Part 1. Forward to scientific conspiracy theories.
Part 2. Or back to pure Machiavellianism?
Part 3. From Clausewitz to Stirlitz.
Part 4. Trump as a trump symbol of the threat.
Part 5. Threat to all threats.
Part 6. Global spite of the day.
Part 7. The behind-the-scenes logic of the federal order.
Putin's "pension" televised address included several different parts, which differed in modality. Emotional engagement was low when it came to listing the mitigating measures and safeguards developed by the government bureaucracy. The ending is another matter, when external reasons and political risks, moreover, long-term ones, were named. The main risk was identified precisely in the form of non-guaranteed oil and gas export budget revenues, which jeopardizes not only the pension system, but the entire financial and budgetary system. The former safety margin, as in the late USSR, is now or not yet, so a repetition of "perestroika" could become fatal for the country, and it would certainly end with the flight and disposal of the current elites along with their families. So reminding the elites about the fate of children is not superfluous.
Promotional video:
Of course, you can try to argue that the oil and gas peak has been passed, and the return on investment from new complex fields is steadily falling. So oil and gas cannot but grow in price. However, the experience of sanctions against Iraq, Iran or the existence of an isolated Islamist enclave shows that export prices under such an embargo are dictated by authorized intermediaries, and the entire margin goes not to the budget, but to shadow offshores, even high-tech ones. So the long-term threat outlined in Putin's address is possible, but only on condition of the unity of the global financial elite, which has supplanted both the East and the West. So the question needs to be clarified: under what conditions is such a hypothetical unity possible?
You can ask yourself another leading question: is this external threat designated at the highest level - is it some kind of new or already known one? And does this threat threaten someone else? For example, does the threat of impeachment against Trump come from the same source - the united financial coalition of "money changers" and "pirates"?
However, we digress from the political essence of the televised address. There is a contradiction, visible with due attention, between political motivation and the format of the proposed compromises. If in order to fend off an external threat it is necessary, first of all, to unite society, to transfer the elite to a mobilization regime, then many of the measures already proposed could have been packaged in a much clearer and more acceptable way for the people. For example, a multiple increase in unemployment benefits for pre-retirees is actually an option for retirement, taking into account the remaining benefits and regional allowances - there is no particular need to present this compromise as a sharp increase in the retirement age. It would be possible to submit the same thing as a preservation or a small increase, but with the option to work for another three to five years to increase the pension. Not,it was the IMF's tough version that was retained for external use.
In addition, let us repeat, it was extremely harmful for internal political cohesion to introduce unpopular harsh measures in one fell swoop, without warning or even hints. Although there was time to discuss and form a softening compromise. Unless there really was a backstage ultimatum to disrupt the championship. In any case, it turns out that despite the long-term, non-instantaneous nature of the external threat, this threat must be counteracted now, this year. This moment again brings us to the threat of impeachment to Trump in the United States after the November congressional elections. If the "right-left" financial coalition masters the political coup in the United States, one way or another undermines the executive power, then the prospect of increasing endless sanctions will come nearer. The desire to crush all "allies" and trading partners, including China, India,Turkey - it may well, at least, take shape in real actions, and not just virtual threats, like Trump's, just to lag behind.
At the same time, a hypothetical attempt by revanchists to regain power and financial control over the Middle East allies and other oil and gas producers is for the “pirates” the most reliable stranglehold on the “money changers” who feed on trade and financial support of the BRICS economies and other non-Western “growing markets”. However, this same consideration is an unavoidable reason for the deep split of the two wings of the globalists - the pro-Israeli financial-militaristic and the pro-London financial-trade. If there were no such irreparable reason, the national-globalists would never have received additional backstage support from the "money changers" and would not have brought Trump to the White House. Like the Kremlin, without the help of "money changers" and their Middle Eastern clients, they would not have had a chance to come and gain a foothold in the Middle East as a guarantor against pressure from "pirates". Therefore, even now the visible participation "changed",including in the person of the London "politicum", has a very ambiguous character.
For example, the second season of the political-comedy series Skripali is similarly tied to the apparent threat of chemical provocation in Syria as an excuse not just for a US military strike, but for a political coup and the subordination of the White House to deep state generals. And in the same way, the deliberately crudely cobbled together provocation in Salisbury is intended not only to distract the attention of Western countries from inflating a real chemical threat in Syria, but also, if necessary, to disavow provocation in Syria by discrediting all “chemical” provocations in general. So, as in March, the current massive information campaign in London and Moscow is very likely to be coordinated.
Or does someone think that the global TV channel RT can operate in the same USA and Britain without the backstage support of influential forces? Which are now only clans and coalitions of financiers. They fool our and not our brother in chorus. By the way, information pressure on NASA and the MIC corporations associated with the agency may well be part of an information and psychological counteroffensive. Why not drill holes in the ground in a way that looks like working in zero gravity? And then, strictly according to the patterns of "highley like" - only Americans could do this. For nothing, Roscosmos was headed by a politician from the "left", that is, the Prolondon spectrum, known mainly for his PR achievements.))
Of course, the "money changers" will try to get the most out of the pressure on Trump and the Kremlin in order to jump off at the last moment and throw their sworn "partners". As it was, by the way, in the 2016 elections, where in key states some of the Democratic supporters of Sanders boycotted the elections, or even took revenge on Hillary by voting for Trump. And yet it is impossible to guarantee one hundred percent that the "deep state", on the orders of the "pirates" at the time of decisive impeachment votes, will not take the relatives of congressmen or influential banksters - "money changers" Topics.
However, this is all vanity and vanity, and has little value in comparison with the political and economic layouts. All the same, key political decisions: whether to kill Trump or not, to press all the way or not on Russia - will be made not by congressmen, and not even by presidents, but by the co-owners of the global financial machine in a deep crisis. In this case, the motivation for making decisions will be not differences in taste, sympathy or antipathy towards certain countries and leaders, but development forecasts for certain decision options. These development forecasts, in turn, depend on assessments of how this or that country will withstand possible pressure, will or will not become the next "feed" to maintain the resources of an increasingly problematic financial system. And if there is no such option, when it is possible to save at the expense of the victim,to extend the work of the global financial "vacuum cleaner" for at least another ten years - then everyone will be for himself, save himself who and how he can. But if, God forbid, someone shows weakness, like the Gaddafi clan or the Kiev oligarchs, then the banksters will not care who dispossessed to death - even Russia, even Europe or China, even the United States itself. Although with different variants of the victim, there will be nuances in the hierarchy and composition of the members of the predatory coalition.
It will be appropriate here to return to the role of Kudrin in this whole intrigue. We have already called it - a walking "channel of influence", but it needs to be clarified, otherwise they might think that this is something like an enemy agent. Not exactly an agent, and not necessarily an enemy. At the turn of the 1990s, when Kudrin in Chubais's team communicated with American partners, the United States was definitely not considered an enemy, but a senior partner. Therefore, the corresponding "channel of influence" worked in the "information in exchange for recommendations" mode. Apparently, the methodology and inclination to analytical work helped Kudrin rise higher and replace Chubais during the Bush Jr. period, when the American partners from the "Rockefeller" banks were slightly removed from the helm. In general, the initial symptoms of the global financial crisis have forced senior partners to take younger partners more seriously. The "channel of influence" began to work in a slightly different mode: analytics in exchange for information.
If, or rather, when, a hundred or two hundred years later, another “dumas” writes an adventure novel about our dramatic era, one of the plots may be based on an almost spy intrigue, where an inconspicuous natural accountant finds himself in the whirlpool of global politics. The most powerful bankers in the world, worried about their political and general future, are trying to assess the scenarios for entering and exiting the inevitable debt crisis. Western experts with professorial regalia, involved in the assessment, cannot find contradictions with the preached dogmas of "economics", therefore they scatter in praises of the ingenious plan.
“They think I need their ass kisses,” scolds the chief finance boss. “I need my trillions, I can't risk these suckers! I need to draw up a real, combat scenario of counteracting our plan … Who not only can, but also wants to do this - maybe the Chinese? No, Londoners will be able to, but they will deceive, slip a linden tree. Maybe the Russians? In short, give a task to all our people, let them organize a brainstorming session, at least in the Internet resources. Allow me to leak the main points of the script so that our enemies can properly discuss counterplay. Yes, I agree - it's a gamble. But taking risks without knowing the possible counterplay is an even bigger, global adventure … By the way, what was the name of this Russian analyst there? Alex? - So entrust him, dear Eustace!
This is, of course, part of a joke. However, the political “channel of influence” during the growth of the crisis cannot but work in both directions. And why shouldn't the political forces in two not so hostile countries, which have a common interest, exchange analytics. It was just that this was usually done through political science "scientific" publications, and not through direct exchange of analytical notes. So now, after the presidential elections in Russia, everything was quite decent. Kudrin, like Medvedev or other "channels of influence" in Putin's entourage, did not admit to him at all about working for an adversary, and did not pass black marks with a skull and bones. Instead, a brief policy note was put on the leader's table describing the likely scenario. As always in politics, such a message was ambiguous, ambiguous - it is also an indirect threat,and a proposal to return to the status of a junior ally, and from the side of Kudrin, who is well-known in financial circles, also a report with a warning of the danger, as well as an option for an urgent response in the form of "pension reform." Thus, tactically, situationally, the "pirate" wing of the global elite gets quick points and positions in bargaining with competing partners at the US level - they say, everything is seized here and in the Kremlin.
In general, this should be a real political game and intrigue in order to have more than one or two options for action in stock. On the one hand, we show the country's readiness and the mobilization of the elites for the toughest scenario of financial pressure, but at the same time we give a signal to the other two wings of the global elite that they are ready to support the "pirates" in their struggle against other globalists. This sows mistrust, aggravates the split, mobilizes opponents of the allegedly stronger side. At the same time, the most ambitious military exercises since Soviet times are being held - which seems to play into the hands of the "hawks". However, these exercises are joint with China, which, on the contrary, plays into the hands of the "left" wing of the alternative globalists, since it protects the main cash cow "money changers" from military pressure. And besides,In the event of a military crisis around Iran and the closure of the Gulf of Hormuz for tankers to China, Russia is ready to supply this "sbiten" to its eastern partner on credit, issued in rubles with conversion into yuan.
All these global political and economic alignments will be taken into account not only by the leaders of the leading powers, but also by influential players of the global financial elite - when making the final decision in which direction to resolve the long-overdue crisis. If there are no weighty financial and political arguments in favor of a military aggravation in the Middle East (for organizing tough pressure on China and other "growing markets"), then the trilateral balance of power will remain without the dominance of either side. In this case, the national-globalist policy of the Trump administration will simply continue, adjusted at the global level, taking into account the pressure of the other two wings. At the same time, the anti-Russian information and sanctions war will not stop to prevent a closer alliance of strong players with a source of resources,and maybe even strengthen and become multilateral, everyone with everyone. However, economic ties, one way or another, will be maintained and developed, and this is the main thing at the moment. Of course, I would like to immediately become rich and healthy, and also beautiful. But if you choose two options out of three, then a beautiful picture in the world media can wait.