GEOSTRATEGIST

Mental Wars Theory
#geostrategy
The entire country knows how to play football except for 20 footballers and coaching staff. Almost identical image one can see looking at vain attempts to analyse informational, cognitive, mental / psychohistorical wars presented by various specialists and experts. Anybody can write a text. Therefore everybody considers themselves professionals. Each and everyone simultaneously builds their own "universal theory" of a wild mix of marketing, manipulation, propaganda, PR-technologies, which are supported by narrow-minded image of psychology and fairly questionable moral.

Since this direction is new, everybody considers themselves pioneers, which makes it quite amusing to watch. Thankfully, people have moved away from teaching (for animals it's called training) quite fast. Mass psychology has been browsed through, social cognition psychology has been ignored, but because of that there's more work, regarding resistance of organisational changes. All this hideosity is flavoured by discussion on cultural specifics, where it's important to use lots of excessive details, religious and / or pseudoscientific terms. These constructs are already wild as it is, but they are also, for good measure, supported by excessive patriotic / defeatist pathos. Thankfully, lately there are less talks about "being the Chosen One", "force for good", footsteps of progress, and other cognitive images.

It's quite amusing, but the greatest part of these instruments and elements can be put into practice and provide benefits, but there has to be theoretical systematisation and structuring. For example, the greatest part of population looks at the undergoing events from narrow-minded point of view, which makes it easier to fall under the power of not even an authority, but rather of an idol. One can change quantity, but it won't make much of a difference. There is also a different situation. There are some who completely can't stand any idols and they demand an authority, a real expert, and / or information in it's pure, not poisoned by emotions form.

One may laugh as much as he wants at "pointy-head" athletes and actors, but there is giant mass of people, which needs such "heroes" and "leaders". It's also part of work to be done without going too far or ignoring other groups. Professional deformation of social and political scientists, who were brought up in the Western paradigm, is a job to form abiding and loyal majority and to ignore other groups.

We are waging war against the West. The dominant direction is an economic one (Athena war), but we also shouldn't forget about the others. It's about time to change principles and build theoretical foundation, but no... We still have the very same reduced system without adequate scientific foundation. It's a must to reconstruct social sciences, include individual approach instead of killing it by some suggestions, regarding compensation and usage of only "measurement average".

And yeah, it's very simple marker which shows the level of an expert's understanding of nature of mental and cognitive wars, i.e. the necessity to pull out the magicism, which came to Russia in 1990s, out of social consciousness. We ought to preserve only scientific agnosticism and traditional religions...

The Russian version can be found here.

Construction of an Atomic Power Plant in Turkey.
#geostrategy
Discussions, plans, and implementation of infrastructural and industrial projects may last for years. When it comes to going beyond the country's borders, deadlines are prolonged due to the specifics of the interstate interactions. It is nice to believe that this kind of work goes above all scenarios, takes into account all possible options and changes of conjuncture, etc. However, the reality is far away from this world of pink ponies. It is at least strange to expect such a thing in our world, where the density of events has significantly increased, whilst public officials keep on living in their own worlds.

Nowadays, Russia is not a single country, which keeps on implementing new projects. There is also China, the USA, and other large countries, which have no space not only in the Panregion World, but also in the Multipolar world. It's one thing when it's about some paper projects, capital works of which will never start, but they are quite convenient to mention on negotiations between heads of different states. And it's the other thing when investments are in process and the result is unpredictable.

There's been a lot of noise regarding the prolongation of the "grain deal". Whether it's going to be 60 or 120 days. The West and Kiev state that it's possible to prolongate for 120 days. Russia states that it can be only 60 days due to the fact that de jure the deal is not being fulfilled. After 2 months, Russia simply quits the deal, especially if Recep Erdogan loses the elections to lackey of the West. The second part makes more sense. Whilst there's a pro-Turkish president in Turkey, it's possible to work with him. If a pro-Western comes, we'll have to start breakdown track.

I doubt that both Russia and the world have any large project planted several years ago, whose authors officially and documentary took into account rigid falling-apart of the Global World, whilst post factum one may say whatever he likes. There is no government nor investment bank which would have missed such a scenario, unless it was in a form of certain risk or highly unlikely marginal option.

Let's be objective. The greatest part of the large international projects, which currently are being built, will face to destiny of the "Nord Stream". Economic geography will significantly change in the coming years. If a project ends up being successful, it's safe to say that it wasn't some calculation, but rather luck, since it's important not only to guess, but also not to get hit by the "Anglo-Saxon terrorists".

And yeah, if the undergoing constructions of NPP in Akkuyu, Turkey, (by the sea, north to Cyprus) ends up in our Panregion, many people in "Rosatom" (state corporation of Russia) will start telling stories and fairytales and hang medals of honour on each other's chests for the successful marginal scenario. There have already been similar examples(rus)...😁😁

The Russian version can be found here.

We Don't Need the World without Russia...
#geostrategy
Critical thinking and strategical position are strange for most people. They let bright, significant, and important events emotionally go through them, compare them with their personal and future plans. Prolonged thinking and quasi-analysis lead to the belief of the existence of one and only unquestionable option whilst others are rejected as the unreal ones. It's one thing when a romantic and moony girl, upon hearing a random, ordinary complement by a young man, has already chosen the name of their third child and is considering pros and cons regarding the fourth one by the evening. But it's entirely different thing when the entire society starts doing the same thing.

One part of the population tries to live in the world where there's no confrontation between Russia and the West, whilst the other has dived into the dark pit of the "military expertise". The one thing which unites both parties of the conflict is a taboo regarding possibility of their own lose. Politicians, experts, and ordinary people can't even dare to think of any scenario where they lose. Confrontation with the West resembles a zero sum game, but the conditions are far away from symmetry which is also important and has to be taken into consideration.

Consequences of this indecent truce / defeat of Russia had already been described in the spring of 2020. It was highly likely that Relative "Khasavyrt 2" would have led to civil war, separatism / intervention, along with the World War Three which would include nuclear strikes on headquarters over the ocean and on the island. History of our planet has examples of the meteorites falling into the oceans when waves curled over mountains. After several thousands years, the biosphere restored, so it wasn't a problem.

It'll take several centuries / thousands of years for radiation to disappear after nuclear strikes and humanity will get back to the current level. There will be completely different people and cultures, having grown out of periphery groups. Neither us, nor the West will exist - quite a disgusting perspective - but why would we need a world without Russia when humanity will live. The elites of the West also understand it and therefore they don't bring the situation to the boiling point.

Russia's victory doesn't cause any direct problems for neither the West, nor the world. Russia will secure it's areas of influence. The global world is falling apart by itself. The past century saw several dozens of large military conflicts, which led the former metropolis to recognise the independence of previously dependent territory / country. Afterwards they lived peacefully. So why wasn't this option neither acceptable nor possible for the Western politicians? What led them to be so principled?

One may easily notice that both contrary options completely exclude the existence of the state of Ukraine and of the political Ukrainism, whilst transitional options had closed in the spring of 2022. A year ago, quite many people fled to Europe from Ukraine, refusing to even speak of the "aggressor-country". The situation has been drastically changing for the past few months. People, having wondered through Europe, don't wish to return to f.Ukraine. They are looking for some options to obtain the Russian citizenship and restore their relationship with their folk...

And yeah, some time ago I noticed that I have no reaction whatsoever towards "performances" and twitching of Kiev and European devilry - there is no place for them in the future. They are already the shadows of the past after which we will have to carry out full-scale cleaning and consecrate temples yet again...

The Russian version can be found here.

The Fight for Eastern Borderlands
#geostrategy
There are several simple well-known and predictable rules for promotion on social media, one of which is producing garbage news and pseudo-analytical content on currently hot topics. This all looks like an emotional, figurative, satirical, and provocative retelling of the news, "deciphering" the hidden, filling it with significance and "hidden sacred meaning". All of this has nothing to do with real intelligent analytics and/or inside information; even a slight understanding of the processes is lacking.

It is not surprising that the number of different individuals who are now being perceived as experts, connoisseurs, and specialists by the society is growing rapidly, and the value and content of these people “plush” speeches is very well exposed when unpacking their past years’ works and writings. If there is nothing new, strong, or important in current events that has an important long-term impact, I try not to waste time and energy on comments. Many regulars of the channel are used to the fact that in the comments I very often refer to articles on strategy written a few years ago – the basics and logic are spelled out, and you can get the confirmation of this statement yourself. Do not neglect to search these people social media for keywords.

The upcoming strategies announced today by Vladimir Putin and Sergei Shoigu to strengthen the military component, militarization of Russia, are absolutely logical, they have been forecasted and analyzed a dozen of times. We are facing a clear inertia trend, this fact can be admitted and we can move on at that. The next important bifurcation point in this issue is whether there will be an active conflict in the former Ukraine this winter or in the following spring. The partial mobilization carried out in the fall of 2022, the active and thorough training of military conscripts, the announced and/or foreseen plans, as well as the lack of military reinforcement along the borders with Kazakhstan, hint at the Baltic States and Poland.

Amids this, Poland's decision to call up 200 thousand people for the military exercise is not a straight forward indicator, as they go above all strategies and scenarios. The question is - why only Poland? Where are the instincts of self-preservation of the other European countries? Is there a principle  "Katz, he always offered to surrender" (Soviet movie of 1992, Weather Is Good on Deribasovskaya, or It Rains Again on Brighton Beach). On the other hand, the United States, Britain, and the Deep State may well take advantage of the opportunity and push through the military movement of Polish troops into the former Ukraine, but it will not be the beginning of a nuclear war between Russia and NATO, since there will be no strikes outside the territory of the former Ukraine, the Poles may not even enter the new territories of Russia, just to be safe.

Almost all Soviet-made weapons that Ukraine and the West had at their disposal have been used up. To maintain the conflict, there needs to be an extensive supply of weapons from NATO and the collective West. The locals mobilized in yet another wave are not trained for the proper and productive use of this type of equipment; it is necessary to recruit tens or hundreds of thousands of troops. Currently, the unconfirmed number of recruited Poles is already significant, but the count should be 1 to 2 orders of magnitude higher, so the introduction of the troops is a completely logical move... Let's hope for active Russian military operations in the winter, but in light of recent events, the chances of a Polish invasion have risen to about 20%...

And, yes, from the perspective of the United States and Britain, I would make such actions of Poland a prerequisite for recognizing Galicia; the local elites will be well aware of the ephemeral nature of the end-goal and the super-high price, but they will not be able to resist the chance of conquering Eastern Borderlands…

The Russian version can be found here.

Big India Collapse
#geostrategy
Back in XVIII century there was a cultural-geographic community / macroregion overwhelming Europe by its complexity and variety. It was the Big India, which included modern territories of Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Tibet, countries of Indochina , south Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia, and parts of Philippines. A significant number of states, borders of which regularly changed whilst national-linguistic and religious identity weren't the decisive ones, existed in these lands.

Even the spreading of Islam didn't lead to peoples and territories' falling out of common space. It only helped to expand the cultural field. Burst of passionarity of separate nations and / or coming of conquerers, which led to the appearance of a new, strong, and large state, controlling a part of the macroregion, regularly took place on this territory. The number of the dominating ethnic group in a state could amount up to 10%, but it didn't significantly effect it's stability. Conquered nations kept on living by themselves, the speed of assimilation wasn't fast.

Thousands years of mosaic resettlement, coexistence, and abilities to get along are not specific for the European civilisation we are used to. The Big India is similar to the antique world in many ways, without being reducible to it. Modern nation states of the macroregion live by other principles, over-emphasising the importance of national and religious identity, having lost the feeling of united area. The British didn't create the cast system in India - as it's sometimes said - but rather helped it to become the main one, having removed variety.

The arrival of Europeans and creation of factories and colonies didn't cause any serious effect on the common space of the Big India from the outset. British establishment of factual control over the seaboards and key regions of Hindustan peninsula (1756-1763), the following colonial policy (including other European states) led to the division of the united area. Change of principles, nature of connectedness, introduction of the elements of the European, colonial, political culture into the public institutions and processes, according to the others' standards, took place.

Colonies and protectorates started to separate, local rulers and elites often partly borrowed logic and principles of their masters, facilitating and directing the processes of the creation of a "nation", specifically on the periphery of Big India. The borders were cut so that it became difficult to use language identity as basis, assimilation was weak, more often than not the religious factor was used as basis of ethnic division up to the separation of nations.

About two centuries of this weren't in vain. One can state that irreversible falling-out of the previously united area of Big India on several countries, which don't have any cultural, linguistic, economic, military, political, nor elite unity took place. Grown out of the same root political nations of Big India due to through the segregation, mixing of accents, filtration, and extension of their cultures, had gone too far from one another.

Attempts to obtain national identity were coming hand by hand with demonisation and dehumanisation. When the difference isn't great, extreme cruelty and inadequacy make it possible to no longer consider their former relatives, friends, and neighbours as human beings.

And yeah, similar principles are the basis of the wild cruelty of the Ukranian neo-Nazis towards the Russian troops and local population. These rabid dogs, mankurts don't have any place in the future...

The Russian version can be found here.

Ideology / Religion in Society
#geostrategy
Searching for the ideology for Russia doesn't let acquisitive minds go. It's repeatedly been told about impossibility of creating artificial conciousness, however no one stops enthusiastic people from engaging into some creative activities in their free time - especially if it doesn't hurt society in any way. It's highly unlikely for the attained results of these searches to lead to anything, but they may accelerate processes structuring in society, and encouragement of exploratory activity.

Quite often people mix meaning system - whether it is a religion or an ideology, and the way people understand it - ignoring differences, afterwards being surprised by deterioration and demise of civilisations, cultures, countries, and models. One has to point out at least 4 basic ways of understanding / acceptance of meanings (ways, not levels):

▪️ dogmatic / spiritual-legislational - forbidding, idealised, harshly denying any private / situational attempts of retreat, appeasement, until there is a permit by the "carriers of the canonical knowledge" and it hasn't been conventionalised by interpretations of dogmata and regulations;
▪️ national character / intellectual-ethic - a synthesis of dogmata of meaning system and national / intellectual-ethic traditions, shifting away from dogmata is becoming a systemic norm if it corresponds with national traditions and interests;
▪️ common / narrow-minded - inactive. dominance of common, local, narrow-minded, and ritual dogmata whilst moral and ethical reasons are ignored due to lack of knowledge and inability to understand them by the carriers, and are substituted by trivial and simplified explanations;
▪️ liberal-reformist /nihilistic - a strive for complete reconsideration and distortion of dogmata due to the current opportunistic demands and elements of other meaning systems (contamination), preservation of names whilst completely changing the principles to the entirely opposite ones.

For example, cosmopolitic communist movement of the beginning of the XX century and bolsheviks-revolutionaries was the first one. Joseph Staling was the second one whilst the following public officials, striving to fulfill basic demands of the stagnancy era was the third one. Perestroika architects were the fourth one. Within the frameworks of the global Marxist movement, European social-democrats are the third way. Modern Neo-Marxist-globalists are the fourth one, infected by political ecology, perversions, and interests of global corporations.

A number of percent of people in a society understand, accept, and live accordingly to the spiritual level, a few percent consider the undergoing events from the geostrategical position of national interests - there is also a similar number of reformists-renovationists. The rest consider the meaning system on the basic level. First three groups are subjectives and subtly change and direct amorphous masses of ordinary people, often openly manipulating, even though they have the best intentions in their minds. Quite often the representatives of the three small, subjective ways sincerely consider themselves as the one and only right parties, believing that they can turn everyone else into them...

Harmonic development of a society within meaning system (ideology, religion) requires the presence of three active and subjective small ways (dogmata, national interests, reformists), whilst society stability requires the main body of the citizens to be represented by inertial and narrow-minded ordinary people which will prevent any necessity to make extremely sudden moves and turns. A number of small ways will grow by folds in the era of changes. If the carriers of common knowledge end up leading a society, that will set off the way to deterioration and demise.

And yeah, religious systems are much more stable and balances compared to the ideological ones - Lord and / or prophets cannot make mistakes, whilst a man, even Karl Marx, can...😁😁😁

The Russian version can be found here.

#geostrategy
Understanding and acceptance of a religion / ideology in a society. The description is given in the article below.

The Russian version can be found here.

Unification of China and Islamic world
#geostrategy
From time to time the question of "Why the One Belt and One Road project cannot be considered as a long-term alliance between China and Islamic world" is brought up due to the belief that direct sum of their potential makes China a dominant power over the entire Eurasia / Eastern hemisphere.  Despite exterior illusion of simplicity, this strategy has too many contradictions, making this construction unachievable:

▪️ plans and interests of China for global dominance contradict the others' interests;
▪️ demographic changes in the 20-years-perspective will lead to the loss of Chinese leadership and collapse of its alignment (similar to the Russia's "New Horde" strategy);
▪️ necessity to use power or bribe in order to stop centuries-long confrontation between Shi'ites and Sunnites, pacificate Afghanistan, and so on;
▪️ unavoidable confrontation with India and Russia, which will end up cut off the continent and have lost the area of influence;
▪️ formation of an alliance with the Anti-China countries, India, Anglo-Saxons, and ... Russia;
▪️ elimination of the Anglo-Saxons influence, which equals serious purge of tribal Muslim elites.

There is neither time nor power to build the construction of such an alliance. There are just too many contradictions. The rapid growth of the Islamic factor can be balanced only through China's coarse colonial treatment towards these territories, however, it requires military and political strength, which China doesn't have. One can consider balance shifting due to incorporation into the alliance of the countries and territories of Eastern Asia as one of the options, however, China doesn't have enough resources even here, whilst "volunteer option" is unacceptable for the Anti-China countries (Japan, Vietnam, Korea).

In order to avoid cultural split - when the number of Chinese and Muslim people becomes comparable - China could accept Islam, but it would mean the China civilisation's demise in the long run:

▪️ admitting secondariness and becoming subordinate spiritual centre, refusing from the Great-Han Chauvinism, loss of the cultural-national identity;
▪️ acceptance of meaning of a priori weaker and slenderly regarded subordinate - losing face;
▪️ loss of moral and ethical basis and culture, coming from Confucianism, Buddhism, and traditional religions;
▪️ closing perspectives for integration / absorptions of Indochina and Anti-China countries;
▪️ society's unwillingness, which may lead to civil wars;
▪️ lack of time for this complex and long-term process.

Implementation of this project doesn't provide China with any economic benefits, doesn't let China get rid of the accumulated domestic distortions and disbalances, doesn't create any new qualitative opportunities for growth. This alliance is just as ridiculous as the "New Horde" project for Russia.

And yeah, Pakistan will be the one to get the most out of this configuration in the long-run since all of its problems and contradictions have to be solved by others whilst it becomes one of the key countries and the leader of Islamic world in 20-30 years, but it's a miracle scenario ...😁😁😁

The Russian version can be found here.

Transcontinental Lines in the Pan-Region World
#geostrategy
Upon discussing the perspectives of the 6th technological formation (additive technologies, robotization, closed nuclear cycle, possibly geotech), transition to which is expected in 2035-2040 for leading pan-regions, more often than not it was a discussion regarding some fundamental, qualitative changes within the countries. Meanwhile, apart from changes in domestic, transport flows and logistics, there will also be significant changes in foreign ones:

▪️ supply, volume flows will restructure due to the changes in geopolitical borders in order to stay within pan-regions;
▪️ the greatest part of typical, mass-consumer goods will be produced directly next to the consumption places (influence of additive technologies and robotization);
▪️ energy system will significantly change (distribution, generation);
▪️ shipment feasibility of non-typical, unique commodity will increase sharply due to disappearance of scale effect;
▪️ luxury, overexpensive and/or small-scale goods once and for all will move to air segment.

Within the frameworks of the global world and due to the increasing complexity of technological chains, the same material can easily go around our planet several times up until it turns into commodity of final consumption. At first it'll be some raw material. Then it'll turn into the commodity of various processing and only when the assembling is finished, a costumer may purchase it. It's one thing when such a logistics is used for some unique, high-tech, complex machinery and technology, but it's completely different when the same way is used for mass consumption due to non-economic principles of non-equivalent exchange.

Rapid shortening of the number of stages and simplification of many technological chains in the 6th formation along with geopolitical localisation imperative, interlocking of industrial and economic processes within panregions will significantly change the network of freight traffic. Disappearance of the scale effect, redistribution, and shrinkage of sea and transcontinental flows in 2040s will provide additional positive effect upon the development of overland transcontinental traffic arteries.

There are threshold values for overland and sea traffic. For example, if transport length of natural gas is less then 3 500 km (average), usage of pipeline transport would be more profitable. For everything that's over it - LNG tankers . Nowadays, the thresholds are low (priority of sea traffic), but they'll grow in the new circumstances. Significant part of traffic flows within panregions will be more profitable if they go overland whilst other territories will live with whatever funds remain, preserving less profitable old principles.

Physical map of the area is nowhere near a smooth table, therefore the potential to form connectedness is impure. Necessity to create universal "high-flow" overland traffic arteries - such as the "North-South" project, which may become economic, transport, and infrastructural basis for the formation of the "New Ark" pan-region in 2050s - will arise. Presence of complete, to the greatest possible extent, resource basis and technologies of the 6th technological formation will be the foundation for competitiveness for the next decades.

And yeah, modern-day reading of "North-South" project is not even an avant-project of the real traffic artery. It's true value will become clear to experts and politicians after 15-20 year, but Iran has to become an independent regional power by then...

The Russian version can be found here.

#geostrategy
We continue to analyze and systematize the prospects of East Asia, a large article is - "An essay on the strategy of Vietnam"

The Russian version can be found here: https://shkolnikov.info/articles/11-analitika-i-prognozy/109154-ocherk-o-strategii-v-etnama

Sea Importance Decreases
#geostrategy
Through almost the entire history of humanity, sea trade between separate countries / territories turned out to be significantly more profitable, faster, and cheaper than the land one. Control over the strategic strays, canals, and ports with the presence of dominating Navy power and worldwide rules of the game at hand, guaranteeing safety of navigation, provided priority of Britain / the USA for the past decades in the world. But nothing lasts forever. In the coming 5-7 years, several factors will change the situation:

▪️ the old hegemon will disappear and the new one won't be able to appear;
▪️ closing up of strays, international waters, and ports for unfriendly states (practice of NSR will become a norm all around the globe);
▪️ significant growth of land connectedness, population density, development of industrial economy and communications;
▪️ cheapening of land infrastructure construction cost;
▪️ spreading of significant number of antiship weapons as the result of local wars, which will be used by "pirates" against civil ships;
▪️ destruction of naval infrastructure and ships by third party's hands will become a norm.

It's not that difficult and expensive to carry undeclared explosives in bulk by some large containership/tanker, using corruption. By a pure accident, upon crossing the Panama or Suez Canal, the explosion will take place, followed by closing it up and blocking of boat traffic for a long time. Some time later, the ship will be cut into pieces and pulled away, but after that strict and detailed inspection will take place, significantly lowering carrying capacity.

By having exploded the "Nord Streams", Anglo-Saxons have opened the Pandora Box, letting everybody, before new global rules are established, destroy any naval, sky-borne, and space object outside the state borders in the middle-term perspective. In fact, the only left limitation is the absence of human toll. Adventures of suicide-unmanned aircraft system over the Black Sea were following that very logic. In the coming years, the problems will greatly pile up, jumping over civilian objects.

In the past decades, there were lots of talks regarding transcontinental routes, controlled throughout the World Ocean and independent of any confrontation, mostly known as "One Belt and One Road" and "North-South". Many people consider these routes in the form of "caravan" tracks, where goods will be transported from one part of a continent to a different one, but the reality is different.

The issue at hand is formation of economic, industrial, infrastructural, and transport connectedness, arterial road for the continent. The following development of member states and their neighbours will be oriented at this road, built around it, destroying any parallel and perpendicular ones.

And yeah, in the absence of free and safe sailing, transcontinental arterial connectedness may become a substitution of a used-to model of the world-system in the new circumstances...

The Russian version can be found here.

Limitation of the Rule of Force in the Realpolitik World
#geostrategy
Upon the conclusion of the World War One, romantic and contradictory principles, associated with the name of Woodrow Wilson, had been established in the world: right of nations to self-determination and inviolability of borders. A key criteria for making these approaches supreme was the law and its interpretation regarding each specific case. Border changes and/or creation of new states were taking place on the basis of a consensus/argument between large players or hegemon's position.

As the global world-order collapsing, the realpolitik paradigm, where the rule of force, i.e. an ability to conquer/defend and control a certain territory, is becoming a key one. The key, complementary principles have to be: right of nations for influence zone / territory of expansion and right of [a defeated] nation to preserve its cultural autonomy. The first is defined by the presence of force, the second limits the possibility of abusing it.

Without the second, limiting principle, ethnocides, cultural discrimination, and genocides will become a way of life. The loss of independence / joining a different state must not lead to the annihilation of the culture of defeated peoples. It has to be preserved and reproduced. Breaking this principle shall be considered as a reason for the intervention of third forces. Given that, there have to be universal principles, forms, and rights of the culture, which are obligatory, written at the transnational level.

Unlike multicultural "European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages" (1992), this one has to spread over the entire culture and traditions, change of threshold requirements (at least 20%-30% for the region inside / for the entire country instead of 2%-10%), and only for the regions where these peoples have been historically living (at least 150-200 years). There also must be certain reservations that taboos and direct prohibitions of the main culture have a priority. For example, prohibition against plural marriage. Such limitations will not allow migrants and minorities to abuse the rights.

Considering the future wold-order in the coming decades, it would be a mistake to narrow everything down to might and force since several additional arguments of legitimation can be used as secondary ones:
▪️ agreeing, bribing of elites and population of integrated territories;
▪️ transparency, formal compliance with the laws;
▪️ compliance with precedents / analogues;
▪️ presence of historically founded claims;
▪️ favourable informational environment.

Without the presence of force, even the sum of all secondary criteria isn't going to be enough to provide a necessary solution, but they will make changing of borders / accession of territories more valuable. For example, reunion of Crimea was taking place with regard to all secondary factors, simultaneously creating a precedent for Novorossiya. The latter one's situation turned out to be a bit more rough: lots of people had run away from military action before referendums, information management was weaker, the decision was made by not yet elected in accordance with Ukrainian laws Parliament, but the key factor was force, which allows one not strive towards perfection. According to the realpolitik principles, Russia had all the rights.

And yeah, there isn't going to be any discussion regarding "the holy right of nation for some territories / actives", but the nation's spirit shall be free - familiar principles in their application to people...😁😁😁

The Russian version can be found here.

Pakistan as Anti-India
#geostrategy
The division of the British India on the mostly Hindu India and Islamic Pakistan ('the land of pure / faithful') in 1947 to a great extent was provoked by the British. Attempts to create a fundamentally secular state, where all communities and peoples are able to agree (Muslims are about the third of the population), haven't been realised due to the strive of the "Muslim nation" to create a separate state. Upon 70 years having passed, one can state that Pakistan hasn't been able to find its own distinctive and unique meanings. Creation of the cultural anti-India with the utmost breaking of bonds and opposition is still in its basis.

Almost any political action in Pakistan is considered through the lens of relationships with its eastern neighbour. Any real or supposed infringement of Muslims' interests in India is met with violent eruption of indignation as if they still live together, emphasizing their secondariness. Pakistan is a multinational state without one clearly dominating peoples and any attempts to build an identity on the basis of nationality will lead to significant problems.

Islam (religious / regional projectivity) was used in order to separate it from India, whilst "the Muslim Nationalists", who had taken control over the army, became the strongest inner force. Malaysia and Indonesia (to a lesser extent), which used to be a part of an Indian culture as well, went down a similar road of nation building. The result of building a transnational identity in Pakistan turned out to be plainly weak, unstable, fragile. National contradictions are not that easy to resolve.

In order to build up a stable multinational state, one requires a strong common identity, which is the same as obtaining imperial / network traditions and meanings. Inner control over the religious / ideological centre becomes the most important criteria of stability. It's really difficult to fight off spiritual and cultural influence of Arabs, whose language was used to write the Koran. The idea of building of Caliphate can be set off at any moment and it will lead to a collapse of a time-consuming project. One should not worry that Pakistan is going to become the centre of the Islamic World in the few coming generations.

In order to diminish the Arabic influence, the Iranians increased importance of insignificant, dogmatic contradictions between Shiites and Sunnis up to the fundamental, almost civilizational level. If Pakistan wishes to obtain a long-term distinctiveness, it has to create: a separate version of Islam, ideological centre or productive national idea, chances of which are low.

If, several generations ago, India would have weakened its influence and started actively showing benevolence, desire to negotiate, form a united block, develop trade, and so on, than Pakistan would have lost the most important element of their identity and unity, provoking inner conflicts at a higher level. Now, the situation has changed - friendship is non-existent for decades, China is actively expanding its influence, turning India into a half-exclave.

And yeah, returning Indo-Aryan peoples back to the traditional values of their ancestors, throwing away cultural influence of conquered, Dravidian peoples, i.e Hinduism, would be a beautiful, "messianic idea" for Pakistan... 😁😁😁

The Russian version can be found here.

Deterioration Limit of Civilisation
#geostrategy
Significantly sophisticated visionary worlds are one of the sources of attractors / possible stable future scenarios. Upon studying these worlds, one should not literally transfer the read material upon the real world and search for a prophecy. These works are an author's crooked reflections of reality, nature of which can be understood only through singling out and stripping down the factors, which were put into the basis of the modelling and creation of a new, unhackneyed world.

Science-fiction classic is the most interesting thing for the purposes of forecasting since it took years to write lots of these books, to carefully work them out, filling them with deep meanings. Names of Isaac Asimov, Stanislav Lem, and Ivan Efremov immediately come to mind, but there are others for sure. The search of rational kernels, directions, limitations, and development dead ends is widely spread amongst futurologists and forecasters, but many of them forget about introduced by authors artificial limitations and changes of basic social and biological laws.

Upon having read the resulting forecasts, one can but marvel at how people are capable of finding harbingers of the Advent of Skynet, launch of the Mad Max world, descriptions of Panov's enclaves or the making of the God-Emperor from Warhammer 40k in the most simple and trivial things. The latter one of the listed worlds has come into reality from the conditions which have no place in our reality. The issues at hand are not warp, orcs / intelligent mushrooms, birth of the Chaos gods, and others, but rather stable social systems which have led negative, evil emotions and feelings to almost complete dominance in the Universe.

Filled with deterioration, decay, and decadence civilisations / cultures degenerate and die very quickly in our familiar world. Great and powerful states lose competition to their neighbours in several generations / decades. Weakening is very often accompanied by the growth of the share and influence of a part of the society, which is unproductive, parasitic, and cherishes various perversions.

When various active representatives of perverts and their sympathizers start providing some historical examples, they completely ignore an obvious conformity - all of that becomes a norm in the moment of stagnation, cessation of society development. The peak of perversions takes place right before and / or during the collapse and demise of a culture, forming a temporal immunity, disgust, and understanding of the consequences of the decay for the succeeding peoples.

The Warhammer Universe is interesting, because it lacked this limiter, mechanism of self-purification and reset of deceased societies and cultures. The latter ones would keep on existing for thousands of years, multiplying and replenishing in some incomprehensible way. As a result, the coming of an extremely evil and dark beings - Chaos gods - has taken place. But there wasn't any counterbalance in the form of something light and good. This universe is a wonderful example, allowing us to simulate a result, limit state of all possible kinds of perversions in a society, when the quantity transforms into a completely new level of quality. Remaining in a strategic position allows one to observe, without any emotions, the upcoming conclusion of the decay and mold reproduction processes in the places of once great countries of Europe and the USA. The sand of their time is relentlessly running out.

And yeah, the door swings both ways. Purification from all the perversions in a society indicates attempts of regeneration of culture... let's not scare it off...😁😁😁

The Russian version can be found here.

Cause We Are a Gang! (Part Two)
#theory_of_power
Anglo-Saxon elite has different principles. Overall equality for everybody, personal achievements are taken into account, but they don't transfer you to a different level. Leader is simply the first amongst equals. Decisions are made by a common consensus and on each matter separately. Upon studying our elites, Anglo-Saxons take cue from average across the board level, failing to understand how Vladimir Putin and his comrades dare to resist whilst most of the elite has liberal nature.

Quite the opposite situation takes places when the Russian authorities try to find leaders / alphas within the Western elites since they believe that agreements with the latter can change the situation. Gradually, the realisation that even a competent, adequate, and negotiation-friendly representative of the elite can come out as "influence agent", negotiator, counselor, but cannot single-handedly make significant decisions whatever one's title is.

Therefore, the "our circle" term and horizontal promotion is characteristic for both Russian and Western elites. Look at the way high officials quit - here and there and everywhere they do it by changing their job. Unlike Anglo-Saxons, we have a more complex hierarchy within the elite, but it's not corporate-ministerial one. It's rather a "pack" one.

The alpha's position can be disputed and even taken if you are more suitable for the current circumstances. His decision is cannot. Whatever the current mood within the pack is doesn't matter. The alpha's place is not achieved through a vote. It's not a place for democracy. The chances of Vladimir Putin being substituted by a soft, pro-Western liberal are much lower than by even harsher patriot, who is more suitable for the current challenges. It's called a surprise...

And yeah, it's not because of their great intelligence do people appeal to the inside / sacred knowledge in the matters of the elite, since disclosure may call them to account. Analytical work through open sources is another pair of shoes...😁😁😁

The Russian version can be found here.

Cause We Are a Gang! (Part One)
#theory_of_power
There is nothing surprising that people from the elite quite rarely pamper the public with any revelations. Many interesting things become known from their correspondence, ranging from the "Letters to His Son" by Philip Stanhope of Chesterfield to leaks of letters/talks in the modern world. Personal communication, recollections, memoirs, slips of the tongue of both members of the elite and of their surrounding allow us to look behind the curtains. A good analyst is capable of restoring an entire picture by these separate fragments, but these researches are often conducted by neither very good ones nor analysts at all.

Work of the latter forms a crooked image regarding the elite within the public. Let's not talk about any attempts of sanctification, mythologisation, and other artistry - it's all schizo. The same is true for one-man strikes a la - "Take me in...", which are clear diagnosis of complete misunderstanding of the processes. If one remains within the frameworks of the rational discourse, the basis is quite often formed from common forms, mixed with rumours, fantasies, and cognitively understandable images.

The greatest part of domestic politological attempts to unravel the relationships within the elite very poorly reflects ministry model of hierarchy: lots of levels, abyss between them, clear connection between the status and position, limited opportunities for growth, undivided authority regarding all matters, antagonism / confrontation with related units, and others. In reality, our domestic elite's structure does not resemble this multilayer pyramid-like hierarchy. The closest analogy would be a pack (a small group). Similarly, there is no romantic feudal relationship. There is only servitude / oath for a specified period, project, task.

Ideally, the leader of an elite group / an alpha makes a decision and everyone else follows it. You can't argue it. Voting and pluralism are out of the question. If you disagree and feel yourself strong enough - complete your task and, in peacetime, challenge and overthrow the leader. If you can't - obey or leave the pack. Provided that, there are clear, informal rules and limitation. It has nothing to do with absolutism. This is where we are very different from the West.

(to be continued)
The Russian version can be found here.

A Buffer Between Russia and Iran
#geostrategy
Friendship "through a neighbour" is traditionally considered an interesting and stable one since contradictions can always be resolved at the expense of the third, buffer party. The common border between two big and strong states naturally creates heighten tense. No matter how good the relationships are, but there will always be some local contradictions which, granting the presence of political environment, can be exaggerated into a big confrontation. A small country in such a situation is forced to back down and/or build its own policy around preventing and avoiding any conflicts with its big neighbour. A big state cannot allow oneself to do so.

Elongated borders and great number of neighbours require "hold the face" and regularly demonstrate one's own power. In the long term perspective, the border between Russia and China will start causing problems and tension, the same way it is happening right now between China and India. Whilst there is a common enemy - the West - and need for a situational alliance, Russia and China will avoid conflicts, but by 2030s, the situation will change, so we have to be ready for this. Had there been both "independent" Mongolia and Manchukuo with the country of Uigur, the situation would be much simpler. A country between three strong players and/or possessing an independent access to the sea (a field for the external forces' interference) is no longer a full-fledged buffer.

Buffer's destiny is unclear. More often than not, there is no multivectorness issue at hand, and the choice is limited:
▪️ entering the influence zone of one neighbour with the following loss of connectedness, break-up with other neighbour, i.e. even greater weakening;
▪️ becoming a battlefield (for military, economic, meaning wars) of one's neighbours;
▪️ preservation of one's "independence" with the obligation to pay for it by agreeing upon various minor requests from both sides.

Presence of the Turkish peoples between Russia and Iran creates natural buffer and space for a long-term mutually beneficial cooperation and alliance. Both states don't have enough opportunities, resources, and involvement in a complete and quick absorption of the buffer - they will not be able to make such territories and their population part of themselves. In fact, Turkish peoples of Middle Asia and Transcaucasia are becoming a token of a long-term and mutually profitable alliance of Russian and Persian. That requires:

▪️ absence of interest from China (it will have other priorities up to 2040);
▪️ Turkey's break-up / cutting-off from the region, which is where the things in the middle-term perspective are headed to;
▪️ continuing with the mess in Afghanistan - they don't even have to do anything...

Given sound external policy, in 2030-40s, Russia and Iran will be conducting slow, coordinated reclamation of a big buffer zone ("Wild Field") from two sides with partial assimilation. At the same time, common geopolitical projects such as "North-South" will be put into action. It is going to be a difficult, but beneficial and useful task for both countries, which will lead to the joint "New Ark" strategy.

The specifics of a good buffer is an inability of big players to completely absorb it, possibility of slow assimilation, and readiness to share with others. If Germany was strong, the Eastern Europe could be considered as a buffer. For example, let them have Poland and enjoy this headache.

And yeah, f.Ukraine is not a buffer. We are not ready to share it. It grieves us to give up even Galicia, even though it causes more problems than it helps...

The Russian version can be found here.

#geostrategy
A big article about China logically precedes the previous one.

The Russian version of the article can be found here:
https://shkolnikov.info/articles/11-analitika-i-prognozy/109058-ocherk-o-strategii-kitaja-strategicheskie-problemy

The Look from the Other Side
#geostrategy
There is a stable and stagnant set of stereotypes towards Russia in the basis of understanding of the USA / Anglo-Saxons, which affects their ways of forecasting our development and development of their own one. This introduces a serious distortion, forming an image of Russia as of a weak, fragile, and incapable to show any resistance country. The past few years events haven't made them reconsider their estimations. Intellectuals and leading politicians keep on existing in the realias of 2000s, when geostrategy and Sovietology stopped being sought-after.

Almost all theses / stereotypes are narrowed down to the three main points, which were beautifully pointed out by our intelligence officer Andrei Bezrukov:
▪️ "Russia is a dying country" - if we look at the world-wide birth-rate failing, we'll see it as common trend, but no more(rus);
▪️ "Russia and China can never become allies" - there are no unsolvable historical grudges whilst situational alliance against the West is necessary for both countries;
▪️ "The elites of Russia are not going to resist for long and give up" - the West still hasn't been able to resolve the issue with the principles of our elites, leader phenomenon as the leader of the pack(rus).

In reading the reports of almost any Anglo-Saxons "think-tanks", exactly that set of stereotypes, which are the basis of all constructions, plans, and forecasts, emerges. One mistake can be ignored. Two can be barely compensated. Three means that the strategy must be entirely reconsidered. Here all three basic theses turned out to be wrong.

Such an attitude towards Russia is standing in the way of coming to an agreement / make a peace - "what's the point of negotiating with the ones destined to lose?". At the same time, it is standing in the way of taking the confrontation seriously. Therefore, it relaxes. Until the US' elites realise that Russia is not going to extinct, the situational alliance with China becomes certainty whilst "average across the board" attitude of the elites doesn't affect the strategic decisions, the current confrontation will continue.

Specifics of the elite consensus formation in order to make some serious strategic decisions allows us estimate the nature of the Anglo-Saxons future plans very well. Presence / absence of the united, common trend in the work of the analytic institutions serves as a great indicator of the further plans. The strongest American "think-tanks" are no longer focused on Russia. Attention is decreasing. China and the domestic matters have become a number one priority. The British are more stubborn. They are literally filled with Russophobia and hatred as if it were a matter of life and death...

And yeah, the battle for Artemovsk more and more resembles post-modernistic and meaningless version of a general engagement by the number of the Ukrainian troops thrown into, when, instead of concentration of forces, Kiev is gradually losing them...

The Russian version can be found here.

The Image of the Victory in the Confrontation Against the West (Part Two)
#geostrategy
The first condition of that is impossibility of a quick victory over Russia in the economic confrontation since it requires:
▪️ readiness and ability of Russia to destroy the opponent / "draw the game" - yes;
▪️ ability to live and function under the sanctions pressure - yes, the next deadline is the first half of 2024, the matter of preservation of equipment reliability;
▪️ readiness of population to the struggle - yes;
▪️ readiness of elites to the struggle - yes;

The last one was the most complicated and ambiguous, but the West miscalculated and turned out to be not prepared to the specifics of the decision making of the highest ranks of Russia. The next condition is the price of the confrontation for the West has to constantly increase so that the current loss taking would become beneficial. The speeding-up of the degradation processes in the world is playing in our favour. Direct strikes from the Russia's side against the USA and its satellites are not as effective as the strikes aimed at the destruction of the international trade and relationships system.

The choice of the strategy seems obvious. One simply has to strike the transport flows and the Valley of the Pyramids, to launch famine and so on, but there is an issue. The non-West countries are not ready for the real collapse of the global world, which means as soon as Russia starts openly and clearly destroying it, all neutrals will become adversaries and the complete blockade will become a reality. The first one on the list will be China since the falling-apart of integrated space would mean the beginning of the socio-economical catastrophe, which it is not prepared for. I cannot be certain whether people in Kremlin see the situation in the same fashion, but the logic and careful approach of actions are similar - full-scale equilibristics...

And yeah, in its fight in order to preserve the domination of the USA / Cluster of Transnational Corporations, they themselves have to destroy the system, allowing us to say - "It's not us. They are doing that themselves. We root for the multipolar world..."

The Russian version can be found here.