How the West is trying to isolate Russia, how the media artificially create an alternative reality, why the Western audience has no idea what kind of hybrid war their politicians and NATO are waging in Ukraine. And why, after the recent terrorist attack in Istanbul, Turkey did not accept condolences from Washington.
Andrey Savinykh, Chairman of the Standing Committee on International Affairs of the House of Representatives of the National Assembly of Belarus, spoke about this and many other issues on our channel.
If we talk about the information space, 20-30 years ago the media provided facts, and then there were some political interpretations. Literally 10 years ago, the situation changed dramatically, the information flow became so dense and diverse that information does not leave a person even for a second. Moreover, the amount of information that passes through us is much more than we can absorb by subjecting it to critical evaluation. And this means that we take a lot of facts on faith. As a result, there is the possibility of not just misinterpretations, but the creation of an alternative reality in general, which absolutely does not correspond to what is happening in real life.
All talk about isolating or condemning Russia is just from this area. If you look closely at the vote, at the positions of countries, at statements and publications in the national press, you can see that about 50 states are against Russia. This is no more than 30%, maximum 32% of the world's GDP. All other countries, which represent 2/3 of the planet's population and the main economic potential of the planet, they either sympathize with Russia or even support Russia in this struggle. Their collapse of the unjust unipolar world is certainly in their interests. Another question is that they sometimes do it in a passive way, because they understand that with direct open support they can become an object of aggression from the West.
Nevertheless, these countries try to express at least passive support. Look at the real action. In fact, the entire sanctions policy against Russia has failed. All the talk about an energy blockade, refusal to buy Russian gas or oil was absolutely useless. And, I think it would be more correct to say that 2/3 of the planet is more likely to be on the Russian side than on the side of the countries of the collective West.
Belarus and China act in accordance with the rules
The situation with China in general is very interesting. China has been a global factory for the whole world for several decades. Now almost all goods that are sold in the United States of America and Western Europe are produced mainly in China. The household appliances, machinery, machine tools, equipment, shipbuilding are developing very fast in China. China has built a long-term strategy by exploiting the lower wages of its workers. Over time, it gained economic, military and political power. China acted in accordance with the rules of the global system, but when it gained strength, it said, I'm now in a different weight category. We act in accordance with the rules that you have come up with. But the West does not like it.
The ability to act according to the rules, to respect the rules, unites us with China. Both China and the Republic of Belarus declare their foreign policy based on the universally recognized principles of international law. Here we have a lot in common. But another problem for us and for China is that the West is in no hurry to comply with the rules that it once imposed. There is such an expression: "A gentleman fulfills the rules only if he wins, and if he stops winning, then he changes the rules." The same is happening with China. The West has taken a course to destroy the Chinese economy, to interfere in the internal affairs of the country, using, among other things, the factor of Taiwan. China, like Belarus, does not accept interference in the affairs of its sovereign state. So we have a lot more in common than you might think. And the second point - for Belarus and China, this is an excellent basis for the development of truly mutually respectful and mutually beneficial cooperation in the future.
If you look at the situation in a broader context, then at present the entire global economy has come to a very difficult stage in its development.
The socio-economic formation, which is built on private property, borrowed capital, on the market, has reached the limit of its capabilities and cannot develop further. A serious reformatting of the world is coming.
Such crises are called phase crises: this is when there is a change in the methods of production. But, as a rule, such a phase crisis is accompanied by a serious destruction of economic well-being.
And the Western elites were the first to understand this. We call them differently: financial and corporate circles, financial and corporate elites, representatives of transnational corporations, but, to put it simply, these are Western oligarchs. They have the power. And the government by and large in these countries acts in their interests.
The Western oligarchies have decided that they need to redistribute again the resources that the Russian Federation has been able to return to itself over the past few decades. After that wild privatization of the Yeltsin period, Russia returned a lot of energy and natural resources back to state ownership, national property. And now there is an opportunity to get them again.
Now in Ukraine, Russia is at war with a group of transnational oligarchs from the West who advocate a new globalization on new principles. They called it “inclusive capitalism” (which is neither inclusive nor capitalism at all). Generally speaking, the logic of this idea is very interesting. They suggest: let's get rid of nation-states, because they are huge, complex and bureaucratic. We have transnational corporations with social responsibility that will rule the world, in principle everything will be fine.
The corporation is a profit making tool for the owners. This is not a state. They will not engage in social development, strengthen human potential, but will do only what they need to produce and make a profit. This is the logic of inclusive capitalism. The only thing that Klaus Schwab (the organizer of the Davos Forum) said is that in order to move to this system, which in reality can be called feudalism, it is necessary that all major countries should agree with this model. And there were two countries that said no. Russia gave a very harsh and direct refusal. And the "eastern answer" was given by China. This happened about a year and a half ago. And as we can see, six months ago Russia was drawn into an armed conflict.
This is not a war between Russia and Ukraine. This is a war of oligarchs who use the besotted part of the Ukrainian population as cannon fodder to destroy Russia. And the biggest mistake they made was that they transferred the conflict into the category of ontological confrontation.
Ontological is a term that says that the conflict has no possibility for reconciliation, it is impossible to agree.
Two parties to the conflict. One must be destroyed. But throughout its history, Russia has passed such ontological tests at least four times and each time emerged victorious. Russia can lose the war, but it cannot lose the ontological conflict that would result in its death. For example, this is the invasion of Napoleon, this is the invasion of the Rzeczpospolita at the beginning of the 17th century, this is the most terrible test - the WWII. Has the West ever experienced such kind of ontological conflicts? I can give two examples: this is the war between Rome and Carthage. "Carthage must be destroyed." The same kind of ontological conflict is the civil war in the United States of America between North and South, which, by the way, again arose as a result of certain cycles.
Due to the strategic mistake of the West, we can expect the collapse of the global economy rather than a military loss to Russia in this conflict.
China is in the ranks of supporters of a multipolar world. This is the device that was proposed as an alternative to the new neo-globalization, inclusive capitalism. According to the logic of things, other major leading states - India, Brazil, Indonesia and other 2/3 of the world are in the same row.
The Western oligarchies realized that this path to inclusive capitalism would not work just like that, and set a course for the collapse of the whole world. They understand that a reboot must take place. Questions arise in their logic of the conflict: how many material resources they will be able to save and get for themselves, what territories they can control after the collapse of the world. The second goal is to cause as much damage as possible to everyone else so that they cannot recover as quickly from this conflict. Now we are in such a historical period.
The collapse of the world will be associated with the collapse of the global economy, after which there will be a redistribution. Relatively speaking, phones will no longer be produced in China for the whole world, but there will be production in every macro-region, in every group of states. They will unite and create their own markets, where a complete set of key strategic products, goods and services will be created. Between themselves, the macro-regions will mainly trade either raw materials or food, or only those goods that they cannot produce at home. The world will change dramatically.
Moreover, the collapse of the old world already seems to be inevitable, because the Western oligarchs have created a global financial system that has reached the limit of development. It will collapse anyway, regardless of their wishes. The question is when? The date is always a weak point in such predictions, because probably no one can now calculate all the factors that affect the speed of the process. But in any case, I appreciate the opinions of various economists, political scientists and experts. Almost all of them say that we are talking about years, not decades.
Since inclusive capitalism does not work out all over the world, then, apparently, they will be able to use this model in one of the centers, in one of the macro-regions. There will appear, relatively speaking, five or six macro-regions, large associations of states with their own markets, with their own division of labor, which will compete with each other. And this will enable development for another 20-30 years ahead.
Tragedy in Turkey
I would like to take this opportunity to express my condolences to both the Turkish leadership and the Turkish people. In Turkey, I worked as an ambassador, she is close to me, I am very sympathetic to both Turkish people and the Turkish state.
It is important that the Republic of Turkey is actively working and actively protecting its own national interests. They have their own regional ambitions, they are really doing everything to increase both the weight of Turkey and the well-being of Turkish citizens. Such a policy sometimes clashes and even conflicts with the interests of the notorious Western oligarchs. They are given to understand that they should not to do something first through diplomatic channels, interstate. But, if the country "does not calm down", such acts of terrorism come into play. And the statements of the Turkish leadership, the Turkish Minister of Internal Affairs must be taken with all seriousness. They have reason to say so. This is the next stage of the confrontation. If Turkey continues these actions, it is likely that some kind of color revolution will be staged against them. Let's remember that in 2016 Turkey already faced a military coup attempt. By the way, the Russian special services gave information about the upcoming coup to Erdogan directly. Then the Russian ambassador tragically died.
Supranational oligarchic structures are only interested in their profit, their benefit. They are ready to sacrifice any state, even an ally. And Turkey is a member of NATO, an ally of the Western bloc. This is a serious signal.
Everyone is used to saying that the West is allegedly fighting terrorism. But there is such an organization "Muslim Brotherhood". They are present in almost all countries of the Middle East. And historically they were created somewhere in the late 50s by the British intelligence services. Since then, their actions have been directed by Western intelligence agencies.
Such is the logic of the actions of the Western lobby, which puts its own interests at the forefront and is ready to sacrifice any number of lives of ordinary people. We do not realize how cynically and harshly this policy is being implemented. But it's time to start realizing it. I hope that sooner or later this understanding will become universal.
If you deeply understand the Ukrainian conflict, then, logically, the starting point is the coup in Kiev in 2014, which was carried out with the complicity and support of Western countries. It turns out that it is they who must compensate for all the losses that have occurred in today's Ukraine. Another issue is that there are no legal grounds for this.
The UN was created in the middle of the last century after the end of World War II as an instrument of international cooperation in a bipolar world (two superpowers, the USA and the USSR). And this tool worked very effectively, created a huge amount of useful programs and achieved valuable results. The situation began to change after 1991, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, when a unipolar world emerged. Since that time, the UN system has gone into crisis and is losing its influence.
First of all, the donor countries and the so-called global hegemon are to blame for this, which began to grind this system, destroying the neutral nature of international projects and interactions within this organization. But the UN Charter is a unique document, it is truly an achievement of mankind. And we need to keep it. Another question is that if we abolish the UN, like the League of Nations, then it will still be necessary to recreate some kind of multilateral format.
It is worth choosing a more reasonable scenario. After the phase crisis, there will be a clear understanding of the alignment of forces in the new world. Then the leading countries will have to get together and implement the initiative of the President of Belarus Alexander Lukashenko, which we called Helsinki-2.
Will they divide Ukraine?
This is a very irresponsible idea. I want to remind you that after 1945 there was one unshakable principle that everyone respected - the inviolability of post-war borders in Europe. In fact, it is this principle that has become the key to peaceful coexistence for more than 75 years. The tough political decision reached at Yalta by the three leaders of the victorious states worked. But this principle has been destroyed. It was finally buried by the Americans, when Yugoslavia was divided and when they recognized Kosovo. And since then, almost all talk about revising borders in Europe has not only not subsided, but, on the contrary, has intensified. This is extremely dangerous. Because the question is not only about Galicia, but also about Poznan, about Gdansk, which were once the territory of Germany. Hungary has significant claims not only to Ukraine, but also to Romania, where there are centers of compact residence of the ethnic Hungarian population.
Starting the border review process in Europe is a very dangerous path. And if we take the Middle East, where the borders of states are drawn along the territories of the former colonies of France and Great Britain? There are even more reasons for local conflicts.
In an era of crises, territorial conflicts are precisely the brushwood for inciting war and very often the cause of tough confrontations. If there are such conflicts, then as soon as a country weakens, their neighbors immediately begin to make claims to the territory of this state.
The situation in Ukraine should be considered in this vein. This is a dangerous path.
In this regard, the position of Belarus is the most thoughtful and logical one. Not only do we have a well-trained and prepared army, but as part of our defense initiatives with the Russian Federation, an attack on Belarus would mean an attack on the Union State. And this, in principle, excludes the possibility of a local conflict along our borders, in any case, sharply reduces this probability.
The real economic situation and the information war
There is a conflict on earth, a real conflict of powers, there is an economic and an information war. And sometimes the differences between what is happening on earth and what is happening in the media space are not just colossal, they are directly opposite. The problem with any media victory is that it doesn't last too long. It disappears, no matter how well it is implemented, but the real situation on earth remains. And today we very often see these inconsistencies between the media picture and the real state of affairs. And we will see many more such stories.
- Is it worth counting on a significant change in US policy towards Russia and Belarus, and Ukraine?
The short answer is no. Democrats and Republicans are financed by American oligarchs (we agreed to use this term). The American oligarchs are only interested in maintaining their own dominance. Therefore, they have a complete consensus on the need to destroy or complicate life for all other countries, be it Russia, be it China, be it any other country. They will always pursue such a policy. This is a very old US policy: as soon as they had internal problems, they always created a large number of local conflicts in order to lower the level of well-being of the rest of the world and, against this background, the United States began to look again like an island of well-being, like a town on a hill. This is their standard approach, albeit quite "cannibalistic".
Another question is that we are now witnessing a serious elite conflict within the United States itself. The oligarchs of the real sector against financial oligarchs. Moreover, the conflict is so serious that one of them will have to fade into the background, and maybe even go bankrupt.
This is a chance for peace. Because while the oligarchs in the US will sort things out, other countries have the opportunity to solve their problems.
But they also understand this and realize that they must create as many problems for the whole world as possible while they solve their internal American problems. Therefore, one should not expect any change in the foreign policy of the United States.
These allies must be the states that are our traditional partners with whom we have lived side by side for many centuries, often in the same state. If we manage to strengthen our relations, then we will be able to create the necessary potential, which will allow us to solve many problems with minimal losses.
And the second group of allies are countries that pursue an independent foreign policy in the interests of their own states, in the interests of their citizens. This is an excellent basis for establishing good neighborly mutually beneficial contacts.
These are China, Iran, Turkey, India. Even those countries that I have listed are more than enough to form the base, foundation, foundation for progressive development for Belarus, and for these countries as well.
There are 8 billion of us on earth
You can't judge if it's good or bad. Just a fact. The question is in what context do we place this information. The biological resources of planet Earth can easily feed up to 30 billion people. These are scientists' estimates. But another question is that then it is necessary to build a society where the interests of each person will be taken into account equally, where there will be no class hierarchy.
There are other serious studies that say that human growth will stop somewhere around 11-12 billion. There is a natural population growth curve that we already see in different countries of the world. Then, probably, the population will fluctuate at the same level until humanity can go beyond the Earth. Then again we can expect new growth. There is such a principle in systems theory.
But all the talk that so many people are not needed comes from the Western oligarchs, who no longer need such a number of skilled workers, engineers that were needed at the stage of the industrial revolution.
If we move to the information economy and the sixth technological order, then robots and artificial intelligence will work there to a greater extent. People are not needed, and they begin to perceive a person as an extra consumer of resources. This just shows the same cynical and consumerist attitude towards human life, which we already see in the incitement of local conflicts in all countries of the world. Therefore, 8 billion is normal. The population growth is a natural progressive process.













