Who is trying to start a third world war? Parasites are again inciting a big war on earth.

Gold and silver - The Rothschild clan wants war - their protege Obama is pushing for this.

The elites' modus operandi is to create chaos, preferably in the form of (beneficial to them) war. Their goal is to create problems for governments and people. They will then "offer solutions" to end the chaos. Without fail, decisions are always in favor of the elite, who receive control over the territory as a bonus as part of the reward for salvation.

Why war? It usually covers the general insolvency of the entire Western banking system and the insolvency of the entire money supply. The only solution there will be a financial collapse, as well as the destruction of the foundations of economic life, especially in the ill-prepared United States. An example of what awaits the United States can be seen in the examples of Greece, Cyprus, Ireland, Venezuela, and Argentina. The list is growing.
There is only one head of state seeking war against Russia using Ukraine as a bargaining chip, and that leader is Barack Obama.

What interest does he have in causing chaos in this part of the world? Simply put, none, and yet he is making significant efforts in this direction.

Are the citizens of the United States calling him to do this? No. What about the Europeans, who have invested billions of dollars in business with Russia and depend on Russia for 20-35% of their gas supplies? Are there any European states that call on him to do this? No. There is too much risk and European leaders do not want to bear responsibility for the consequences of more more sanctions that could end up harming them more than Russia.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel visited Washington this weekend, voicing her support for Obama, but not directly. Mrs Merkel may soon say Aufwiederseen about her work in next year. If German people stupid enough to allow the head Frau to destroy the German economy, by losing hundreds of thousands of jobs, risking contracts between leading corporations with Russia, then, like the obedient Americans, the Germans will have no one to blame but themselves.

If European states oppose new sanctions that will end up hurting them, then Obama has no other support as he supports an illegal coup d'état, the overthrow of a legitimate government, and blames Putin for breaking the rules.
So, we have an illegitimate, non-authoritative group, the IMF, who are on the same side as the hypocritical Obama. The IMF promised Ukraine a $17 billion loan tranche, with a small clause camouflaged in the text: Ukraine, you must fight against pro-Russian forces and annex the eastern parts of Ukraine, or you will not get your money!

So we have the IMF, the [Rothschilds], a declaration by one country to start a civil war and take over Eastern Ukraine. This is exactly how the elites work, and Nobel Peace Prize winner Barack Obama is their figurehead leading this process, just as he led it in Egypt, Libya, Syria, Afghanistan. Egypt was purely a political maneuver. Libya has oil, and before the assassination of Muammar Gaddafi, the country had a gold reserve that was immediately plundered, just as Ukrainian gold disappeared in the first place in the greedy Western hands of thieves.

Remember forever, according to Western interests, gold has no useful value, at least not in your hands. Syria has important to transport Russian gas to Europe, and the US viewed it as a threat to the petrodollar. Afghanistan has heroin, a CIA-backed trade and a huge source of lucrative money laundering for the Rothschild banking cartel.

What about Ukraine? She may be exactly what the elite need after the failed attempt to provoke a war in Syria. Why is attacking and capturing Eastern Ukraine so important? It is rich in agricultural land that generates income, in contrast to the poor western regions exploited in Ukraine. Without income from eastern farmland, how can the IMF loan be repaid?

What does the price of gold and silver have to do with this? Both projects should be suppressed and not considered as an alternative to the world's largest financial pyramid, the Western Rothschild banking system, completely corrupt and insolvent to the core, this applies to the entire Western government.

The BRICS countries have created a rift in the Western world that continues to widen and remains the most viable threat to the West.

It is expected that more European companies will begin to join Russia and China. Germany remains a key player in this regard. By positioning herself with Obama, Merkel may lose her seat. Good riddance.

It seemed as if the developments were about to have an impact on gold and silver, but last week another “securities” manipulation delayed the inevitable. This is a clear reminder to all governing elites that they must do whatever is necessary to maintain their power. We may be seeing an increased number of "suicides" among mid-level bankers, which is where the majority of those who defy gravity from buildings of varying heights are seen.

[In passing, I would like to note, by the way, for our foreign readers, suicide is the deprivation of life. The use of the term "suicided" means that official reports of 14 suicides to date that were, shall we say, assisted, are therefore "suicided"]

A French banker, a woman named Lydia, is believed to be the first woman to be "suicided" in her attempt to defy gravity and jump to her death. Somehow, Sumana Sultana, 44, a banker at Rupali Bank, escaped attention when she hanged herself from her bedroom ceiling fan last January. This case increases the number of “suicides” of bankers to 15.

These are the methods of the elites to create problems, as in Ukraine and/or any other region, in which they use distractions and disorient people, causing them to focus on the wrong issues. The fundamentals for gold and silver are not linked to the price set by the Rothschilds, as we have been saying for the past few months. Until then, barring the accumulation of physical gold and silver at these ridiculously low, artificial prices, be on the lookout and tread carefully when entering the stock market.

American “hawks” in the US government still achieved a positive result in the issue of providing military weapons to Ukraine. ABC News learned that the American leader should soon approve a program for the sale of anti-tank weapons. The total amount of “help” will be 210 anti-tank missiles and 35 missile launchers. A total of $47 million is allocated for defense assistance. If Trump approves the plan, the document will go to Congress for approval and then enter into force in the coming days. In turn, Senator John McCain, a supporter of providing military assistance to Ukraine, believes that providing Ukraine with Javelin anti-tank missile systems will create reliable conditions for defense security. On the website named after himself, he shared his vision of providing “help” to Ukraine. “On President Trump's decision to provide Javelin anti-tank missiles to Ukraine marks another important step in the right direction and sends a strong signal that the United States will stand with its allies and partners in the fight to defend its own sovereignty and territorial integrity,” McCain wrote. Senator McCain is known for his Russophobic views, so he is not at all embarrassed by his statement that Vladimir Putin is “undermining stability in Ukraine” and therefore “Ukraine needs protection from further Russian aggression, which will contribute to the creation of stable security conditions, which is necessary for the peaceful resolution of this conflict.” .It is still not clear what kind of peaceful settlement the American politician had in mind when he rejoiced at the supply of such a huge amount of military weapons to the Ukrainian state? But McCain is convinced that “providing defense assistance to Ukraine will not contradict peace in Ukraine.” The US State Department is of the same opinion. The State Department says the arms aid to Ukraine is an attempt by the United States to “deter further aggression” by Russia. In addition, the American department stated that the United States will send “enhanced defense potential” to the Ukrainian state. They just didn’t explain what kind of “defense potential” they were talking about. It is known that the Ukrainian leadership has been constantly begging America for Javelin anti-tank weapons and “lethal military assistance” over the past years. Petro Poroshenko said in this regard that “American weapons are not for offensive”, but for “protecting civilians” and effective self-defense in accordance with Article 51 of the UN Charter. 2This is also a transatlantic vaccination against the Russian virus of aggression,” he wrote on his Facebook page. According to the latest data from the Geneva Center for Humanitarian Demining (GICHD) and the Stockholm international institute world (SIPRI), Ukraine ranks first in the number of civilian casualties from anti-tank mines. These weapons not only kill people, but cause damage to agriculture and infrastructure. The ATO headquarters has repeatedly stated that it will take 5-10 years to clear the Donbass mines. But as we see, the Ukrainian authorities are not concerned about such figures. Just as they are not worried by the fact that after the supply of American weapons there will be much more casualties in the east of the country, and the resolution of the conflict will drag on for more than one year. Earlier, the Head of the People's Militia of the LPR M. Filiponenko stated that weapons from America will “lead to an escalation of the conflict in the southeast of the country." He believes that these weapons will be directed by the Ukrainian army, including against civilians. The Russian side is also concerned. Politicians say the US government has "overstepped the mark" and is "inciting war." We have to agree with this.

The Islamic terrorist organization “Army of Iraq and the Levant” unexpectedly captured almost the entire north of the Republic of Iraq. Government troops fled from the enemy so quickly that today there are questions about the future existence of this country - there was practically no one to resist the advancing extremists. Today, a lot of journalism has appeared on the topic of how this became possible, who is to blame for this, what role is played here by oil and gas, which this Middle Eastern region is very rich in.

Meanwhile, many analysts have completely missed the fact that this is not just about big geopolitics or control over energy resources. The radical religious confrontation between Sunnis and Shiites also plays its ominous role.

The fact is that the majority of Iraqis belong to the Shiite branch of Islam. However, under Saddam Hussein, Iraq's ruling elite was a Sunni minority. It is not surprising that after his overthrow, power passed to the Shiites, but the Sunnis took a hostile position towards the new government. It was they who became the main cadres for replenishing the local terrorist underground, which struck both the Shiites and the American occupiers. Over time, this underground grew into a formidable force - into the same “Army of Iraq and the Levant” that today threatens Iraqi statehood...

So what is the essence of the Sunni-Shiite conflict?

People of the Book

More than 90% of all people professing Islam are Sunnis (from Arabic: Ahl al-Sunnah - people of the Sunnah), their number today amounts to more than one billion people. Sunnis place special emphasis only on following the sunnah of the Prophet Muhammad (his actions and statements), on loyalty to tradition, on the participation of the community in choosing its head - the caliph. However, in some movements of Islam this takes extreme forms. For example, under the Taliban in Afghanistan, it was given Special attention even the nature of clothing and the size of the beard of men, every detail of everyday life was regulated in accordance with the requirements of the “sunna”.

It is not surprising, therefore, that the most radical schools in Islam were founded by Sunnis. For example, Wahhabism is a doctrine within Sunnism, created in mid-18th century century religious figure Saudi Arabia by Muhammad bin Abd al-Wahhab. The basis of Wahhabism is the idea of ​​monotheism. Supporters of this teaching reject all innovations introduced into Islam (for example, the worship of saints and imams, as Shiites do) and demand strict worship of Allah exclusively, as was the case in early Islam. The teachings of al-Wahhab were at one time supported by many Arabian sheikhs. Including the family of Saudis, who united the Arabian Peninsula under their rule. Wahhabism eventually became the official ideology of Saudi Arabia and a number of other Arab emirates.

Many radical Wahhabis took part in the war in Chechnya. The largest ultra-radical terrorist organization of the Wahhabi branch of Islam is Al-Qaeda (Arabic for “foundation”, “base”), founded in 1988. After the withdrawal of USSR troops from Afghanistan, al-Qaeda directed the spearhead of the fight against the United States and the countries of the so-called “ Western world"and their supporters in Islamic countries. The goal of the organization is to overthrow the secular regimes in these countries and create the “Great Islamic Caliphate”...

Today, all Muslims unanimously recognize that Allah is the only god, and Muhammad is his messenger. They all follow the five basic tenets of Islam, including fasting during the month of Ramadan; the main holy book for all is the Koran. However, if adherents of Sunnism in their practice of Islam pay special attention to following the teachings (sunna) of the Prophet, then Shiites consider their prophets - the ayatollahs - to be messengers of God on earth. Because of this, Sunnis often accuse Shiites of heresy, and they, in turn, point to the excessive dogmatism of Sunni teaching, which leads to the emergence of extremist movements such as Wahhabism.

Activist of the “Party of Allah”

Shiites stood out from the general mass of Muslims a very long time ago, in the 7th century, when a struggle for power began in the medieval Arab caliphate between the son-in-law of the Prophet Muhammad Ali and his opponents in the person of the Umayyad dynasty. A religious and political grouping (al-shia) of supporters of the rights of Ali and his children formed around his son-in-law. This group became the core of the Shiite movement.

Today, Shiites constitute the majority in Iran, Iraq, Azerbaijan, Lebanon and Bahrain. In addition, today they hold power in Syria in the person of the Assad family, with whom the local Sunni majority is at war. There are Shiites in Yemen, where Sunni authorities call them “separatist rebels.”

Finally, significant Shia minorities are found throughout the Arabian Peninsula: Qatar, Al-Hasa in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait. In Afghanistan, Shiites make up between 15 and 19 percent of the country's population. These include the Hazaras (mostly Shia Imamis, there are separate groups of Ismailis), some Charaimaks (followers of Ismailism) and Farsiwans. Shiism is professed by the Balti people living in Northern India and Pakistan, as well as the Burishi (Ismailis) and some Pashtun tribes: the Turis, the majority of the Bangash and some of the Orakzais. The majority of residents of the Gorno-Badakhshan region of Tajikistan also belong to the Ismaili current of Shiism...

Representatives of the “extreme” Shiites are Alawites. All Alawites are divided into a privileged group of “hassa” (“initiated”), who are the owners of sacred books and special knowledge, and the bulk - “amma” (“uninitiated”), who are assigned the role of novices-performers. The Assad family, Syrian Presidents Hafez al-Assad and his son Bashar al-Assad, belong to the Alawites. Alawites mainly live in Western Syria, as well as in Northern Lebanon and Turkey. In Syria, they make up up to 12% of the country's population.

Despite the apparent moderation, unlike the Sunnis, the Shiites are also not alien to extremist activities. Thus, the most significant Shiite organization, recognized as terrorist in many countries of the world, is Hezbollah (Arabic for “Party of Allah”), a paramilitary Lebanese political party that advocates the creation of an Islamic state in Lebanon modeled on Iran. Its ideological basis is the ideology of Ruhollah Khomeini, the leader of the Islamic revolution in Iran. In its 1985 manifesto, the organization declared its main goals: “expulsion of any colonial institutions from Lebanon”, “bringing Christian Phalangists to account for their crimes”, And “establishment of Islamic order in the country.”

Faith for life and death

Even though Shiites make up only about 10% of total number Muslims, they represent a serious political force, especially in the Middle East. Today, adherents of the two main sects of Islam are in a state of constant hostility with each other.

For example, according to Pew Research Center, 40% of Sunnis believe that Shiites are not true Muslims. And in Pakistan, Shiites are oppressed to the same extent as Christians and Hindus, calling them “collaborators of infidels.” According to Human Rights Watch, about 400 Shiites were killed in the country in 2012, and subsequently the number of victims increased significantly - 165 people were killed in January 2013 alone.

In this regard, in countries ruled by Sunni dynasties, uprisings of Shiites regularly break out with demands to increase their legal status in the life of the country. An example of this is, in particular, the recent events in Bahrain. There, the Sunni dynasty regularly persecutes the Shiite opposition, and the Minister of Internal Affairs of Bahrain once said that the country’s police forces detained large group people suspected of being part of a terrorist group linked to Iran. By the way, the United States is providing great assistance to the Bahraini authorities in pacifying the Shiites, since the largest base of the fifth navy- and the Shiite majority strongly opposes this presence...

However, the authorities are trying to influence not only with the stick, but also with the “carrot”. Thus, at the same time as Bahrain, Shiite protests also took place in Kuwait (February 2011), where 30% of the country’s residents are Shiites. Demonstrators accused the ruling dynasty of huge spending on the royal family. The protesters were also angry about their powerless situation. In order to prevent unrest, the Sunni authorities of the country urgently allocated ten thousand dollars to each indigenous citizen of the country, and also raised wages for employees of all state-owned enterprises...

But most of all, the Shiite revolution threatens Saudi Arabia. In fact, since the spring of 2011, the country has been on the verge of a religious civil war, because here Shiites are discriminated against in almost all spheres of society. Back in 1927, under pressure from the Wahhabis, King Inb Saud issued the famous fatwa, according to which Shiites had to convert to the Sunni faith or leave the country. Those who remained essentially turned into powerless slaves of the Wahhabis.

However, Riyadh is convinced that behind the Shiite discontent are solely the intrigues of Tehran, which allegedly “ seeks to undermine the foundations of the ruling Al-Saud regime and ignite a wave of separatism in areas densely populated by local Shiites.” According to Saudi Arabia, Iran's ultimate goal is to seize the Saudi eastern province, which is not only home to many Shiites, but is also very rich in oil.

In the fight against Shiite Iran, the Saudi Arabian authorities are persistently seeking to enlist the support of the United States and Israel. The Saudi rulers have more than once provoked Israel to strike Iran. According to political scientist Vladimir Efimov, “The Saudis' enmity with Iran is not due to political, oil, nuclear or regional issues. The Saudis fear that Islam, as interpreted by the leader of the Islamic Republic, will reveal the hypocrisy and lies of Wahhabism as a sectarian doctrine on which the power of the Al-Sauds rests.”

According to the expert, the Shiites of the Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia can rebel at any moment and, uniting with neighboring Shiite diasporas, create a large state entity on the Arabian Peninsula, very friendly to Iran. The political scientist associates the unresolved Shiite issue, first of all, with the resistance of Wahhabi theologians, who excluded the appointment of Shiite jurists to the Council of Supreme Ulema and the Saudi vision of Iran as a strategic adversary. In his opinion, entry into Saudi society will become possible if this situation changes radically. “But for this, Riyadh needs to integrate the Shiites into the country’s socio-political system without any discrimination and stop blaming Tehran for all the internal ills of the Saudi kingdom,”- the expert believes.

USA as a threat to any stability

On the other hand, orientalist Vladimir Dergachev believes, the surge in Shiite protests was largely provoked by American policy in the region. Just like in Iraq, where after the occupation the United States relied on supporting the Shiites oppressed by Saddam Hussein, putting them in power in the country. This kind of American “democratization” of the Middle East greatly inspired the Shiites of Bahrain, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, pushing them to new actions.

However, Iraq is rather an exception to American policy. For the pro-Iranian Shiite axis today is mainly supported by China, Russia and countries hostile to NATO or America, for example, Latin American states and Cuba. The West, represented primarily by the United States, supports the Islamist Sunni axis, which is directed against Syria, its Iranian allies and Hezbollah. Alexandre del Val, recognized geopolitician, former employee France Soir, teacher international relations at the University of Metz, explains why the West today does not feel the need to rely (like Iraq) on anti-Salafist Shiite movements or on secular minorities (such as the Alawites in Syria and the Alevis in Turkey), or to protect the rights of Shiite minorities in the Gulf countries and Pakistan or Christians in the East, who are also persecuted in all Sunni countries.

“The West today is driven only by oil and short-term interests, for the sake of which it continues to make deals with the powers of Sunni fanatics (Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Kuwait, etc.) and gives in to all their obscurantist and neo-imperialist demands. He never criticized or tried to hinder the achievement of the goal set by these states: the conquest (re-Islamization) of all Muslim countries with the subsequent Islamization of the West by financing (with the blessing of the NATO states still convinced of the reality of the Russian threat) radical Islamist associations that fight against the values ​​of " infidel countries and the integration of Muslim minorities into their society,”- the expert believes...

... Thus, it becomes obvious that the confrontation between Sunnis and Shiites plays a huge role in the political processes taking place in the East today. But, unfortunately, instead of seeking a compromise between the two currents of Islam, the West is only encouraging division in the Muslim community. Yes, today this makes it possible to control the energy resources of the rich countries of the Persian Gulf, as well as to use their military forces in the struggle for their geopolitical interests. However, in the long term, such a policy could lead to an uncontrollable regional explosion.

This is exactly what we are seeing in full today in Iraq. The Sunni “Army of Iraq and the Levant” was actually created several years ago by the intelligence services of the United States and Saudi Arabia. The goal is to direct this “Army” against the Syrian regime of Bashar al-Assad, and at the same time remove Iraqi terrorists from the country. For this reason, the leader of these extremists, Abu Bakr Baghdadi, who headed the “Army,” was even released from an American prison.

The Americans and Saudis did not skimp on supporting extremists while they were fighting in Syria. However, over time, Bashar al-Assad’s troops inflicted a number of heavy defeats on the “Army of Iraq and the Levant.” And then the “Army” rushed into pro-American Iraq to establish the dominance of radical Islam here. It is noteworthy that the “Army” today is fighting with the weapons that the CIA generously supplied it with during the Syrian conflict...

In a word, the story with al-Qaeda, nurtured with American money and becoming the most formidable enemy of the United States, was almost exactly repeated. The Americans thereby “sowed” another big conflict in the Middle East, and no one will say today how it will end.

Yulia Chmelenko, specially for the “Ambassadorship Prikaz”

Center expert Andrey Degtev

Wars, chaos and devastation arise wherever the United States goes. For what purpose are American leaders destabilizing countries and continents?

We wanted the best...

Among a certain part of the expert community, the idea of ​​the American top political elite as incompetent people who understand little about most of the issues for which they have to answer in the course of their duties has taken root. This is especially true for assessments of US foreign policy. The controversial decisions of American leaders are often blamed on ignorance and a romantic commitment to democratic values.

Take, for example, the March 2003 invasion of Iraq. The result is a full-fledged war in the spirit of World War II. In terms of the number of casualties, the US Iraq campaign surpassed the French campaign of the Third Reich. It was followed by guerrilla warfare, civil war and terrorist attacks that claimed a thousand lives a month. In the end, from the ruins of a once quite viable country, which the Americans promised to turn into an exemplary democratic state, ISIS arose, which has become a threat of a global nature. One wonders what the Americans were thinking when they invaded the country with ancient history, complex culture and fragile system of interethnic and interfaith interaction? Is the naivety of US leaders really so great that they seriously believed that they were bringing Western civilization and freedom to Iraq? Maybe Colin Powell, waving a test tube of chalk at a UN Security Council meeting, really believed that he was showing others a sample of anthrax, which Saddam Hussein allegedly prepared in immeasurable quantities for an attack on the entire civilized world, and which was subsequently never found?

Or here's another example. During the administration of George W. Bush, the concept of a Greater Middle East was born. It was part of the American plans to promote democracy and civil society in the region of North Africa, the Near and Middle East. It immediately became clear that if this scenario were to materialize region maybe completely destabilized. After all, the only organized political opposition in most of its countries were Islamists, in many cases holding radical views. The only force capable of containing the onslaught of radical Islam remained secular authoritarian regimes. There was no doubt that if free and competitive elections were held, the established political groups would be replaced by Islamists. The US global plans to build a Greater Middle East together with Islamic states have not been successful. Governments Arab states did not accept the American offer. However, at the first opportunity, and this came with the beginning of the “Arab Spring,” the United States began to implement its previously planned plans. With American support, secular regimes in the Middle East and North African countries were overthrown or attempted to be overthrown. In most of them this led to disastrous results. Egypt is mired in a long-running standoff between the military and the Muslim Brotherhood, with regular street riots and large numbers of casualties. Libya actually broke up into many regions controlled by individual tribes and factions. According to official data, the civil war in Syria has claimed the lives of more than 400 thousand people. And again the explanation follows that, they say, the Americans wanted the best and supported exclusively progressive democratic initiatives, but inadvertently it turned out the other way around.

One can also recall Afghanistan, where heroin production increased 40-fold during the tenure of the NATO-led coalition. And self-proclaimed Kosovo with US support, whose mafia structures have grown from the Balkans deep into Europe. And Yugoslavia, poisoned by radioactive phosphorus bombs. And much more. And all this is supposedly by mistake, by misunderstanding. Is this so?

The True Motivations of US Foreign Policy

In reality, a completely different picture appears. The American elites are not so stupid as to make mistakes in almost every foreign policy action they take. Otherwise, the question arises as to how they managed to achieve global dominance and maintain it for a long time. In fact, there is a clear logic in the US foreign strategy, and it lies in a conscious destabilization of regions of the world. This policy is likely to benefit the United States for a number of reasons.

Firstly, the United States, at least certain groups of American politicians and experts, do not hide from anyone that they are building a global empire. According to its architects, the United States should act on a global scale in the same way as an individual government behaves on the territory of its own country. In other words, the United States must have not only complete sovereignty in relation to its domestic and foreign policies, but also in relation to domestic policy other countries of the world. This means that the center of decision-making regarding a change in the leadership of a particular country should be in Washington. However, if the legal mechanisms for changing the leadership of modern states within the framework of their internal political process through constitutional procedures are well known and universally applied, then the legal procedure for changing the same leadership upon a signal from the outside has not yet become a political routine. In order to hone the technology of changing political regimes and turn it into a routine, self-evident action, the United States practices color revolutions around the world with enviable regularity. What is not yet a legitimate and generally accepted course of action, according to the plan of American globalists, should become such through the creation of multiple precedents.

Secondly, management always implies taking into account certain features of human psychology, operating both at the level of small teams and in the sphere big politics. For example, to maintain a leading position in a particular group, you must constantly demonstrate your strength. Likewise, for the United States, the task of maintaining global leadership requires constantly demonstrating its superiority, which requires “scapegoats” in the form of Iraq, Libya, Syria, etc.

Third, despite its global ambitions, the United States clearly lacks the economic power to maintain its presence in all regions of the world. However, if the US cannot avoid its weakening in separate parts planet, then at least they are able to prevent their competitors from entering there, the main one of which is China. Chaotization of large areas This is precisely the way to remove them from the sphere of influence of geopolitical rivals. In particular, by weakening its positions in the Middle East and withdrawing troops from Afghanistan and Iraq, the United States is interested in ensuring that the turbulence that arises after them does not allow China to gain a foothold in the same region.

Fourthly, the exponential growth of the US government debt pyramid and the unbridled inflation of bubbles in American financial markets inevitably leads to the collapse of the global dollar currency system. In order to attribute an economic catastrophe to force majeure and try to drag the whole world into a new global financial pyramid, a big war is perfect for the United States. Such a war could also weaken American competitors for global leadership. However, wars do not happen in a vacuum. They need prepared soil. A suitable geopolitical infrastructure for a world war could be a belt of aggressive states. This is precisely what the United States is working towards, creating arc of instability from the Maghreb to Indonesia.

Finally, there is one more hypothesis regarding the motivations for the actions of the United States, the testing of which I would like to dwell on separately. It is believed that in the short term spread of chaos outside the United States can help improve the economic situation in the United States, as it provides an influx of capital into it. Indeed, in conditions of instability in other parts of the world, the United States looks like a “safe haven” in the world of finance, which attracts investors from all over the world. Let's check this assumption by noting on a graph reflecting the dynamics of net capital inflows into the United States, events associated with the destabilization of various regions of the world.

How does the net inflow of capital into the United States depend on wars and revolutions?

In Fig. 1. It is clearly visible that the period of falling capital inflows since 1985 is interrupted by an increase in this indicator in 1990, and its temporary drop in 1991 is replaced by rapid growth throughout the 1990s. And this is not surprising. In December 1989, the Malta Summit takes place, at which Gorbachev finally surrenders the socialist camp, after which the final phase of its collapse begins, which compensated for the negative trend associated with the crisis in the American economy. As for the rise in net capital inflows after 1991, it is directly related to the collapse of the USSR and the unprecedented export of capital from former countries Soviet Union.

Rice. 1. Dynamics of net capital inflows into the United States in the 1980s and 90s

Now let's look at the dynamics of the same indicator throughout the 2000s (Fig. 2).

Rice. 2. Dynamics of net capital inflows to the United States in the 2000s

As we see, after all the major regional upheavals that occurred during direct participation USA, there was an increase in net capital inflows into the USA. Following the bombing of Yugoslavia, which began in March 1999, there was a significant increase in the figure in 2000. After the invasion of Afghanistan in October 2001, the downward trend was reversed and capital inflows increased. A slight increase in this indicator was also observed in 2003, in March of which the war in Iraq began. Finally, the beginning of the “Arab Spring” was also marked, albeit small, by an increase in capital inflows to the United States.

Undoubtedly, regional destabilization is not the only factor determining the magnitude of net capital inflows into the United States. It also depends on a number of other circumstances. However, the observed pattern suggests that, firstly, chaos of the world has a significant impact on the flow of capital into the United States, and secondly, the American leadership may deliberately provoke destabilization in world politics in order to increase the stability of its own financial system. As the Russian people noted long ago: “to whom is war, and to whom mother is dear.”

Conclusion

Reducing the motivations of US leaders solely to the desire to promote liberal values ​​and build democratic regimes around the world is untenable. In fact, one of the directions of US foreign policy is obviously destabilization And chaos geopolitical space outside the United States itself. This strategy is based on a number of political and economic reasons. One of them is the need to ensure a high flow of capital into the United States. Moreover, part of this capital is probably America’s own investments, previously exported outside the United States.

In post-Soviet Russia, inflamed Civil War They blamed the Bolsheviks. They say they overthrew the “legitimate” Provisional Government, dispersed constituent Assembly, with their decrees they destroyed the bourgeois-democratic republic that had begun to take shape. They destroyed democratic Russia, which was following the path of reunification with European civilization. They unleashed the “Red Terror”, destroying the best part of the Russian people: the aristocracy, nobility, clergy, Russian intelligentsia, merchants and the bourgeoisie as a whole.

At the same time, Tsar Nicholas and his family were killed. This made it possible to createthe myth that it was the Bolsheviks who destroyed the autocracy, overthrew the Tsar and destroyed the Russian Empire.And then, in order to retain power and create their own “bloody” totalitarian empire (in the West it would later be called the “evil empire”), they drowned the country in blood. The attempts of the “noble” whites to save Russia, “one and indivisible,” failed due to excessive “chivalry.” The Reds acted cruelly and bloodily, and were not afraid of massacres. They drove crowds of peasants into their army, placed barrage detachments of internationalist revolutionaries (Chinese, Hungarians, Latvians, etc.) in the rear, and overwhelmed the small white troops with “cannon fodder.”

Thus, the Bolsheviks allegedly staged a bloody Troubles in Rus', which led to the death of “old Russia,” millions of victims and the creation of a “bloody” Red Empire, a “Soviet concentration camp.” This myth is very beneficial to the West, as it allows them to decide wide circle tasks. Firstly, to morally suppress the Russian people, to make them forever “guilty” of all possible and impossible sins. It turns out that the USSR was not the most advanced country on the planet, having made a leap forward for hundreds of years in creating a fair order in the interests of the people, but a “concentration camp” where the “best part” of the Russian people was exterminated and only “scoop slaves” remained.

Secondly, use this myth in information war against Russia, force them to make excuses, apologize. To create an image of the Russian “evil empire”, “Russian Mordor” in the eyes of the Western public. This makes it possible to use any methods in the fight against Russia and justify them in advance. They say that with “Russian subhumans (orcs)” it is impossible to do otherwise.

Thirdly, you can constantly pit Russians against small nations that still remain within Russia, or peoples that were separated during the collapse of the Union and the Russian Empire, and were also part of the socialist camp. Speculate on the topic of “Russian (Soviet) occupation”, unjust deportation, Russian colonialism, etc. It was already agreed that Stalin’s empire was worse than Hitler’s Reich and the Red Army did not liberate Europe, but “occupied it”. Also present all sorts of bills to Russia for “occupation” and “colonization.” All this is done easily, since in Russia itself the Soviet period of history is considered by a significant part of the “elite” to be lost and flawed.

Fourthly, it is possible to conduct information work on the final “recoding” (programming) of the top of the Russian Federation. She is gradually being declared the heir to the elite of the Russian Empire, removing the Soviet period. And for the “new nobles” in the West, partners. The USSR is a “mistake of history.” Russia is the periphery of Western (European) civilization, and not a separate, original Russian civilization. A bourgeois-democratic, capitalist, and essentially neo-slave-owning system is normal.

In reality, the Russian Troubles of 1917-1920. was caused by two determining factors. The first is the thousand-year confrontation between Rus' and the West. The masters of the West are building a world slave order from century to century - this is theirs the main objective. Complete, absolute submission of man to the will of the “chosen masters.”

Therefore, the masters of the West, seeing the weakness of the Russian Empire and the Romanov project (which was generally aimed at merging with the “enlightened West”), which was shown during the Crimean War, the war with Japan and the First Revolution, relied on destruction Tsarist Russia. All methods and tools were used: from drawing Russia into a suicidal world war and the destructive actions of diplomats and intelligence services to the activation of a large “fifth column”, which was provided with organizational and material support in organizing the revolution.

The main detonator for the destruction of the Russian Empire was the First World War, unleashed by the masters of France, England and the USA.

The West has already tried more than once to crush the Russian state, but all its attacks were repulsed - the war with the Swedish Empire, the invasion of Napoleon's pan-European army, the Decembrist uprising, the Eastern (Crimean) War, the attacks of Persia and Turkey provoked by Westerners. However, to end of the 19th century- early 20th century it became clear that Russian empire seriously ill. The contradictions and fault lines that had accumulated over centuries had to be resolved by a “revolution from above,” otherwise unrest was inevitable. Nicholas I and Alexander III “froze” the empire, holding back destructive processes. Under Alexander II, they tried to follow the path of liberalization and the Western path - the development of capitalist and bourgeois relations, which only “rocked the boat.”

Under Nicholas II, Russia approached the “breaking point.” It was necessary to resolve the pressing problems, or they and the beginning of a lag behind the advanced Western powers and cultural (the elite spoke Western languages, preferred to live in Western capitals, dressed in Western fashion, etc.), financial, technological dependence on them, made Russia as a semi-colony. The government of Nikolai Alexandrovich pursued a contradictory policy - at the same time it tried to “freeze” the situation and reform Russia, indulging the Westernizing liberals. This completely destabilized the situation. At the same time, St. Petersburg allowed the West to pit us against Japan, which became a rehearsal for world war and showed the Westerners the weakness of Russia. They were able to suppress the first revolution, but it was clear that a new big war could lead to a powerful social explosion and unrest. The most far-sighted people in Russia understood this very well - Stolypin, Durnovo, Rasputin, Alexei Vandam, but they were not heard. And Stolypin and Rasputin, who could influence the tsar, were physically eliminated. As a result, Russia was pitted against Germany, which allowed the masters of the West to organize February and crush the autocracy.

The masters of the West would not have been able to destroy the autocracy and empire of the Romanovs if Russia had not been ripe for this. Under the Romanovs, “mines” were laid in Russia, which led to the disaster of 1917. There were several main such “mines”. Firstly, under Nikon and later (especially under Peter I), Russian Orthodoxy underwent a split and was emasculated, losing its fiery essence. The best part of the Russian people - the Old Believers, with their ethics of conscience and spiritual purity, hard work, refusal of dope - tobacco and alcohol, were excluded from common life, subjected to severe repression and ultimately created their own world. Nikonian Orthodoxy has become official, a form without content. Russia has lost its “connection with heaven,” its spiritual nourishment. By 1917, the bulk of the population was indifferent to Christianity, only outwardly being Christians (by the end of the existence of the USSR, the same thing happened with communist ideology, which led to the disaster of 1985-1993). Hence the catastrophe of 1917 and subsequent years, when churches and monasteries were destroyed, the clergy were destroyed, and the mass of people looked on with indifference. The clergy lost the “holy spirit” (except for individual righteous people and elders) and ceased to be one of the pillars of the Russian state.

Thirdly, the Romanovs split the people not only into Nikonians and Old Believers, but also into “European nobles” and the rest of the people (more than 90%). The top of society “lived in Europe” - spoke German, French and English languages, dressed in European fashion, lived for a long time in Western Europe (often for most of her life), read European literature, admired the European achievements of art, science and technology, built palaces (instead of schools, factories and railways). And the means for " beautiful life"were sucked out of Russia and the people. The common people as a whole have preserved Russian culture and language.

Other mistakes arose from these fundamental mistakes. In particular, the foreign policy of St. Petersburg was often in the interests of European capitals - Berlin, Vienna, Paris and London, and not the Russian people. Russian soldiers were often used as “cannon fodder”. For example, a series of wars with France and Napoleon were in the interests of Austria, Prussia and England. But the Russians and French had no reason to kill each other. The First World War decided the global interests of the masters of the West, the strategic interests of the United States, Great Britain, and France. The Russians and Germans had no reason to kill each other.

Thus, the forces and resources, the time of Russia and the Russian people were wasted in the name of other people's interests. Although Russia's global interests were in the South and East. Russia had to solve the thousand-year task of conquering Constantinople-Constantinople and the straits. To secure the Caucasus, including the Armenian regions remaining under the Turks, to reach the southern seas in Persia and India. In the East - preserve and develop Russian America (the sale of Russian America is one of the most serious strategic mistakes of the Romanovs), taking control of the northern part Pacific Ocean, to gain a firm foothold in Korea and China. Japan could be our partner and ally, helping to contain the Anglo-Saxons in the Pacific Ocean. That is, the Romanov empire missed the opportunity to launch the process of Russian globalization. With the simultaneous accelerated development of the Russian North, Siberia, Far East and Turkestan.

Not to mention the need to develop Russian education and science, educate the entire people, accelerated industrialization, resolve land and labor issues, eliminate imbalances in national policy(in particular, Finnish, Polish questions). The Romanovs did not do all this, which caused the collapse of their project. The Bolsheviks resolved these problems and contradictions.

To be continued…