Nikolay Starikov: Russia is on a way of finding of the sovereignty

Negative scenarios of the development of Russia that the western and westernized experts “drew” in Davos won't come true as all former forecasts failed dooming our country to vegetation.

Political struggle is in the world constantly. Present that there is one huge game of chess, only there not only white and black, but still green, red, blue and other colors battle among themselves. Any of warring parties isn't necessary so strong opponent, capable to show resistance. And in this sense not only strong Russia isn't necessary to our geopolitical neighbors. In the same way strong Germany, France, Iran – in general whoever aren't necessary to them.

To understand the principles of Big-time politics, it is possible to remember an ancient Russian entertainment “the tsar of the mountain” when someone got on any top and his main goal is that nobody got up near him and couldn't get rid. And a problem of the others is, on the contrary, to climb on this mountain and to dump “tsar” down that most to appear above all. However, the last is optional.

Let's tell, the system constructed in the Soviet Union, didn't mean that our country becomes “the tsar of the mountain”. Moreover, conducting a course of creation of the multipolar world, we aspired “to smooth” this “mountain” a little in every possible way, “to level” in a sense of redistributions of not on a narrow segment of Europeans and inhabitants of North America, but in interests of the majority of the population of a planet.

That is the USSR fought for the geopolitical space not to plunder others, but invested huge money in the development of economy, infrastructure, education, culture to those regions where it never was. After all the industry of Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania was constructed in Soviet period which these former federal republics safely closed now, destroyed. Before the states of Baltic were only agrarian suburbs of the Russian Empire and even earlier of the Swedish kingdom, the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and so on.

The Soviet Union worked not as that “the tsar of the mountain” that still towers over the world. Here there is basic distinction between us. But it seems to me, such allegory quite approaches for understanding of global geopolitical processes.

And so, the Anglo-Saxon states are “on the mountain” – Great Britain and the USA. England slightly longer, the United States is slightly less, but in total about three centuries. And the main task of Anglo-Saxon policy is to make that nobody climb on this “mountain”.

And for this purpose it is necessary to weaken all who tries to scramble above in every possible way: to push them together, to find contradictions, to give out certain subsidies that they would be at war with each other, to cause an internal distemper, to create the maximum diplomatic, economic difficulties, etc. That is the sense of policy which is pursued for the last centuries.

The policy, in general, is not so pleasant thing on a smell and to touch, but the one who appeared above, tries to push off the potential rivals. Why do I focus attention on it?

Very often it is possible to hear such naive opinion for those who politicize: pier, why, for example, the First and Second world wars were necessary for Great Britain, if it was the mightiest power? So these wars were necessary exactly for this purpose that nobody became the same strong. Exactly for this purpose Adolf Hitler was necessary to London to destroy the European economy, Soviet Union, all national currencies and as a result to remake the political map of the world.

Now, when we understood who is above and who tries to push other players off, we turn to the following question – is it necessary for “the tsar of the mountain” that someone from moving on the top of competitors was big and strong?

Certainly, no. Therefore it doesn’t matter who moves on this top. Let's not go deep into the millennia. If to take at least the last hundred years of the Russian history, this line is traced accurately.

At first there was no Russian Empire. On its place thanks to the state talents of Bolsheviks, more Stalin, than Lenin, there was a new state education under the new name and a flag.

But the Soviet Union in the same way became the competitor of the standing “on the mountain” Anglo-Saxons, as well as the Russian Empire. In this sense, the state system, formation, ideology of opponents don't play any role. When you are at top what is the difference who comes nearer and can become the competitor and even “dump”: communist or supporter of any other ideological views.

Therefore the fighting started against the Soviet Union in the same way as against the Russian Empire before. Pay attention: the West supported revolutionaries, all of them quite comfortably lived in the European capitals. But as soon as these revolutionaries became at the head of Russia, the fight was began against them. Nothing surprising.

Let's take later history. Not without the aid of our probable “friends” the Soviet Union was destroyed in 1991 and “democrats” (we quote them too) came to the power. And the West immediately starts support of “reformers” not schooled by it, and, for example, the Chechen separatists who want to separate from already “democratic” Russia.

Where is the logic? And it is very simple: divide and govern. Or weaken and dominate. Any forces which conduct to split of the strong state are fed up and provoked. That is becomes clear: there are no conditions of “civilization”, “democratic character” and still something, having executed which, we will cease to be dangerous to our geopolitical rivals.

Therefore unilateral disarmament, delivery of the positions in the world, destruction of Council of economic mutual aid, the Warsaw pact were the nonsense adjoining on treachery from Gorbachev, exactly – the treachery, adjoining on nonsense.

Russia couldn't receive something for it in principle and didn't receive.

Boris Yeltsin became the faithful successor of a course of Gorbachev on delivery of geopolitical, economic and any other interests of Russia. This harmful vector for our state was changed by Putin who formally was Yeltsin's certain successor.

But the historical paradox and happiness for our country is that Yeltsin made a big personnel mistake. And all of us have to be grateful for this mistake and I am even ready to forgive a lot of things to him.

Otherwise the hard time would become to Russia and the majority of us, and who knows whether our state would remain or not in today's borders. Without speaking already about policy of national revival which is made by Vladimir Putin, contrary to those who “on the mountain”.

Everything, as we know, is got to know in comparison. We lead simple human life therefore in routine of daily cares sometimes we don't notice radical changes that occur. Let's remember that was in Russia in 1999 and what we have now.

Then Armed forces couldn't cope with gangs of terrorists who walked about on our territory. The huge army was demoralized. Certain summary parts were sent to Chechnya which were scraped up on corn bins. And what is now? Where the set of bands got to? Went to offices to work or to trade the vegetables at the market? No. The part was destroyed, another received amnesty, having recognized uselessness and injuriousness of fight against own people. The situation cardinally changed.

Yes, the acts of terrorism in the Caucasus occur, and, unfortunately, it still will be as the fact of our life any time.

But besides we will remember the history. When Basmachestvo was completely liquidated in Central Asia? In 30th years. More than 10 years passed after the end of civil war. And when a full pacification came in the Caucasus? Perhaps, only on the eve of the Great Patriotic War and because in 20-30th years serious events for weapon withdrawal were held there.

So today we observe the next and absolutely controlled stage of gradual stabilization of a situation in Chechnya, Ingushetia, Dagestan, Kabardino-Balkaria when on a place of the open armed fight still there is any local resistance.

But still a historical example. When white armies moved to Petrograd and Moscow, there was a situation that the Soviet power hung by a thread. When the white broke, they didn't calm down and passed to individual terror. But agree: bomb explosion on a Communist Party meeting is not like the same as Drozdov division coming to Moscow.

After strengthening of the political power in today's Russia the revival in economy began. However, dispute again became aggravated, what way to go.

Liberals are ready to sell out everything. Statesmen are convinced that all strategic, life-supporting branches have to be under power control – only this way it is possible to provide revival of economy and creation of strong Russia.

Both those and others speak convincingly. To create own opinion, I suggest to use rather simple tools: common sense and also historical experience and mentality of the people. In tradition of Russia, like it or not, is the strong state which supervises economy in a certain degree.

At the time of the empire there was a big segment where the private initiative, merchants, manufacturers predominated … There was no 100 percent state economy in pre-Soviet Russia.

Probably, it shouldn't be because any following to dogmas doesn't lead to good. Why, for example, cafe, laundries or hairdressing salons have to be the state? There is no sense in it. In the same way, there is no reason to demand that all was obligatory private. Why we had private railroads and the airports, I don't understand still. The private trader, maybe, also will build fighting vessels or spacecrafts but if other power pays slightly more to him, so he won’t build them, no ships will appear.

If someone tells that it is the nonsense, all industrialists and producers are exclusively the patriots, I will remind a situation of times of World War I when, apparently, it was necessary to put aside all conflicts and disagreements. At the beginning of campaign the Russian army decided to take advantage of the machine gun of designer Vladimir Fyodorov. Unprecedented then person-portable speed weapon was developed, passed the tests, one fighting division was armed with an experimental batch, the machine gun perfectly showed itself, it was necessary to mass-produce only. However no one enterprise in the territory of the Russian Empire agreed to release this super weapon.

Why – there is no mention, but the fact is the fact. Whether is it possible even to present that during the Great Patriotic War any plant refused to release T-34 tanks because it is unprofitable to it? Because cheaper to let out T-26 at which the gun caliber is less and the armor is weaker. You see, the question is rhetorical.

And the conclusion is simple: it is impossible to measure the state security, military need and production of arms by economic tools.

We come back to what and to whom has to belong in Russia. State ownership is traditional and further – common sense. Personally I am the supporter of bigger nationalization, instead of privatization. Because nobody can explain the desire to put everything in private hands which are allegedly more effective than the state and in my opinion, it is absolutely wrong position. There is a good director and there is bad.

Would the Yukos company where billion dollars were received by mister Khodorkovsky, really extract less oil if mister Khodorkovsky employed in the state company with the same name for a salary in one million dollars a year? Would they extract one thousand times less oil? Certainly, no. We have a bitter experience of privatization which was simply free distribution, with very strong thieves' shade – public property.

The matter is not that the national property created by generations was distributed, it was necessary to create the intermediate stage to transfer property of Russia to the West. If the European or American companies participated in privatization, it would be possible to declare that it is wrong and to challenge. But when the western monopoly wants to buy “Yukos” from lawful owner Khodorkovsky, it has full authority and to challenge this transaction, it is necessary to compete any more with Khodorkovsky, but with the Sixth fleet of the USA.

As a matter of fact, quite clear unwillingness of the Russian power to give our assets to the West served in many respects that Khodorkovsky appeared in prison. Yes, there are unpaid taxes, crimes are committed, but background of these events is the aspiration of Russia to defend the sovereignty.

About the need of a new wave of privatization and economy liberalization just was spoken in Davos where a number of economists and politicians, including ex-Minister of Finance Kudrin, frightened the honest people of scenarios of the development of Russia: no gleam, one is worse another.

And when something sounded at least positive concerning our country and its future from Davos which is under control of western “tsars of the mountain”? The historical example is remembered when Doctor Goebbels with Adolf Hitler stated so gloomy scenarios of succession of events in the Soviet Union that validol wouldn't suffice to all.

However both of these “seers” terminated equally badly. So, having heard a prediction of “end of Russia”, we will remember, that many enemies throughout centuries did negative forecasts too, however where are these prophets now? And Russia was, is and will be! Contrary to “tsars of the mountain” and liberals serving them.

Our country is faced now by so complex challenges that only people who are ideologically aimed at state development can carry out them.

Liberals are focused on interests of the western economy, they are ready to be turned out inside out to be pleasant to London-Washington, try to transfer the Russian assets into strange hands. That is it is actually freely or involuntarily (I think freely, certainly!) work in favor of the West.

Therefore today when the situation in the world is again heated and the matter moves to new global opposition, not simple experts have to come to the power, who, maybe, have the views, but the professionals having an accurate political platform of formation of strong Russia.

I will give only one example. Now there are a lot of conversations on abuses and strange things which were created in the Ministry of Defence. There was one Minister of Defence. There is another. Look, what difference in approach. Serdyukov made decisions from the point of view of efficiency. It is necessary to buy fighting vehicles – we look where is cheaper. In Italy? We buy armored cars there. Nothing terrible that they aren't brought to a frost and get stuck in snow. Even in Italy is cheaper, for the patriotic statesman the answer to a question where to buy will be unambiguous. Certainly, in Russia. How is it possible to arm our army with foreign samples? Then to depend on spare parts in case of the conflict?

And the second thing. And why the production is more expensive in Russia? Because in Italy the plants releasing these cars, work at full capacity, they have a large number of orders. Respectively, prime cost of a unit of production is lower. If you start making a new product in Russia at the enterprise which, thanks to reorganization, 20 years stood idle, naturally, piece work is got and each product costs much more expensive.

It is necessary to give the chance to this plant to develop, provide it with orders, without looking at that the cost at the initial stage can be higher. It is impossible to measure the defensive industry by money equivalents. If Stalin thought as Serdyukov, he would owe tanks and planes to buy from Hitler. And for some reason it seems to me however many Stalin offered the Fuhrer for the next military deliveries in November of 1942, we wouldn't wait them.

And in economy it is impossible "to dance" thoughtlessly under the western music and it is better to ripen in a root as unforgettable Kozma Prutkov used to say.

What is the root of problems of today's Russian economy? In its secondary in comparison with the western.
The matter is that we are deprived of the right of sovereign issue of our currency. This right is transferred, according to our Constitution, the Central bank of Russia which is independent structure and imitates our rubles not in the quantity necessary for development of economy, but in the sums proportional to mass of dollars and euro that get to gold and foreign exchange reserves. It is as though the amount of blood in a human body was defined not by requirements of life support and growth, but, for example by a dollar exchange rate at the London exchange. Two concepts which don't have any communication among themselves and the person faint because he has not enough blood.

And the second problem is the cost of credit resources.

Any production, big business is done on borrowed funds. And the Central bank of Russia persistently holds a high rate of refinancing. It is the policy of destruction of the national producer on the one hand, and on the other – the mechanism of switching of the Russian productions on the foreign credits, that is putting our economy for a foreign needle. This dependence leads to that all large domestic business is in foreign jurisdiction. Because abroad money is lend only to residents. Therefore the solution of today's problems is a capture under control of issue of ruble. The status of the Central Bank has to be changed. I am convinced that the businessman who wants to obtain the credits in rubles not under 15–20 percent, but under 5–7 percent will agree with it.

It is the key moment without which we won't be able to become completely sovereign country. If the Central Bank of Russia is guided by the international financial structures more than by own people, nothing good can be for the country.

Other question is where to take the state focused managers? The experts under performance of exclusively state tasks were trained in the Soviet Union.

20 years passed and now they stamp the managers “ground” on the western economic science – nonexistent. It is necessary to change the formation system, to make the importance to unconditional following to the state interests and not only in economy, but also in policy, in education, in art – in all vital spheres.

Be the patriot has to become fashionable.

Then it becomes the belief of everyone. By the way, the main carriers of patriotism in Russia are just simple people. Our main difference from the West is that the intellectuals and elite are generally the patriots there.

Unfortunately, we have big problems with it. Therefore it is necessary to carry out rotation of the authorities, to change them in due time.

Because the part of today's "elite" is simply the foam, there is no any elite of society actually. It has money in London, children in London and thoughts are in London too. Let's not disturb them. Let them go though to England though to America and live there with the money.

And we will stake on those who are in Russia, whose children are in Russia, who are all in Russia – those who wants that our country would be developed and became stronger.