Читать книгу Rouble Nationalization – the Way to Russia’s Freedom - Николай Стариков - Страница 1

Many extraordinary events have taken place lately in different parts of the world. The Arab Spring, the collapse of multiculturalism in Europe, youth riots in major European countries and the 'Occupy Wall Street' movement are just a few examples to mention. The world is changing rapidly. What is more, these changes are clearly not for the better. All those things that were clear, secure and solid yesterday are now becoming unstable. The international financial system is falling apart at the seams, and that can be seen with the naked eye. Just ten years ago those who would speak of the dollar crash or of the Euro-zone decay, would perhaps have been regarded as insane and would have been recommended to see a doctor. Now these matters are discussed night and day on all TV-channels. This news is on the front pages of newspapers.

Let us look at ordinary people. What should they think of these events? Should they applaud the victory of the opposition in the Arabic countries and the establishment of democracy there? Or rather worry about the defeat of government forces and growing instability? Should they sympathise with the youth riots in the developed countries or rather regard these young people as just having too much of a good thing? Or, maybe, they had better simply forget about all that and go to see a football game? But even there they will come across football fans, nationalists, tolerance issues and many other unpleasant things? And finally – consider the conspiracy theories about the end of the world and the aliens. So, what should they do? Let us look at it more closely.

And we should start with state sovereignty. Without this concept we will never grasp the essence of what is happening…

There are currently over two hundred states on Earth. These states are very different, just like human beings are. There are large and small ones, rich and poor ones, famous ones and completely unknown to the majority of the world's population. Among these nations there are those with advanced economies and those with decaying ones, those growing and those wasting away. Some die out, some grow older, and others are propagating vigorously and growing younger year by year. So, what is this factor that determines whether a nation is developing or stagnating?

Let us compare it with the factors, influencing the life of a human. Those are plenty: parents and upbringing, attitude of a person towards the things they are busy with, their love of learning. Health is important and even one's birthplace has certain significance. One cannot ignore friends, bad habits, luck. Happy or unhappy marriage plays its role, too. All in all, it is a mosaic of accidents that determines the life of a human being. And so, people live, get older and work following the waves of destiny. They pursue their goals. Or – which also happens – they sink to the very bottom.

But there is one sine qua non condition of the phenomenon called human happiness. It is not by chance, that I address happiness in this context, since it is happiness, which has to be the criterion of human existence; happiness, and not success, interpreted differently in different cultures. Human happiness presupposes autonomy. One has to make decisions by oneself; one has to carry responsibility for the consequences of those decisions. In the same way the 'happy life of the state requires this state to be autonomous. This self-determination of the state is called State Sovereignty.

State sovereignty means supremacy of the state within its borders as well as its autonomy in the international affairs.[1] State sovereignty is incompatible with any interference from the outside. A sovereign state is the one to decide for itself and to reap the fruits of these decisions. The country itself has to determine its path of development; the head of the country has to do things that are good for the country and that make the country prosperous. The power is sovereign only if this criterion is chosen as the basic one for defining of state policy – exactly as an adult is independent only if they are free to decide themselves about their family. It may happen that the benefits of certain decisions will not be immediate, and will not always be obvious; yet the criterion 'make it better' will always guide a normal person in actions concerning their family.

Is this not the case of modern states as well? Is this not the case that the statesmen of different countries are striving hammer and tongs for the sake of their countries? Is this not the case that while looking at the political map one sees a lot of independent countries that bravely move across the rough sea of politics and economics?

Alas, it is not; the reality is completely different. It is exactly the opposite. Nearly all countries of the modern world are forced to conduct policies that are very far from their national interests. The examples are not hard to find, you will find them in today's newspapers. What do Poland, the Czech Republic and Bulgaria need the deployment of the American antiballistic missile elements on their territories for? Do they need it to defend themselves from the missiles? I would like to highlight two points in this context. Firstly, these countries are NATO members, and this alliance, where the USA and Britain rule the roost, has, in compliance with its regulations, to protect them from any military attacks. Secondly, it is not very clear whose missiles these countries are going to defend themselves from. Some say that this refers to Iranian missiles. Yet for some obscure reason the ABM is being deployed closer to the Russian borders than to the Iranian ones. Whereby would it not be more logical to deploy the system in the proximity of the hazard and not in another part of the planet. Furthermore, the Iran of today simply does not have missiles which would be capable of reaching Poland or the Czech Republic, and it is not clear when Iran will get such missiles. Maybe the ABM is being deployed in Europe 'just in case'? In case Iranians invent, assemble and launch a missile of the newest generation?! Well, let us suppose, they have indeed invented one. And even have assembled a couple of dozens. The questions remain the same – why should Iran immediately attack somebody? Why should Iran aim at Poland – or the Czech Republic? What harm did these or other Europeans – such as Romanians or Bulgarians inflict on Iranians? The questions hang in the air, and the things, mentioned in this context by American politicians resemble a smokescreen.

As for today, the probability of Iranian missiles attacking the West is the same as that of aliens landing in California.

The benefit to Eastern-European countries from these actions is questionable, to say the least. Their security will not develop whereas they will inherit a lot of problems. As a matter of fact, the positions of the American missiles will be immediately exposed to attacks of Russian nuclear warhead missiles. On the other hand, it will be impossible to track what kind of rockets Americans shelter in the launching silos. Who can guarantee that these missiles are just an air defence weapon? What if they are equipped with nuclear warheads, too? Indeed, the proximity of the missiles to our borders drastically reduces their flying time to Russian towns and strategic objects. It was exactly the argument that made American diplomats so eloquent during the Caribbean crisis – yes, it would have taken just a few minutes for a missile to attack the USA from Cuba. So, today's Russia cannot help reacting either. As a result, people living in Poland and the Czech Republic who gained nothing from deployment of the American ABM in terms of security, now risk coming under the crossfire of Russian nuclear missiles. So what is that big reward for these countries, can anybody explain to me? Well, the leaders of these countries will be tapped on the shoulder during the next summit meeting and will be titled 'democrats' by human rights activists. It does not sound like a very generous reimbursement for the constant fear of being attacked by nuclear missiles, does it? Would you settle for putting a barrel of petrol in your own apartment to get a discount for your rent and a tablet on your door with the inscription An excellent household apartment'? No? Then that is not the point.

The questions arise one by one. Are the leaders of these countries, who jeopardise their citizens without gaining anything worthy instead really freestanding? Are they really freestanding, those masking their misconduct with talks about some hypothetical threats corresponding to nothing in reality? The answer is evident – no, they are not. And that means that the country behaving in such a strange way has no sovereignty. In the modern world only a very small number of countries can proudly claim Absolute State Sovereignty. It has always been the case – there have always been those who drive and those who are driven, mother countries and satellites, seniors and vassals, slave-owners and slaves. Nothing changes but the style and the pattern of the curtain which hides this uncomfortable truth from the majority of the population. The states enjoying the sovereignty in its full range can be counted on the fingers of one hand. Normally the situation looks as follows: the state has its flag and its president. And that is it! These are the alpha and omega of the sovereignty of some 'proud and independent' country. Deeds, words and acts of this state are imposed by its 'partners'.

In 1985 these sovereign countries were the USSR, the USA, Great Britain and China. All the rest had to more or less coordinate their steps with the 'big brothers' whose struggle against one another formed the main subject of the world politics. In just a few years' time, the reality looks far less promising for us. Today the Absolute State Sovereignty is maintained by Great Britain and the USA, two world powers forming the skeleton of the policy-makers, and China, which stepped in the shoes of the USSR, and which is now the country with the world's highest rates of economy growth.[2] Did we miss anybody in our list? I am afraid not. Todays Russia is not among the countries with the Absolute State Sovereignty. Our country enjoys only a restricted, partial sovereignty, the acquisition of the Complete State Sovereignty is the object of the unseen struggle carried out at the moment. Sometimes this struggle spills over onto TV-screens and the pages of newspapers in the form of news of the next terrorist attack or the 'earthshattering' international meeting.

The internal problems of today's (as well as of yesterday's, though) Russia derive directly from the loss of the Complete State Sovereignty. Before we find out when we lost it, we have to clarify the terms. So, what is the Complete State Sovereignty?

It consists of five different sovereignties:

1. The recognition of the territory of the country by the international community, the flag, the national emblem and the national anthem.

2. The diplomatic sovereignty, implying the ability to pursue an independent international policy, which means that the state should be free to choose its own friends and its own enemies. If you are on good terms with Iran, you will never care that the power in this country is held by the Ayatollahs who are not popular in the USA. You can punch the aggressor in the face and you need not worry that this aggressor is the democratically elected president of Georgia.

Once the diplomatic sovereignty is achieved, objective processes start immediately and dictate the necessity of obtaining two further sovereignties. It is a well-known fact that military power and a strong economy are the only factors the diplomats have real respect for.

So, the third and the fourth sovereignties will be:

3. The military sovereignty – the ability to rebuff an aggressor and to provide security for yourself and your allies;

4. The economical sovereignty – the economical and industrial development, providing for further advancement of the country out of its internal reserves.

Is that all? No. There is also a fifth sovereignty, and as our history instructs it is the most important one. The lack of this is the first step that leads into the abyss.

5. Cultural sovereignty.

Let us refocus. Solely in the case of all five sovereignties being present is it possible to speak about the Complete State Sovereignty. If we consider all the modern countries from this point (or reconsider the history), we will immediately notice that practically every country lacks one or several of the abovementioned points. For instance, today's Germany doesn't have military sovereignty. German armed forces amount to ca. 250 thousand people.[3] Here it can be recalled that by the time Hitler came to power in 1933, the effective strength of the Weimar Republic's army had reached 100 thousand people, with which Germany was considered completely disarmed, as good as having no army at all! Yet at the time when the country of beer and sausages was full of strength and was actively developing, the corresponding figures were radically different. Just before the First World War in 1914, the peace-time strength of Germany was 801 thousand people. Is this an argument indicative of the German aggressive character? No. In the same year, France had the disposal of a regular establishment numbering 766 thousand.[4] Today, the population of Germany amounts to 83 million, i. e. it has grown by 20%, and its army in comparison with 1914 has shrunk to a quarter of its size.[5] What does it mean? Nothing but the lack of military sovereignty in Germany.

Yet if anybody stated that a large army in today's world is an anachronism, I would refer to the article concerning the US Secretary of Defence, Donald Rumsfeld, just to give them a general idea of manpower of the American Army: 'Currently the armed forces of the USA amount to ca. 2.6 million men and women, from which 1.4 are on the active service, 876,000 of guardians and reservists are in the military bases, and 287,000 form the special trained reserve.'[6] Why then is the US so reluctant to reduce its huge army, even given the enormous yearly budget deficiency?[7]

It is because a strong army is the sine qua non condition for having Complete State Sovereignty. And equally importantly, it is a possibility for one country to deprive other countries of their sovereignty at its behest, exactly as the USA has done with Iraq, and as it has done with Yugoslavia.

The rules in politics would never change, just as the desire of street boys to be strong and muscular so that nobody could offend them. Germany has a small army because it has delegated a part of its sovereignty to NATO and 'personally' to the USA. Germans have no military sovereignty, and therefore no diplomatic sovereignty, whereas their economical sovereignty is evident. The German economy is the biggest in Europe, and Germany is the top GDP country of the euro-zone. So, why does Berlin send its soldiers to Afghanistan? Because Berlin is not allowed to act otherwise. What do German soldiers have to look for in Afghanistan? Do the Taliban endanger the security of Germany? No, the reason is different. The USA and Great Britain invaded a country of major strategic significance under the following contrived pretext; Afghanistan borders on Pakistan, Middle Asia (i.e. Russia), Iran, China and – over the little stripe of the Pakistan territory – with India. While there, the Americans get the opportunity to trouble quite a number of their political contestants. That is exactly why after Americans and the British came to Afghanistan, the drug production that had nearly been eradicated by the Taliban, was resumed, and what is more, on a massively industrial scale.[8]

This is not purely coincidence. Drugs mean a possibility to kill the young of Russia, Iran and China. Drugs provide an excellent excuse to place these countries under one's control. Drugs mean corruption, which is one step away from the betrayal of one's own country. Drugs mean networking with the dregs of society, with its feculence, with people who are willing not only to import and sell the deadly potion, but also to organise the terrorist act and assassination as well – just for being paid.

The interests of the USA are clear to us. But what about the Germans? Why on earth are they in Afghanistan? And Italians? And Estonians, and Latvians? I will not even ask about Estonian and Latvian soldiers – the matter is abundantly clear. Our Baltic friends had never had the real sovereignty – and will never obtain it. But Italy and Germany? From the first glance these countries are self-sufficient and sovereign. But, alas, they are not free to stop sending their soldiers to this senseless war! While studying history and politics, please, keep in mind a simple truth: the ownership of a flag and an emblem per se counts for nothing. Never be surprised if a country acts against its own interests. The simple fact is that this country does not have a real autonomy.

So, let us check, what the situation with all compounds of the Complete State Sovereignty looked like in different years in our country.

What did we have in 1952? In this year all five sovereignties were present:

● recognition, flag, emblem and anthem were present;

● the diplomatic sovereignty – the ability to conduct an independent international policy was disputed in arms during the Great Patriotic War;

● the military sovereignty was present – the USSR did not stand behind its contestants; every effort was exerted for production of nuclear weapons;

● the economical sovereignty was present – the food-coupons were abolished, the country was recovering;

● the cultural sovereignty was present: songs, values, cult-figures – all of them were of Russian provenance.

In 1980 only four sovereignties were left:

● recognition, flag, emblem and anthem were present;

● the diplomatic sovereignty – the ability to conduct an independent international policy was present;

● the military sovereignty was present – the USSR still did not stand behind its contestants, having joined the armament race, adhering to the law of the talion, rather than to the principle of sufficient cause[9];

● the economical sovereignty was present – food shortages occurred, but nobody went hungry.

Yet the cultural sovereignty had vanished: everyone was chasing after the foreign rags and chewing gum. The West – is the 'regent of dreams'. The West was considered something advanced, whereas our own country was disrespected as a backward 'sovok' (from 'soviets').

It is the loss of cultural sovereignty that became the starting point of the tragedy of Russia – the USSR. We started with losing our cultural sovereignty under Khrushchev – Brezhnev, then the military sovereignty under Gorbatchev. Unilateral reductions of the newest missiles, withdrawal of troops everywhere and the termination of the Warsaw pact[10] are the hallmarks of this process. As a result, the economical sovereignty shrunk immediately, instantaneously. Ration books and coupons emerged; the life became dependent on the credits from the West. The gold reserve of the USSR disappeared without a trace. The 'gold of the communist party' was hunted for by the democrats, whereas they never cared for the 'Gold of USSR'. Because the only place where this gold could have gone was the West. There were no other possible destinations.

And finally, the last thing we lost was the diplomatic sovereignty, as the destiny of the country was decided not within but without the country's participation. Yet the process of demolition did not rest there. The subsequent shameful dissolution of the USSR with violation of all thinkable laws, the notorious agreement in Belavezhskaya Pushcha (Bialowieza forest) was the bottom-line of a complete loss of the diplomatic sovereignty. The freezing point had been reached. Immediately after the session, as three politicians who had violated the results of the referendum on retaining of the USSR decided to dissolute it, Boris Yeltsin dialled Washington and reported what had happened![11] Just like in the TV-game 'Who wants to be a millionaire?' – the first call is to the friend!

And after you have lost everything – what do you need your life for? And so the USSR vanished literally a few days after it had lost the remnants of its sovereignty…

By 1992 all we had was the international recognition:

● a beautiful flag, emblem and the recognition by the West of the new – strongly curtailed – borders of our country;

● no diplomatic sovereignty left – Russia gives up all its friends just like that – for patronizing compliments on its steady move towards democracy;

● no military sovereignty left – we started disarming unilaterally;

● there was no trace of the economical sovereignty – the country could supply itself with nothing, the whole industry was being sold out at no price;

● no cultural sovereignty left – we were actively talking over foreign values.

Yet Carthage shall be destroyed, shall it not? Wiped off the map. So the process of our sovereignty should have been brought to the final point, and this final point should be the complete decay of the country. By the end of the nineties that proved to be a terrible reality: the Ural republic under Eduard Rossel – the republic with the completely autonomic state structure, as well as numerous presidents of the autonomy republics and districts were already present. By 1999 Russia's sovereignty was reduced to a flag, emblem and the internationally recognized territory. It is this fifth sovereignty that we were sentenced to be deprived of. It would have meant a break-up of Russia into minor states; it would have meant a war and chaos. The signal for this scenario was given by Basayev's invasion of Dagestan. The country was completely ready to be surrendered. Yet it was not…

The turn of 2000 marked the beginning of the gradual restoration of the Complete State Sovereignty. The previous process had been reversed. What was lost last was regained first. The whole thing began with restoration of diplomatic sovereignty, i.e. with the second Chechen operation. I am speaking about the right of the country to have control over its own territory, whatever the opinion of the international community may be. I am speaking about maintaining friendship with those countries, whose friendship is profitable for Russia. I am speaking about repelling an aggressor in the South Ossetia. Let us face it – it was not the Georgian president but the USA standing behind, who was chinned by the Russian troops. With my own eyes I saw reports from the South Ossetian capital… a corpse of a black soldier in the NATO uniform. It was shown a couple of times – then these shots disappeared from the broadcast. A military advisor, killed in the battle. It is not by chance, that in the Soviet tanks, that had been in arsenal of the Georgian army and were captured in Tskhinvali, the labels inside the machine were written in English…

By 2011 we had:

● recognition, flag, emblem and anthem;

● partial diplomatic sovereignty – we have to bargain with the USA and act with caution on it;

● the military sovereignty is being restored, this process may be slow, but it is talking place;

● we are still missing economic sovereignty.

The cultural sovereignty still stays out, yet it is on the rebound. Like after the cruel disease we come to ourselves, recover from amnesia and finally realize how meanly we were deceived by the 'perestroika foremen'. Once again our youth starts to be proud of our country. Patriotism has apparently grown in the last ten-fifteen years; the times when our tourists felt ashamed to confess that they are from Russia, are over. This does not sound like a huge progress, does it? No, it does not, the progress is indeed very little. Annoyingly little. Yet the direction is right, however slow the tempo may be.

The objective of the management and the government of Russia shall be acquisition of Complete State Sovereignty of Russia.

How can we get rid of the deficiency of State Sovereignty? How then to restore the Complete State Sovereignty? The road out of trouble is the same as that into trouble, yet travelled in the opposite direction. We see that the restoration of Complete Sovereignty involves all five components of sovereignty. Now we have got the first, the second (nearly), the third and the fifth ones. The matter depends on the fourth sovereignty – the economic one. In order to achieve something, one has to have a clear understanding of what one wants to achieve. The structure of today's world is a financial one par excellence. Today's chains consist not of iron and shackles, but of figures, currencies and debts. That's why the road to freedom for Russia, as strange as it may seem, lies in the financial sphere. Today we are being held back from the progress at our most painful point – our rouble. Exactly in the same manner as the lack of sovereignty had formerly been symbolised by the enemy soldiers in the streets of our towns, now the defeat of those towns is testified by the enemy's currency, which is entirely soft. As our sovereignty was threatened by the enemy's soldiers, we had our army to oppose this threat. Today the enemy's soft currency shall be opposed by our, Russian currency.

Here I anticipate a reasonable question: is this currency not ours anyway? Does the rouble not belong to us? Well, our rouble, the Russian currency unit, is – just to put it delicately – in a way, not quite ours. And this situation is the most serious obstacle to our country's development.

Let us examine this situation.