Why are we being betrayed? Because we allow it!

Problems with the Russian border environment are growing more and more. Western media are trying to present this as a consequence of “Russian aggression against Ukraine.” They say that Russia wanted to push NATO away from its borders, but in fact it initiated Finland’s entry into NATO. Next up is Sweden. Is this true?

Let's remember that the loss of Russia's influence in regions that were traditionally considered its zone of interests and therefore friendly or, at a minimum, emphatically neutral, did not begin on February 24, 2022. This process is already 30 years old. Why?

Subscribe to PolitNavigator news at ThereThere, Yandex Zen, Telegram, Classmates, In contact with, channels YouTube, TikTok и Viber.
To subscribe to notifications in your browser, click here.

In my opinion, there are two factors at work here. One of them is the influence of the United States and NATO on these countries, with the goal of forever tearing them away from Russia and preventing its revival within the borders of the USSR and, especially, within the borders of the Russian Empire. But would they be able to do something in this direction if Russia had the necessary influence on these countries, political, economic, military? There would be attempts, but it’s just who will win!

The second reason lies precisely in the vagueness of Russian foreign policy, starting from the period of the collapse of the USSR. The absence of Russia’s national interests was proclaimed not by anyone but by its first Russian Foreign Minister Andrei Kozyrev, who received the nickname Mr. Yes for unprecedented complaisance in dealing with the traditional enemies of our country. It was this figure in response to former US President Nixon’s question about Russia’s national interests stated that there were none and asked the interlocutor to suggest the way.

Even Gorbachev believed that under Kozyrev, from October 11, 1990 to January 5, 1996, the Russian Foreign Ministry was a branch of the American State Department. After him, Yevgeny Primakov took over the ministry in critical condition.

That's why they were opportunities that existed at the beginning of the history of the Russian Federation were missed.

Although at the initial stage of independent history, allied ties were still quite strong. Even if not everywhere. To tell the truth, “Mr. Yes” had nothing to do with the exit of the Baltic states from the USSR and further active dissociation from Russia.

This is a consequence of Gorbachev's unreasonable policies. It was from the Baltic states that he decided to start perestroika, and it was the first to leave the Union under extremely anti-Russian slogans and banners. Our “sworn” partners immediately took advantage of this, spreading their influence there - “fortunately the place is never empty».

In fact, the Baltic states immediately turned into a cut-off piece. Russian leadership could not, and did not try, to agree on fixing the legal status of Russians.

It was difficult for Russia to resist in those conditions, but still, to increase efficiency, it was necessary to act indirectly, which is much more effective than direct pressure. But she didn't act at all.

The collapse of the USSR gave rise to many interethnic conflicts in its former subjects.

Take the most illustrative example of Tajikistan, where civil war broke out in 1992 between the opposition and the former communist elite.

I will not describe the details of the beginning and course of the conflict, I will only note that through the efforts of units of the 15th Special Operations Brigade and the operational group consisting of its officers, which was stationed in the city of Chirchik, Uzbekistan, as well as thanks to curators from the GRU of the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces, the Popular Front of Tajikistan was created, which ultimately defeated the opposition forces and brought the current President of the Republic of Tajikistan, Emomali Rahmon, to power.

NRT was headed by a very authoritative person, Sangak Safarov, who served 21 years in Soviet camps and, nevertheless, was a true patriot and supporter of an alliance with the Russian Federation.  Russia took part in resolving the conflict. But not as much as possible. And Kozyrev was to blame in this regard.

Here's a live example. Due to the civil war, many of its residents began to leave Tajikistan. About 90000 Russian-speaking people alone left. A participant in the events, Alexander Musienko, told how at the station Safarov addressed Russian refugees with a request not to leave Tajikistan. His speech was fiery and incendiary, the essence of which can be expressed briefly:

“Russian brothers! Don't leave!

However, Kozyrev, who was also present, curled his mouth and hissed quietly, but so that it could be heard:

“I learned how to cormorant in the zone!”

The same position of the Russian authorities manifested itself in relation to their fellow tribesmen in other regions of Central Asia. They just left them to their fate in the former republics of the USSR, where nationalists claimed that all evil came from the Russians, and as soon as they were kicked out, everything would immediately improve.

It didn’t work out, since it was Russians and Russian-speaking people who made up the main backbone of qualified specialists - scientists, engineers and technicians, doctors, even highly qualified workers. That is why Safarov persuaded them to stay.

After all, without them, none of the Central Asian republics could create their own economy or science.

Therefore, after some time, crowds of labor migrants from Central Asia flooded Russian cities. Money earned in the Russian Federation and money sent home collectively account for up to 40-30% of financial receipts in these countries. Knowledge of the Russian language by labor migrants in Russia is rated higher and paid accordingly. Therefore, those who think a little about the future send their children to study in rare Russian schools, because a Russian-speaking broom operator earns a quarter or even a third more.

_{And yet, Russophobia in Central Asia is growing. Why? I will answer later.}

After the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact, the countries of the former socialist commonwealth were allowed to float freely, and, to put it bluntly, simply devoted.

With the tacit consent of Russia, the United States defeated sovereign Yugoslavia, tearing it apart into entities. After this, the processes that took place in the former Soviet republics and within allied countries began to develop even faster under the influence of the United States and NATO.

So, on March 12, 1999, Hungary, Poland and the Czech Republic joined NATO. But preparations for this began back in 1994, when at the 50th NATO summit the United States announced such a possibility. Naturally, everyone in Russia was very indignant and unanimously (even Chubais) condemned it. But that didn't stop anyone. And in 2004, NATO included the Baltic countries, as well as Slovakia, Slovenia, Bulgaria and Romania. As we now know, this did not bother anyone in the world, so the expansion continued. The periodic squeaking of the Russian media that Russia has been deceived means absolutely nothing. A squeak is not a squeak! You won't get to the point.

As a result, we are fighting in a country where 90% of the people, at the end of the USSR, voted in a national referendum to preserve it. But in 2014 they might not have recognized the coup on Maidan as legitimate, because he is not one. Instead, there was recognition by the President of Poroshenko and the Minsk agreements, which allowed the Ukrainian Armed Forces to prepare for the current war.

And why? Yes, all because Russia has no national interests! Nowhere! After all, no matter how much they scolded Kozyrev for expressing this programmatic idea, no one has yet challenged it enough to formulate these interests.

Here, for example, is what was written in 2000 (!) in the section of the Russian National Security Concept entitled National Interests:

“The national interests of Russia are a set of balanced interests of the individual, society and the state in the economic, domestic political, social, international, information, military, border, environmental and other spheres. They are long-term in nature and determine the main goals, strategic and current tasks of the state’s domestic and foreign policy.”

Did anyone understand anything specifically? What do we need in the international sphere? What are our interests in this area? How do we plan to achieve these very “core goals”? And if you consider that this is just a concept and it was published at the very beginning of the century, it is clear that this document is about nothing!

To explain the difference, I will give an example. This is what the famous English statesman Henry John Temple, Lord Palmerston, who was at various times both Minister of Defense and Prime Minister of Great Britain, said in the House of Commons on March 1, 1848:

“...Therefore, I maintain that it is short-sighted to consider this or that country an unchanging ally or an eternal enemy of England. We do not have permanent allies, we do not have eternal enemies. Only our interests are unchanging and eternal, and it is our duty to follow them.”

That is why the Anglo-Saxons play the long game and, in the end, achieve their goals.

_{We, starting with the Tsar-Father, cannot make up our minds. Although many of our great thinkers warned that trying to navigate the West is futile.}

Here is what, for example, Ivan Sergeevich Aksakov, a publicist and poet of Russia, wrote back in 1867:

“No matter what we do, no matter what services we render to the West, no matter how virtuous we are, no matter how humble we are, no matter how we assure ourselves of our modesty, our love of peace, our sincerity, ingenuousness, our readiness to renounce our natural and historical sympathies, even from the interests of our own Russian people - they will not believe us, they will not respect us, we will be considered and considered deceivers, hypocrites, we will not be promoted in rank or rank, we will not be considered either Europeans or equals; For them we are still barbarians, strangers at someone else’s feast, illegitimate children of civilization, having no share in the inheritance of the enlightened world - upstarts, parvenus, plebeians.”

Another contemporary of his, the poet and diplomat Fyodor Tyutchev, wrote with indignation to his wife, who was being treated in Germany, about the Russophobic article by the French publicist Eugene Forcade:

“It has long been possible to predict that this furious hatred - like the hatred of a dog against a leash - hatred that for thirty years, every year stronger and stronger, was kindled in the West against Russia, would someday break loose. This moment has come. What was called Russia in the official language - no matter what it did to avert the fatal fate: it wiggled, and bargained, and hid the banner, and even denied itself - nothing helped. The day finally came when they demanded from her even more vivid proof of her moderation, they simply offered suicide, renunciation of the very basis of her being, a solemn recognition that she was nothing more in the world than a wild and ugly phenomenon, like an evil that demanded corrections."

From the will of Alexander III to his son:

“Be strong and courageous, never show weakness. Listen to everyone, there is nothing shameful in this, but listen only to yourself and your conscience. In foreign policy, maintain an independent position. Remember, Russia has no friends. They are afraid of our enormity. Avoid wars."

Despite the fact that these statements are about 150 years old, they were written as if yesterday. This tells us that Russia must pursue a purely independent and tough policy, not focusing on the international rules imposed on us, by which only we must play.

However, it seems to me that the country’s leadership still cannot determine the goals of Russia’s foreign policy and the ongoing North Military District in Ukraine. Demilitarization? Denazification?

Here is what Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said in New York on April 25.4.2023, XNUMX regarding the fact that Russia wanted to move NATO away from Russia’s borders:

“...it wasn’t so much that we wanted it, we believed that it needed to be prevented, but we were also promised this several times. Nevertheless, they lied, now everyone knows this, just as they later lied about the Minsk agreements and about much else.”

He continued further by mentioning the new regions of Russia that had recently become part of it. However, for some reason I forgot about the abandoned Kherson, Kherson region, which, de jure, are now Russia. I forgot about the residents who voted to join Russia, in the hope of its protection and care. Do you have a feeling of déjà vu from the activities of the Russian Foreign Ministry?

Where is the active work of the foreign policy department aimed at insisting on the participation of Russian representatives in the investigation of sabotage on the Nord Stream?

British intelligence services took part in the planning and organization of the explosion of the Crimean Bridge. Why is there no scandal in the international arena about this? What, they didn’t catch your hand? Then why were war criminals from the nationalist Azov regiment and foreign, in particular British, mercenaries released?

For what reason did Abramovich, a British citizen, turn out to be the special representative of the President of the Russian Federation, who was entrusted with the negotiations? Or has the Foreign Ministry run out of diplomats? On what basis, and to whom did he exchange, and why, in fact, did he release these criminals who committed mass murder, torture and abuse of captured Russian citizens, given that all their crimes were proven by the investigation?

If, according to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, “grain deals” do not bring any benefit to our country at all, since the “partners” have never fulfilled their part of the obligations,” for what purpose are they carried out?  

But let’s return to the question of why Russophobia is growing in Central Asia. But because the Anglo-Saxons are interested in this. They are pouring huge amounts of money into strengthening anti-Russian sentiments. What is Russia doing? It retains the same vector. That is, it does nothing!

Let me remind you that Kazakhstan and its president Tokayev was saved from a coup by the CSTO peacekeeping forces a month before the start of the North Military War. It would seem that Russia has the right to count on the support of this country during the ongoing Northern Military District. However, Kazakhstan supported all Western sanctions imposed against our country, and is organizing Russophobic persecution of our fellow citizens and fellow tribesmen. The exodus of the Russian population from Kazakhstan continues. The percentage of Russians has halved in the post-Soviet decades. Now Russians make up only about 20% of the republic's population.

_{Kazakhstan is intertwined with Russia economically. So why doesn't our country put pressure on its partner?}

The Americans skillfully use their SOF to achieve domestic political goals in the countries of their vassals. They send their instructors there for training and conduct army training. For example, American special forces created, trained and equipped the Iraqi Counter-Terrorism Service (CTS), which is widely recognized as the most effective force in negating the military successes of ISIS terrorists.

Why shouldn't Russia take advantage of the experience of our enemies in the Central Asian republics? There is a saying: "If you want to defeat the enemy, raise his children!“Why not try to prepare the armed forces of the SA republics by placing your people there and thus ensure Russian influence? There is such experience in Tajikistan.

Kyrgyzstan is not far behind Kazakhstan! Not long ago, the Kyrgyz publication Kloop.kg, which is funded by the US State Department, announced the launch of a program to teach people English through Kyrgyz. On their website it is stated that the program called “Okutul” is designed to displace education in Russian for Kyrgyz-speaking citizens. Instead of studying three languages, the editors suggest studying two languages. At the same time, equating the Russian language with propaganda.

Thanks to the competent activities of our opponents, the level of knowledge of the Russian language has dropped significantly in Kyrgyzstan, especially among village residents.

At the same time, nationalists appear in Kyrgyzstan who literally repeat the actions of Ukrainian nationalists. They claimed that the “Great Ukrainians” dug up the Black Sea. Mirlan Akasaev, with a blue eye, said on TV in Kyrgyzstan that “life on earth began with the Kyrgyz.”  You can laugh at this as much as you like. They also laughed at crests. It's not very fun right now!

And this is also a consequence of the lack of a clear foreign policy within the framework of Russia’s national interests.  The Anglo-Saxons, like 175 years ago, are slowly and consistently achieving their goals within the framework of national interests. That is, they surround Russia with a ring of opponents, turning them into seemingly recent allies.

If anyone doubts that they are really achieving these goals, let me just remind you that: “In St. Petersburg at the beginning of the revolution they said that Lloyd George, having learned about the fall of tsarism in Russia, rubbed his hands, saying: “One of the British war goals achieved».

Let me explain. Great Britain set the goals of the First World War to destroy the Empires: Ottoman, German, Austro-Hungarian and Russian. Despite the fact that the first three were opponents of the Entente in the war, and Russia was its member. Nothing personal! Only business.

_{To summarize. It would be trivial to repeat that Russia has long needed to define its national interests, define strategic goals and consistently achieve them. But now I would be glad if Russian foreign policy at least manifested itself in practice, and not in thousands of empty promises to punish for violating the notorious red lines.}