, you need to be baptized;
          2. These texts I almost never read - there is a coastal coastline, and I do not want to clog my head with your garbage.

          There is nothing to say - be silent in a rag.

          Be so kind as to set an example.

          Yes, and before going to bed, practice oral counting, although this wisdom is beyond your perception.
          1. Pishenkov Offline Pishenkov
            Pishenkov (Alexey) 23 March 2021 23: 19
            -1
            ABOUT! The "trial" continues, how can I see?
            But if you are discussing what you do not read, then this is not a verdict, but a diagnosis! fool
            1. Miffer Offline Miffer
              Miffer (Sam Miffers) 24 March 2021 06: 05
              +1
              Pishenkov (Alexey) Yesterday, 13:36
              I do not want to offend you, but in your head, for this at least question, some kind of porridge.
              Saying "by ourselves", I have due to population of the USSR.

              1) "at least" - written in three words, without any hyphens;
              2) "in mind" - in this context it is written separately.
              3)
              this is a gross mistake ... according to the rules of the Russian language, it hurts your eyes.

              A fairly good "master of the English language" (as he estimates himself) does not know Russian to the end and writes with ahipkami ... Moreover, he has 33 - 26 = "as many as 6". But he still has the nerve to teach someone here :)
              Therefore, I can only advise him not to read his favorite correspondence between Engels and Kautsky, to stop choking cats and swallow tooth powder.
    4. Fourth Offline Fourth
      Fourth (Fourth) 24 March 2021 21: 43
      +1
      Quote: Miffer
      In my student years I had to get acquainted with the ideas of Bismarck, but I could not remember such "calls".

      It's never too late to learn.

  2. Miffer Offline Miffer
    Miffer (Sam Miffers) 23 March 2021 09: 00
    -1
    In no case can we just defend ourselves anymore, we must immediately go over to the offensive ... Otherwise, the aggressor will finally squeeze us out.

    If we do not pass in 10 years the path that the West has traveled in 100 years, we will be crushed.
  3. Oleg Rambover Offline Oleg Rambover
    Oleg Rambover (Oleg Pitersky) 23 March 2021 09: 02
    -4
    Russia is not the Soviet Union.

    The main resource of the state is people. Russia is not the USSR primarily on this point. The population of the Russian Federation is more than 100 million less. Accordingly, so much less and the power of the state.
    1. Miffer Offline Miffer
      Miffer (Sam Miffers) 23 March 2021 09: 22
      -1
      The main resource of the state is people.

      You personally think so.
      I once read a long article (I'm not sure I bookmarked it), the author of which argued that during the post-war USSR, abortion was the most important regulator of the demographic situation. I remembered the figure: from 1955 to 1990, 55 million abortions were performed in the USSR.
      And you say "the main resource".
      1. Oleg Rambover Offline Oleg Rambover
        Oleg Rambover (Oleg Pitersky) 23 March 2021 21: 02
        -2
        Quote: Miffer
        I once read a long article (I'm not sure I bookmarked it), the author of which argued that during the post-war USSR, abortion was the most important regulator of the demographic situation. I remembered the figure: from 1955 to 1990, 55 million abortions were performed in the USSR.
        And you say "the main resource".

        AND? How does this relate to this topic?
        1. Miffer Offline Miffer
          Miffer (Sam Miffers) 23 March 2021 22: 09
          0
          This refers to this topic in such a way that the state of the USSR did not at all consider people its main resource, and the people themselves understood this perfectly and resorted on such a massive scale to such a wild method of family planning as abortion.
          1. Oleg Rambover Offline Oleg Rambover
            Oleg Rambover (Oleg Pitersky) 24 March 2021 00: 21
            0
            The issue of abortion is very indirectly related to this topic. People are not pigs in pigsties, it is difficult to get them to breed. Read about the second demographic transition. Minerals are mined by people, people work in factories, people are employed in agriculture. In short, people create the product. The more products are created in the state, the stronger the state's economy.
            1. Miffer Offline Miffer
              Miffer (Sam Miffers) 24 March 2021 05: 37
              +1
              Minerals are mined by people, people work in factories, people are employed in agriculture. In short, people create the product. The more products are created in the state, the stronger the state's economy.

              You have clearly confused the addressees. I understand this without you.

              You need to go to the "sofa experts":

              Is India three times more powerful than the United States?)
    2. Dear sofa expert. 23 March 2021 14: 12
      -1
      The main resource of the state is people. Russia is not the USSR primarily on this point. The population of the Russian Federation is more than 100 million less. Accordingly, so much less and the power of the state.

      Yes Yes.))

      Is India three times more powerful than the United States?)

      Is China more powerful than India and the United States combined?

      And Pakistan, Indonesia and Nigeria are each individually more powerful than Russia.

      What can we say about Israel then?)
      1. Oleg Rambover Offline Oleg Rambover
        Oleg Rambover (Oleg Pitersky) 23 March 2021 21: 05
        -3
        Quote: Dear sofa expert.
        Is India three times more powerful than the United States?)

        Is China more powerful than India and the United States combined?

        And Pakistan, Indonesia and Nigeria are each individually more powerful than Russia.

        What can we say about Israel then?)

        Do you think if the United States had half the number of citizens, they would have been the same powerful power?
        1. Dear sofa expert. 23 March 2021 23: 38
          0
          Do you think if the United States had half the number of citizens, they would have been the same powerful power?

          I do not know. I have not stated either one or the other. And the very concept of "powerful power" for me is also relative.
          If for you "power" is in the power of arms, then Russia is not much different from the United States in terms of power.
          If in terms of living standards, then there will be more beggars in the rich USA, in number, at times more.
          If according to the current level of health care, then the numbers for Covid 19 speak for themselves; The USA is the absolute world champion in the number of cases and deaths.

          So what is the power for you?
          1. Oleg Rambover Offline Oleg Rambover
            Oleg Rambover (Oleg Pitersky) 24 March 2021 00: 34
            -2
            Quote: Dear sofa expert.
            If for you "power" is in the power of arms, then Russia is not much different from the United States in terms of power.

            The power of the state is primarily economic indicators. Everything else is derived from this.

            Quote: Dear sofa expert.
            If according to the current level of health care, then the numbers for Covid 19 speak for themselves; The USA is the absolute world champion in the number of cases and deaths.

            Judging by this, the most developed country is some sort of CAR. In general, no one died from the coronavirus there.
            1. The comment was deleted.
            2. Dear sofa expert. 24 March 2021 01: 05
              +2
              The power of the state is primarily economic indicators. Everything else is derived from this.

              Yes, but then it should be some kind of real, not nominal indicators. What's the use of some kind of notorious "average statistical economy", if there is some microscopically small handful of rich people fattening, but a huge number of people live, frankly. badly?

              Judging by this, the most developed country is some sort of CAR. In general, no one died from the coronavirus there.

              Judge how you want. But really .. you personally, would you like to be alive in "some kind of CAR", or die from the coronavirus in the United States?
              1. Oleg Rambover Offline Oleg Rambover
                Oleg Rambover (Oleg Pitersky) 24 March 2021 09: 45
                -3
                Quote: Dear sofa expert.
                Yes, but then it should be some real, not nominal.

                The United States or China are far more real.

                Quote: Dear sofa expert.
                What's the use of some kind of notorious "average statistical economy", if there is some microscopically small handful of rich people fattening, but a huge number of people live, frankly. badly?

                Are you talking about Russia? So the level of inequality in it is comparable to the Chinese one, that is, it is high.

                Quote: Dear sofa expert.
                Judge how you want. But really .. you personally, would you like to be alive in "some kind of CAR", or die from the coronavirus in the United States?

                A strange choice. In the Central African Republic, the average life expectancy is 50 years, in the United States it is 78. The chances of dying from coronavirus in the United States are slightly higher than in Moscow. Would you personally like to be alive in some kind of Central African Republic or die from the coronavirus in Moscow?
                1. Dear sofa expert. 24 March 2021 11: 22
                  +2
                  The United States or China are far more real.

                  Well .. China in terms of GDP (PPP) per capita is more than 1,5 times inferior to Russia.

                  In the United States, this parameter is certainly higher, but (!), Just because of the higher income inequality index, it is in no way real, but only conditional-nominal.
                  You show this "high rate" to one of the 55 million American beggars who live on the street and don't even have basic health insurance to an American. His answer will surprise you unpleasantly. )

                  Are you talking about Russia? So the level of inequality in it is comparable to the Chinese one, that is, it is high.

                  yes, comparable, and yes - high, but still much lower than the American one.

                  A strange choice. In the Central African Republic, the average life expectancy is 50 years, in the United States, 78. The chance of dying from coronavirus in the United States is slightly higher than in Moscow.

                  Yes, according to statistics, 80% of Americans who die from coronavirus are over 65 years old. But the remaining 20% ​​of "young people" make up about 110 thousand people, which is still 15 thousand more than all Russians taken together, where, according to official statistics, whatever one may say, the average age of a man who died from COVID-19 is 67 years old. and the average age of a woman who died from COVID-19 is slightly higher - 68,9 years.

                  So your attempts to denigrate Russia against the background of others do not look convincing.
                  1. Oleg Rambover Offline Oleg Rambover
                    Oleg Rambover (Oleg Pitersky) 24 March 2021 17: 15
                    -3
                    Quote: Dear sofa expert.
                    Well .. China in terms of GDP (PPP) per capita is more than 1,5 times inferior to Russia.

                    Well, I'm talking about the same. All these are derived from people, the number of people X productivity of people = economic power. In order for the Russian Federation to compete on an equal footing with China and the United States, we either have to have a population 5 times more, or productivity in the same 5 times more. Neither one nor the other is foreseen in the Russian Federation in the foreseeable historical perspective.

                    Quote: Dear sofa expert.
                    In the United States, this parameter is certainly higher, but (!), Just because of the higher income inequality index, it is in no way real, but only conditional-nominal.

                    In the United States, it is not much higher.

                    Quote: Dear sofa expert.
                    You show this "high rate" to one of the 55 million American beggars who live on the street and don't even have basic health insurance to an American. His answer will surprise you unpleasantly. )

                    Can you link where you get these numbers from?

                    Quote: Dear sofa expert.
                    yes, comparable, and yes - high, but still much lower than the American one.

                    No, not much Geely RF 37,5, China 38,5, USA 41,4
                    http://hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/hdr2020.pdf

                    Quote: Dear sofa expert.
                    Yes, according to statistics, 80% of Americans who die from coronavirus are over 65 years old. But the remaining 20% ​​of "young people" make up about 110 thousand people, which is still 15 thousand more than all Russians taken together, where, according to official statistics, whatever one may say, the average age of a man who died from COVID-19 is 67 years old. and the average age of a woman who died from COVID-19 is slightly higher - 68,9 years.

                    I don't understand what you are trying to prove? What is worse medicine in the USA? But this is obviously not the case. That the measures taken in the Russian Federation are more effective than in the United States? I don't know about the USA, but in the Russian Federation we can observe it with our own eyes, and I strongly doubt that it is much worse in the USA. What does God protect Russians? Then you feel good, but I stopped believing in miracles since I was told that Santa Claus is not there.

                    Quote: Dear sofa expert.
                    So your attempts to denigrate Russia against the background of others do not look convincing.

                    But what should I blacken, those like you do everything themselves perfectly.
      2. isofat Offline isofat
        isofat (isofat) 23 March 2021 23: 57
        -1
        Dear Couch Expert, they say that even the gods are powerless against stupidity.
    3. isofat Offline isofat
      isofat (isofat) 23 March 2021 23: 53
      -1
      Quote: Oleg Rambover
      The population of the Russian Federation is more than 100 million less. Accordingly, so much less and the power of the state.

      Oleg Rambover, You are a poet? The power of the state is counted in other units of measurement. laughing
  4. Bulanov Offline Bulanov
    Bulanov (Vladimir) 23 March 2021 09: 19
    +1
    To offer anything to China, it is necessary to do away with the 5th column in Russia itself. China does not have such problems, and therefore they will doubtfully look at Russian proposals if an enemy supporting the West has dug in in Russia itself. And Russia cannot do anything with this enemy within itself. They think - What if the power in Russia will change again, as in 1991?
    Therefore, you first need to cleanse enemies inside your country in order to offer something to a potential ally.
    1. BMP-2 Online BMP-2
      BMP-2 (Vladimir V.) 23 March 2021 12: 05
      0
      China also has this problem. An analogue of the Russian fifth column there are the so-called "Komsomol members" - the Shanghai clan of the Chinese Communist Party, consisting of supporters of the liberal model, focused on cooperation with the United States.
    2. Andrey Shesternin (Andrey Shesternin) 23 March 2021 13: 06
      0
      It's hard to say which at first. We'll have to, apparently, as always - all together.
    3. Miffer Offline Miffer
      Miffer (Sam Miffers) 23 March 2021 15: 37
      +1
      And the "cleaner" himself will not untie his navel during the process of real (non-sofa) cleaning of enemies?

      Brzezinski, speaking with our scientists on the missile defense problem, noted that “he does not see a single case in which Russia could resort to its nuclear potential, while there is $ 500 billion in American banks belonging to the Russian elite. And then he added: you still have to figure out whose elite it is - yours or already ours. This elite in no way connects its fate with the fate of Russia. They have money already there, children are already there ... "
  5. Sergey Latyshev (Serge) 23 March 2021 09: 20
    +2
    Experience teaches that "empires" do not fall apart from the outside; "Iperia" rot from the inside.
    Serdyukov, Usmanov, Medvedev, Sobchaks, Chubais, Edro and Tsapki ...

    And everything else is to divert attention.
    Nothing previously prevented the presidents from eating hamburgers and buying Boeings together ...
  6. amateur Offline amateur
    amateur (Victor) 23 March 2021 09: 31
    +2
    Communist ideology was we ourselves recognized it as erroneous and hopeless for further development,

    I wonder who exactly the author means by the words "by ourselves". Berezovsky, Gusinsky, Khodorkovsky, etc., who made their fortunes by plundering the property of the Soviet people, created during their life under the "communist ideology"?

    Even puppies bite a dead lion.

    (Publius Cyrus, ancient Roman)
    1. Pishenkov Offline Pishenkov
      Pishenkov (Alexey) 23 March 2021 09: 44
      -1
      No, the entire top of the CPSU and Komsomol, headed by Gorbachev, Yeltsin, etc.
      1. amateur Offline amateur
        amateur (Victor) 23 March 2021 10: 04
        +1
        Gorbachev, Yeltsin, etc. And all from the same place, who sharply "reforged"

        You would also add Zyuganov, only they are not communists "with ideology", but members of the CPSU. By the way, you also refer yourself to

        the top of the CPSU and Komsomol

        saying "by ourselves"?
        Or do you take responsibility to speak for "all progressive humanity"? No.
        1. Pishenkov Offline Pishenkov
          Pishenkov (Alexey) 23 March 2021 13: 36
          0
          I don’t want to offend you, but in your head, at least on this issue, there’s some kind of mess. Or you misunderstood the meaning of what you read.
          When I say “by ourselves,” I mean the population of the USSR. Yes, including me too. I was not a member of the CPSU, but I went through the entire obligatory chain from October to the Komsomol.

          Zyuganov personally had little to do with the collapse of the Union, and he can hardly be considered a real communist by anyone who knows at least the initial basic postulates of the Communist Party. In principle, then the leadership of the party was as "ideological" as Mr. (not a comrade!) Zyuganov ...
          We all know the result.
          1. amateur Offline amateur
            amateur (Victor) 23 March 2021 14: 15
            +2
            you, at least on this issue, have some kind of mess. Or you misunderstood the meaning of what you read.
            Saying "by ourselves", I I mean the population of the USSR.

            I am also one of the "population of the USSR". And in his 70s he saw and heard everyone - from Khrushchev to Putin. Therefore, you are kindly requested not to write or say anything for me "on behalf of everyone".
            Speak only for yourself. Something like: "I personally believe that the communist ideology was ourselves recognized as erroneous and unpromising for further development ..." and then write whatever you want.
            1. Miffer Offline Miffer
              Miffer (Sam Miffers) 23 March 2021 15: 49
              +1
              was recognized by us as erroneous

              Here it is necessary to indicate specifically - who was recognized as erroneous, and not "the top of the CPSU and Komsomol" or even more incomprehensible and abstract "population of the USSR".
            2. Pishenkov Offline Pishenkov
              Pishenkov (Alexey) 23 March 2021 16: 57
              -1
              The country is lost, WE ARE WITH YOU, whether you like it or not. I also voted in the referendum for the preservation of the USSR. It didn't work out. And not my fault. Although she too - I am part of the people who have lost it all.
              And I also lost this ideology then - when people who pretend that they are leading you somewhere do not believe in their own words, and everyone understands this - this is the end of ideology. And so it happened.
              If your faith in a bright communist future was preserved then and now, congratulations! You are really one of the few principled ones.
              But this does not change anything on the fact that WE, as a people, have lost both our country and our ideology. And YOU, too, as part of this people ... You can hang a red flag at least over the entire wall at your home, but it will not appear over the Kremlin ...
              1. amateur Offline amateur
                amateur (Victor) 23 March 2021 17: 14
                +1
                I don’t want to offend you, but in your head, at least on this issue, there’s some kind of mess. Or you misunderstood the meaning of what you read.

                It's a mess in your head. It was you who wrote this "controversial" article and now, in your comments, you rush from one corner to another. You can't convince me of anything. I'm not going to convince you of anything. We will remain each with his own.
                My semi-literate grandmother, who was left a widow with 3 children in the 20s and 30s, thanks to the Soviet regime, was able to educate her children: one is a doctor, one is a teacher, one is a high-class engineer. I graduated completely free of charge. I had to pay for studying at the university of my two daughters. But how and what kind of shisha my 4 grandchildren will learn - I'm even scared to think. What does ideology have to do with it? With everything. I THINK SO.
      2. Alexzn Offline Alexzn
        Alexzn (Alexander) 23 March 2021 10: 16
        0
        Thinking about "what happened" is quite reasonable. The conclusions are controversial, but also reasonable. In my opinion, you have forgotten the main thing - the confrontation is not only existential in nature, it is designed to provide access to resources and improve the living standards of the opposing side. The latter is often forgotten in Russia. Social inequality is too great, the law works too badly. The ability to fill the face of everyone around you is an important thing, but ...
        1. Pishenkov Offline Pishenkov
          Pishenkov (Alexey) 23 March 2021 13: 24
          -1
          Social inequality is too great, the law works too badly.

          - you will be surprised, but this is complained about in ALL large and developed countries. and not only...
          1. Alexzn Offline Alexzn
            Alexzn (Alexander) 23 March 2021 16: 31
            -2
            I won't be surprised, I often go there. It's not difficult for us to make some comparisons ...
            Compare the average salary and the salary of parliamentarians (not to mention the minimum). Compare taxation of the rich and not so. Social security, corruption, crime, etc. While you have gone the American way, not in your best option.
            1. Pishenkov Offline Pishenkov
              Pishenkov (Alexey) 23 March 2021 17: 16
              0
              All Yes. But in the West everything is the same, absolutely. And salaries, and corruption, and taxes and social security. Now, in a pandemic, everything is especially clear.
              With crime - according to statistics, I will not lie, I do not know, but look for laziness. But I know for sure that in the Russian Federation, in the USA and Europe, it is quite different in manifestation and content. But it is everywhere, and if in the Russian Federation it has definitely declined since the 90s, but in the West it is strictly the opposite
              1. Alexzn Offline Alexzn
                Alexzn (Alexander) 24 March 2021 08: 46
                0
                By crime. Western Europe, especially northern Europe, is much safer than Russia. For serious violent crimes, first of all for murders, this is very noticeable, their number is 2-4 times less. This is very significant. Yes, crime in the Russian Federation has dropped significantly since the 90s, but the decline has stabilized long ago and there are no significant changes, just as there are none in the West. Corruption, domestic violence, Russia has nothing to boast about.
                1. Pishenkov Offline Pishenkov
                  Pishenkov (Alexey) 24 March 2021 12: 53
                  +1
                  Have you been there, in Northern Europe, for a long time? In Sweden, at gas stations near the highway, it is often generally dumb to stop - there are gangs of "swarthy" citizens operating there, apparently gypsies, Romanians or Bulgarians, as in the 90s in Italy. And in modern Russia, as far as I know, in large cities there are no districts where their own laws work and where even the police are afraid to enter.
                  I generally agree about severe violent crime. But from which side to look and with what to compare - with the EU, yes, with the US, well, no way - in the Russian Federation, no one wets dozens of people in schools or supermarkets once a month about ...
                  Crime is comparable, just, as I said earlier, it is different, both in execution and for reasons ...
                  1. Alexzn Offline Alexzn
                    Alexzn (Alexander) 24 March 2021 13: 35
                    0
                    With the surge in refugee migration, there was a surge in crime, now the situation has stabilized and has practically returned to zero in serious crimes. Migrants are straining sitting in dubious heaps at train stations, major metro stations, etc., but in reality today it is a source of minor offenses.
                    I will not compare with the states, the situation there is similar in numbers to the Russian one.
                    1. Pishenkov Offline Pishenkov
                      Pishenkov (Alexey) 24 March 2021 14: 44
                      0
                      it's a deal then good
                      I personally observed the history of gas stations in Sweden for the last time about 2 years ago, since that time I have not been there. I would generally say that in Germany and Central Europe, and even in Italy in general, crime is now better than in Scandinavia - the police there are too herbivorous ... Not yet accustomed to "guests from the south" recourse
                      As it was in Germany in the early 90s, when they did not even know what to do with whom, including Russians wink
        2. Jacques sekavar Offline Jacques sekavar
          Jacques sekavar (Jacques Sekavar) 23 March 2021 16: 01
          +1
          the confrontation is not only existential, it is designed to provide access to resources and improve the living standards of the opposing side. The latter is often forgotten in Russia. Social inequality is too great

          1. The state is a political organization of the ruling class and the laws establish the ruling class based on its interests.
          2. Confrontation - the so-called. the intra-class struggle of big business for the best piece of the pie, i.e. arrived.
          3. The standard of living depends on the economic development and the activity of the oppressed classes. Big capital requires social stability and for the sake of its preservation is forced to make concessions, unfastening a small share of slaves to maintain their trousers.
          4. In the Russian Federation, no one forgets this - they regularly index wages, pensions, benefits, benefits, the minimum subsistence level, etc. which is immediately eaten up by inflation. Therefore, the standard of living of slaves practically does not change, but the incomes of big capital are growing, judging by the Forbes list.
          5. Social inequality is growing all over the world. This is evidenced by statistics - 100 years ago, 50% of the population owned 50% of all wealth, 50 years ago, 10% of the population owned 90% of the wealth, but today, according to a study by the international organization Oxfam, the state of 1% of the population has exceeded the state of the rest of the world. UN Secretary General Anton Guterres said the same thing last year - growing inequality is a characteristic feature of imperialism.
  7. Jacques sekavar Offline Jacques sekavar
    Jacques sekavar (Jacques Sekavar) 23 March 2021 10: 18
    0
    Who actually won the Cold War

    If the state does not have a fortress in itself, it will collapse. After the death of J.V. Stalin, the strength of the USSR steadily declined and eventually collapsed when M.S. Gorbachev was president of the USSR. There are no publicized merits of Reagan and Brzezinski in this, but to varying degrees this is the fault of N.S. Khrushchev, L.I.Brezhnev, M.S. Gorbachev, who allowed the formation of signs of a revolutionary situation when the top could no longer rule in the old the lower classes did not want to live in the old way, and in such a situation, Yeltsin's betrayal was the last straw that ended the USSR. The logical consequence of the coup d'etat and the restoration of capitalism was the discrediting of Marxism and the revision of history, the recognition of the erroneousness of the ideology of the collapsed social system, which looks extremely unconvincing against the background of the successes in building the foundations of socialism in the PRC under the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party and the incessant series of crises of the imperialist states and the emergence of capitalism in the Russian Federation.

    Russia is not the USSR

    The Russian Federation is the same analogue of the USSR in terms of administrative-territorial division, but V.V. Putin made qualitative changes to this:
    1. In fact, he pursues the Stalinist national policy with few exceptions - no one can occupy leading posts in national formations without fluency in the national language of this national formation.
    2. Without destroying Yeltsin's legacy to its foundations, he subordinated big capital to state interests, built the economy on personal interest, created mechanisms for state regulation of entrepreneurship, money circulation, lending, and taxation. He carried out the nationalization of backbone industries, reforms of social security, education, science, health care, etc., etc. It does everything that is the essence and meaning of the Leninist New Economic Policy, which showed brilliant results in the first half of the 20s in the USSR and which underlies the reforms of Deng Xiaoping in the PRC, which today brought the Chinese economy to the first place in the world.

    It's just a pity that all his titanic efforts will turn to dust without reliance on the political party and the dictatorship of the proletariat.

    Who started the Cold War

    Antagonistic class contradictions between the imperialist powers and the world's first state of a new type - the Soviet Union.

    The "consolidated West" is not exactly the West

    The West is consolidated in terms of the social system, the readiness of large monopoly industrial and financial capital to fight for the redivision of the world between the largest transnational monopolies and opposing common threats, and therefore the PRC and the Russian Federation are declared strategic enemies.

    What are we fighting for?

    In the USSR, TRP meant readiness to work and protect public property, and after the coup d'etat and the restoration of capitalism, it apparently means readiness to work for the owner and protect his property.
    1. Pishenkov Offline Pishenkov
      Pishenkov (Alexey) 23 March 2021 13: 46
      -2
      I do not agree at all, but your idea is clear - write your own article about this, in more detail. Perhaps there will be a reason for discussion. so these are just slogans. This is an offer, not a mockery ...
  8. Petr Vladimirovich (Peter) 23 March 2021 15: 40
    0
    As always from life. August 20, 1991. Evening, take two liters of coffee, sit down in a wheelbarrow, drive to the White House. On the frontal armor of the tanks that are near the House, and armored personnel carriers, which are looking at him with their trunks, sandwiches, Cola, cigarettes. Bonfires, guitars, construction brigade songs. There are simply no datas. The people are mainly from research institutes and academic institutes, in six months they will all be without wages ...
    The beginning of the end of the Cold War and the Union ... Good luck everyone !!!
    fellow
  9. steelmaker Offline steelmaker
    steelmaker 23 March 2021 15: 48
    0
    Who actually won the Cold War

    The topic of this article has been going around in circles for the hundredth time. Everyone knows the facts. The arguments given by the author are also correct, but repetitive. They are known to me because I follow this topic. For me, the most important thing is what conclusion the author will draw from what has been written.

    Unfortunately, there are enough “pathological failures” among political leaders of the highest level

    But these are thoughts in the right direction. True, for our country, the author did not begin to expand the topic. But he also did not engage in petty toadying of our government.

    In 2021, a war is going on against us, it doesn't matter if it is “first” or “second” in someone's classification. It is important that she is

    I agree completely. But, if the author admits this, then it is necessary to reveal this concept of war. Experts have revealed this concept. War is the destruction of the enemy's manpower. And you can destroy not only with bullets and shells, but also the conditions under which people themselves will die. And under Putin, our people are only dying. War is the destruction of the economy of the state. And again, not necessarily with bombs and shells. It is enough that the enterprises do not belong to the state, and the profit does not fall into the country's budget. In one commentary, I already wrote that in 2011 the budget of Russia was 11 trillion rubles, and in 2021 it became only 18 trillion rubles. Where's the money? War is the seizure of territory. With the collapse of the USSR, Russia lost its primordially Russian lands. And Putin is in no hurry to return them.

    They brought us to our knees, robbed, humiliated and took away the territory. Everything happened the same as if a real war had been lost.

    Absolutely correct conclusion. But many stubbornly refuse to notice him.

    as the effect of a compressed spring, which sooner or later will try to take its original form.

    But under this phrase, the author relies on Putin. That's how I understood it. Because I didn't mention Khabarovsk, I didn't mention January 23. Sorry. Namely, the current government squeezes this spring inside the country! And those who are trying to straighten this spring in the bud "strangle". And what is easier than ever. Appoint the same Grudinin and Platoshkin to government posts, let them show that they can not only criticize, but also work. Fears. Furgala was elected and it turns out there is someone who is better than Putin !! It turns out that you can not steal, and not give bribes.

    Objectives based on this:

    No one with an economically weak state will "not subscribe" to these goals. All these goals are achievable if a really statesman comes instead of Putin!
  10. isofat Offline isofat
    isofat (isofat) 23 March 2021 17: 13
    -4
    The Soviet people did not lose in the Cold War. The war continues. The enemy is looking for a "new" ideology to replace the killed one. And our ideology is waiting for specialists who can be entrusted with a responsible business. yes
  11. Cyril Offline Cyril
    Cyril (Kirill) 23 March 2021 17: 19
    -2
    Who started the Cold War

    I’ll say right away - not us. The very term "Cold war" appeared in the West back in 1947 to explain, apparently, initially to themselves and their peoples, what, in fact, this very West was already doing in relation to the USSR.

    Why would you? Even at the dawn of the formation of the RSFSR and, subsequently, the USSR, it was written in black and white in the Constitution that one of the goals of the USSR was to fight the capitalist countries. This was presented, of course, as "the liberation of the working people of the whole world from the oppression of the exploiters," but in any case, this provision definitely implies opposing oneself to the "capitalist world" (first of all, the Western).

    Well, Ilyich's speech on the "world revolution", etc., is tantamount to Churchill's Fulton speech.

    So "who started it first" is a very controversial question.
    1. Jacques sekavar Offline Jacques sekavar
      Jacques sekavar (Jacques Sekavar) 23 March 2021 19: 16
      +1
      Ilyich's speech on the "world revolution", etc. is tantamount to Churchill's Fulton speech

      In his work Imperialism as the Highest Stage of Capitalism, Lenin substantiated the law of uneven development of capitalism and the possibility of the victory of socialism in one (!) Country, and the impossibility in all countries at the same time. Such a broken phone about the world revolution turns out.
      1. Cyril Offline Cyril
        Cyril (Kirill) 23 March 2021 20: 37
        0
        In his work Imperialism as the Highest Stage of Capitalism, Lenin substantiated the law of uneven development of capitalism and the possibility of the victory of socialism in one (!) Country, and the impossibility in all countries at the same time. Such a broken phone about the world revolution turns out.

        That's right, Lenin spoke of such capabilities... He was not a stupid person and understood that the "proletarians of all countries" would not unite at once and would not throw off the "oppression of the exploiters." Nevertheless, the fight against world capitalism (that is, first of all, with the West) and the victory over it was declared as a goal to be achieved in the future.

        USSR Constitution of 1924, section 1:

        Since the formation of the Soviet republics, states of the world
        split into two camps: the capitalist camp and the
        socialism.


        On the other hand, the instability of the international situation and
        the danger of new attacks makes the creation of single
        front of the Soviet republics in the face of the capitalist
        surroundings.


        ... the new union state will be a worthy crowning
        October 1917 the foundations of peaceful cohabitation and fraternal
        cooperation of peoples that it will serve as a true stronghold against
        world capitalism and a new decisive step along the way
        uniting workers of all countries in World Socialist
        Soviet republic
      2. Cyril Offline Cyril
        Cyril (Kirill) 23 March 2021 20: 41
        0
        Well, about Lenin and the world revolution:

        In a letter to Sverdlov and Trotsky on October 1, 1918, V. I. Lenin pointed out that "... the international revolution has approached ... such a distance that it must be reckoned with as an event of the coming days." On March 6, 1919, in his closing speech at the closing of the I (constituent) congress of the Comintern, he said:

        Victory of the proletarian revolution worldwide provided. The foundation of an international Soviet republic is coming.

        So there is no "broken phone". It's just that Lenin made contradictory statements.
        1. Alexzn Offline Alexzn
          Alexzn (Alexander) 24 March 2021 08: 54
          0
          Everything is correct. Lenin talked about victory in one, separately taken country, but he also talked about the IMPOSSIBILITY of building communism (socialism) in an imperialist encirclement. Therefore, in fact, they started talking about building socialism within the framework of the socialist system, but for communism no one canceled the world revolution. The very emergence of a state with an ideological message of struggle against world capital by all available methods meant a cold war and more.
  12. Dima Dima_2 Offline Dima Dima_2
    Dima Dima_2 (Dima Dima) 23 March 2021 18: 42
    -1
    The winner was the one who remained intact) The Russian Empire was larger than the USSR. The union is larger than Russia. It's only the beginning.
  13. Oleg Rambover Offline Oleg Rambover
    Oleg Rambover (Oleg Pitersky) 24 March 2021 15: 19
    0
    Perhaps after the Second World War they finally realized what Otto von Bismarck had in mind when he urged Western peoples never to openly fight with Russia.

    It dawned on them, even before the outbreak of WWII, that large-scale wars did not bring any benefit even to the victors. The buns from the victory are not comparable to the losses from the war. And the losers in WWI did not seem to have reached the point.
  14. Oleg Rambover Offline Oleg Rambover
    Oleg Rambover (Oleg Pitersky) 24 March 2021 15: 43
    0
    But the military and industrial power of the USSR at that time was so great that even after the Americans had a working atomic bomb in 1945, the hopes of the Western "allies" for their own victory in such an adventure seemed rather illusory to them. And when in 1949 its own atomic weapon appeared in the Soviet Union, all feasible Western plans for confrontation finally turned exclusively into a "cold" form - the "hot" one was already threatening mutual destruction.

    The basic principles of the Cold War were set forth in the famous long telegram from Kenan (Counselor to the US Embassy in the USSR) in February 46. It is not for nothing that he is called the architect of the Cold War. Even then, the United States was not going to fight openly with the USSR.
  15. Oleg Rambover Offline Oleg Rambover
    Oleg Rambover (Oleg Pitersky) 24 March 2021 16: 06
    -1
    And with the "cold" war of the United States against the USSR, everything is the same. But not so honestly - no one spoke about resources there.

    No resources can recoup a full-scale war with the Russian Federation, even a "desert storm" did not really bring control over Iraq's oil resources.
  16. Oleg Rambover Offline Oleg Rambover
    Oleg Rambover (Oleg Pitersky) 24 March 2021 16: 32
    +1
    If we consider this parallel, then now the events are approximately consistent with the winter of 1942-43. There are still many of our lands in the power of the enemy, but there have already been the first serious victories, the partially restored economy and industry have already begun to provide the necessary support to the front, and the morale of the newly gaining strength of the army has also recovered after the constant setbacks of the initial period of hostilities. The "spring" slowly but surely went in the opposite direction.

    All this is of course poetic, but one must understand that in any war, even a "cold" one, even a "hot" one, the winner is the one who has more resources. Germany had fewer resources than the allies, and this determined its defeat. The Germans pinned their hopes on the "blitzkrieg" and in the early stages it bore fruit, but as soon as it failed and the war took on a protracted nature, it became a struggle of resources, the defeat of Germany became inevitable. There are no miracles.
    If you look for parallels in history today, then the Crimean War and the Cold War come to mind. In the first case, the great power of Ingushetia lost to the "west" in a hot war, in the second, the superpower of the USSR in a "cold" war. In both cases, the "West" had more resources, but never had such a bad balance as now.
    Hence the question, what fuels the hopes of the author and the respected members of the forum who share his views for victory in the current confrontation?
    1. Captain stoner Offline Captain stoner
      Captain stoner (Captain Stoner) 24 March 2021 22: 33
      -1
      what fuels the hopes of the author and the respected members of the forum who share his views for victory in the current confrontation?

      These hopes are "nourished" only by the understanding that there will be no real war, and in this case everything that comes to mind can be poured into here. The current freshly nullified multi-move master will never dare to open war with a stronger adversary, and "aggressive Yankees with henchmen" will not go to the trouble either, limiting themselves to a sluggish struggle to gradually exhaust the weakening opponent.
      1. Ulysses Offline Ulysses
        Ulysses (Alexey) 24 March 2021 22: 45
        -1
        These hopes are "nourished" only by the understanding that there will be no real war, and in this case everything that comes to mind can be poured into here. The current freshly nullified multi-move master will never dare to open war with a stronger enemy

        A naive delusion.

        PSA where is he, the "stronger opponent" ??
        1. Captain stoner Offline Captain stoner
          Captain stoner (Captain Stoner) 25 March 2021 09: 25
          0
          1) The submarine "Kursk" exploded on its own and (as the commander-in-chief said) "sank";
          2) For the lives of Ambassador Karlov, the pilot Peshkov and the Marine Pozynich, "friend Recep" still weighed a lot of tomatoes, although the commander-in-chief swore that the Turks would not get rid of them alone.

          You will now sing here about diplomatie subtile, responsibility to your country and people, and so on. With such "balanced, responsible, calm, thoughtful" retaliatory measures, there is no "stronger adversary" and cannot be. This is our way: got one cheek, turn the other.
          1. Ulysses Offline Ulysses
            Ulysses (Alexey) 25 March 2021 19: 10
            0
            1) The submarine "Kursk" exploded on its own and (as the commander-in-chief said) "sank";
            2) For the lives of Ambassador Karlov, the pilot Peshkov and the Marine Pozynich, "friend Recep" still weighed a lot of tomatoes, although the commander-in-chief swore that the Turks would not get rid of them alone.

            "Kursk" is also Erdogan ?? belay
            If you have your own version, tell us ..

            For the life of Ambassador Karlov, a Turkish court sentenced six people accused of the murder of the Russian ambassador to terms of five to nine years. Five defendants in the case received life sentences (two were sentenced to two life sentences).

            Turkey still pays for the pilot Peshkov and will pay more ...

  17. Ulysses Offline Ulysses
    Ulysses (Alexey) 24 March 2021 22: 44
    0
    Is the Cold War over or did I oversleep something ??

    As long as Russia is on the map, the war for the collective "West" will not end.
  18. Peter rybak Offline Peter rybak
    Peter rybak (Patrol) 28 March 2021 11: 28
    0
    Dear author, excuse me, I didn’t read it to the end, I didn’t master it. The very first line made me think about the one-sidedness of the story and the promotion of false values.

    We ourselves recognized the communist ideology as erroneous and unpromising for further development, the huge Soviet empire fell apart into several parts.

    Who are "ourselves"? On whose behalf do you present this thesis as a fact?
    The huge Soviet empire was not assembled on a voluntary basis and, naturally, such a union could not last long. The logical end of the empire has come, like all the earlier and later world empires. You should know this from the history textbooks.
    Whether it will be possible to preserve the present empire in this form is an interesting question. Yes, at the beginning of the XNUMXs, the question of the national self-determination of the peoples inhabiting Russia seemed to have been closed, someone was intimidated, someone was bought, and their people were appointed somewhere. This scheme has been working for twenty years. But how long will it last? And here, first of all, the questions of the country's economic condition, the further impoverishment of the people, the laws that are becoming more and more stringent from day to day in the name of preserving the current government will intervene. And there are many other issues that are completely unrelated to the possible collapse of the country, in particular, the brain drain, the general departure of young people from the Russian Federation, the strengthening of the oligarchy's positions, the lack of any choice in terms of the popular definition of the structure of power, the collapse of the judicial system, strengthening the influence of power structures.
    The Cold War is not a unilateral move. In any war, at least two states must participate. One of them, of course, is ours. Russia does not like the strengthening of NATO's positions, the West does not like the strengthening of Russia's positions, its attempt to influence other countries of the world. This is the natural course of events. And I do not think that only the West is to blame for the emergence of the "cold war", its further development. You are referring specifically to "Western militarism"?
  19. MMS Offline MMS
    MMS (Adam) 7 September 2021 05: 51
    +1
    Thanks. Very good stuff.

    The only thing I would like to note is that when we ask the question "Who won the Cold War?"

    As it seems to me, there are two reasons for this:
    -unambiguously the RSFSR, which is part of the USSR, should not be recorded as "defeated" for the reason that only as a result of the collapse of the USSR its further development became possible on the basis of common sense. The degradation of Russia was stopped in all respects on the basis of the "socialist idea". The same cannot be said about many "union republics" that were formerly part of the USSR .;
    - not all "individuals" from the former "union republics", including Russia, feel "defeated". Two categories of these "persons" consider themselves to be such: those who are fundamentally unable or unwilling to live independently and the "die-hard Marxist-Leninists" who have turned into an ordinary religious sect.