In the entire hierarchy of global and other problems of modern human life, the problem of peace and the prevention of thermonuclear war is rightfully put forward as a problem of paramount importance.

Studying and identifying the nature of thermonuclear war, its possible destructive consequences for the life of mankind, ways and means of establishing lasting peace on Earth are the initial and most important condition for human orientation in modern world, awareness and understanding of his position and calling in it.

Peace as a state of society free from wars and the use of violent means in solving controversial problems of domestic and international life has long been revered by people as a great blessing, bringing with it the flourishing of crafts and arts, science, economy and culture in general. It is rightly associated and associated with living conditions conducive to social progress and prosperity. At the same time, throughout history, war has been its “natural”, integral part, a constant companion of human life, a recognized means of state policy, and has often served as a factor stimulating social change, facilitating the replacement of one civilization by another, the old social order by a new one. And only in our time, in two world catastrophes of the 20th century, war appeared to humanity in all its monstrous destructiveness and inhumanity, and with the advent of thermonuclear weapons it became a threat to the life of all humanity, revealing its incompatibility with its further existence and development. In this regard, the value of peace as the primary and necessary condition for social progress has acquired exceptional significance.

Peace today is not simply a preferred state of human life or a favorable prerequisite for social progress. Today peace is an indispensable, obligatory condition for the existence of humanity. Whether it will plunge itself into a new world catastrophe or abandon war as a means of solving controversial problems - not only what its tomorrow will be like, but also whether it will exist at all or not depends on this. In other words, the problem of eradicating wars, their complete exclusion from the life of society, i.e. the problem of universal peace as a necessary condition for the existence and progressive development of mankind in its immediate and more distant historical perspective, arises not only as a theoretical one, but also as a specific, practical one. a problem that requires a fundamental solution within the lifetime of the current generation.

Today, the problem of private peace, a specific peaceful settlement of relations between small states involved in a local, regional war waged by conventional modern weapons, also remains relevant. Such military conflicts continue to arise from time to time in various parts of the globe, and they are affecting the overall international situation as never before. Studying the nature of these wars, the reasons for their occurrence, as well as determining ways and means of preventing them is an important task of modern historical, military and political sciences. As for philosophy, in accordance with its specificity, it analyzes first of all global aspect problems, that is, it addresses the problem of universal peace, of course in the specific context of the modern socio-political situation.

An important condition for finding effective paths to peace in modern reality is a deep awareness and understanding of the unusual, unconventional nature of war with the means of global destruction and mass destruction that the military equipment of our time has at its disposal. Already in the 60s, many competent experts noted the colossal power of nuclear weapons and the catastrophic consequences of their use. According to Professor A. Noumon from Columbia University, the use of such weapons by the USA and the USSR in 1964 could have destroyed all the cities of these countries with a population of over 100 thousand people 231 times. Around the same years, a report to the UN Secretary General, prepared by a special committee of this organization, emphasized that each type of weapon then available in nuclear arsenals had greater destructive power than all conventional explosives used in warfare since the invention of gunpowder. “If these weapons are ever used in large quantities, hundreds of millions of people will be killed, and civilization as we understand it and organized life will disappear in the countries involved in the conflict.” It is easy to imagine the destructive capabilities of advanced nuclear weapons today, 15-20 years later, when the total number of strategic nuclear weapons has exceeded 40 thousand, when, while maintaining the pace of the thermonuclear weapons race, new types of weapons of mass destruction are being created, and attempts are being made to move the arms race into space.

In the light of these data and the many forecasts for the future being carried out today, it becomes obvious that a new world war using nuclear, chemical and biological weapons could lead to the complete destruction of all life on Earth, turning our planet into a lifeless cosmic body contaminated with radioactive radiation and fallout. Thus, war in modern conditions ceases to be unpunished and effective means territorial, economic and other acquisitions for a party pursuing aggressive, aggressive goals. Given the existing confrontation between the military-political alliances of capitalist and socialist states and the existing approximate equality of their economic and military-technical potentials, the preservation and strict observance of the balance of weapons, any calculations to achieve unilateral military advantages and hopes for success and irresponsibility of the initial nuclear strike have no rational justification . If earlier the tragedy of war was determined by the gap between its expected and real results, as well as the destruction and casualties caused by violent military actions, today its tragedy and senselessness are largely determined by the colossal destructive power of the instruments of war themselves. From being a factor of social change and a means of solving the problems and contradictions of domestic and international life in the past, a modern nuclear war would become an end in itself, a total tragedy, devoid of any meaning.

Having lost its historical functions and revealed complete dysfunctionality in the nuclear version, war, in certain forms and political regions, is still used today by the imperialist and reactionary forces of a number of states to directly and indirectly suppress the democratic and progressive, revolutionary aspirations of peoples. On the other hand, war often serves as a justified means of establishing and defending the national independence and state sovereignty of previously oppressed peoples.

The enormous destructive power of nuclear weapons has made the traditional function of war problematic, making its use in a military conflict meaningless from the point of view of reason and rational politics. Today it forces parties possessing such weapons to avoid the risk of war. Understanding the harmful consequences of its use to a certain extent prevents a worldwide military conflict and indirectly prevents the emergence of local conflicts, especially if they are fraught with the potential danger of a nuclear clash on a global scale.

However, this circumstance does not mean that weapons of mass destruction contribute to maintaining peace and will never be used. These weapons were created for war, and, as evidenced by the tragedy of Hiroshima, they can be used by the most reactionary, adventurist forces of imperialism. The presence and further accumulation of nuclear weapons, even with the remaining equality of the military potentials of the two systems, increases the likelihood of their use every year. Meanwhile, these weapons are becoming increasingly widespread and complicate the task of controlling them, limiting the ability to prevent their use in local and local military conflicts. Simplification of nuclear weapons production technology, the creation of so-called “backpack nuclear devices”, “atomic pistols”, in principle available to individuals, social groups, neo-fascist and other extremist and terrorist organizations, increase the potential for their use. From a technical point of view, chemical and bacteriological weapons seem to be the most accessible for illegal private production.

Symptomatic and alarming are information about repeated attempts by terrorists to produce or acquire weapons of mass destruction, and their threats to use such weapons for their own purposes. In particular, as noted in foreign and Soviet literature, terrorists made about two hundred attempts to penetrate nuclear institutions. They have repeatedly committed terrorist acts against existing and under construction nuclear installations and nuclear power plants.

Understanding the specific, unconventional nature of war in modern conditions, largely determined by the destructive power of nuclear weapons, leads to the identification of the task that faces humanity in its struggle for peace and requires a priority solution. We are talking, first of all, about eliminating the danger of thermonuclear war, a possible military conflict between the two main socio-political systems, about those specific foreign policy actions and measures that need to be implemented in a limited time frame, not extending beyond the boundaries of our century. The nature of war, the possible causes of its occurrence, as well as the nature of the peacekeeping creative tasks of mankind, today are determined not only by new circumstances born of military equipment, thermonuclear weapons, but also by other fundamental historical factors of social development: the existing socio-economic and political structures in the world, opposing in them, trends and forces, antagonistic class relations of capitalist society, the social, national and racial inequality characteristic of the latter, forms of confrontation and competition between the capitalist and socialist systems, the logic of the development of those unequal relations that have remained between developed capitalist and former colonial countries.

All this testifies to the close connection and interdependence between the tasks of establishing universal peace and eradicating wars and the tasks of improving modern social structures and international relations, of achieving some kind of fundamental agreement and unity in solving common and vital problems. important issues humanity.

However, the solution to these fundamental problems of general social development will require an incomparably longer historical period than the one allotted to humanity today to prevent war with the help of specific political measures feasible in the conditions of modern domestic and international structures. Therefore, it would be wrong to make the solution to this specific task in direct temporal dependence on its longer implementation and the complex process of further social progress of mankind. Specific measures for disarmament and the consistent implementation of the principles of peaceful coexistence must be carried out not depending on the success of social progress and not to the detriment of it, but simultaneously with it and even ahead of it in time, because without them there will be no necessary conditions not only for development, but also for the existence and normal functioning of the world community in its current state.

At the same time, affirming the priority of peace problems does not in any way mean a refusal to solve the entire complex of problems that ensure overall social progress. Just as the real or potential inhumane use of a number of its achievements that accompanies the scientific and technological revolution cannot serve as a basis for hindering the further progress of scientific knowledge, overcoming the difficulties and contradictions associated with solving general and particular problems of social progress cannot be postponed until the establishment of lasting peace and related favorable conditions with him. Recognition of peace as the highest value of our time presupposes only the need for constant correlation and measurement of any local, and even more so global, socio-political activity with the task of preserving universal peace, requires the choice of such ways and forms of manifestation of this activity that would not jeopardize the security of peoples, life humanity.

This requirement is taken into account by many young states that have embarked on the path of social and political self-determination, solving pressing problems of their own economic and cultural development, as well as many political and social movements of developing countries, representing the interests of the broad masses.

However, not all countries take such a sensible and responsible approach. Today, here and there, regional military conflicts are making themselves felt, fraught with serious, destabilizing consequences for the global order. Many of these conflicts are artificially supported and inflamed by the United States, which, in its policy of the arms race and acute confrontation with the Soviet Union, which took especially active forms in the late 70s and early 80s, strives to implement decisions that meet only the interests of strengthening American positions in one region or another of the globe. In line with its neo-colonialist and neo-globalist policies, the United States is trying, through direct or indirect military-political intervention and economic pressure, to change the political system of a number of countries that have embarked on the path of independent and democratic development, to prevent a fair resolution of conflict situations that have arisen in various regions of the Middle and Far East, Africa continent and Central America. Spurred by the arms race and increasingly bellicose strategic concepts involving the use of military force, preemptive strikes and even nuclear weapons to “protect” the so-called American vital interests, the United States, using local interstate and other conflicts, stimulates an arms race at the regional level, creating independent countries have weapons arsenals and strongholds for “rapid deployment forces.” All this, in turn, has the opposite effect on the position of the United States and contributes to the aggravation of international tension on a global scale. Only a few anti-people regimes that are involved in the mainstream of global American politics and want to maintain the position of necessary and useful satellites express interest in such a policy.

What are the most reliable and effective ways and means of solving the key and main problem of our time - the problems of the world? Do they lie in the area of ​​everyday scrupulous practical activity, built on knowledge and consideration of the mechanisms and features of the current domestic and international political life, or are they given by knowledge and use of relatively constant and fundamental tendencies of socio-historical development, that objective logic of things, which not only through us, but also independently of us, realizes the necessity of history?

In the modern world, a special situation has arisen in which not only the fundamental and necessary factors of human existence, but also private one-time and even random phenomena and circumstances of political life, existing and operating over a historically short period of time, acquire not conditional and tactical, but unconditional and strategic importance for the destinies of humanity. Today, in our activities aimed at preventing war and establishing peace, we cannot neglect any particular part of history, or the temporary and local factor of political life. Everything must be taken into account and updated in appropriate timely decisions and actions. But all these efforts will be extremely insufficient and ineffective if they are not carried out on the basis of analysis and consideration of permanent or long-term factors of the historical process, if all material and spiritual potentials inherited from the past are not properly perceived and used to solve the problem of peace.

All these particular and general problems of establishing peace and modern social development arise in the context of the complex relationship between the capitalist and socialist systems, East and West, and are in close connection with other global issues. The scale, varying degrees of severity of manifestations in different countries and socio-political regions, the urgent need for at least an initial solution to these problems within a relatively short historical time brings them to the forefront of international life, requiring the combined efforts of all countries in the search and approval of effective forms of international cooperation. The implementation of essential measures to preserve peace, nuclear disarmament, especially the solution to the problem of completely eliminating wars from the life of society, is possible on the basis of strengthening the positions and influence of all forces guarding peace, those forms of domestic and international life that serve as the objective social basis of a peace-loving policy and the activities of these forces. This is evidenced, first of all, by the experience of domestic and international activities of the Soviet Union and other countries of the socialist community.

The proclamation of peace as the highest value of our time, and peaceful methods of solving controversial international problems as the only permissible and acceptable ones, became possible only on the basis of those fundamental social changes that took place in the world after the victory of the Great October Socialist Revolution, as a result of the successes of socialist construction in the USSR, the formation and strengthening world system of socialism. For the first time in the history of mankind, a situation has arisen in the world when, over a fairly long historical period, two fundamentally different socio-political systems, fundamentally different from each other in their economic system, political organization and class nature, coexist and compete. Of course, periods of simultaneous existence of various socio-political systems also occurred in the past, for example, during the transition from feudalism to capitalism, which makes it possible to document a number of similar features and parallels. However, these similarities and coincidences are insignificant properties, since both systems, despite their differences, were based on the private ownership of property by the propertied classes and estates.

In our century, in contrast to the old capitalist system, which implements the democracy of capital and private property, a fundamentally different social system has arisen and is developing, based on public ownership and implementing truly people's democracy of labor, the most fair principle for a given historical time of the distribution of the social product in accordance with the quantity and the quality of the labor expended. What has emerged is a society that has no equal in history, where the people, in Marx’s words, have only “one... ruler - labor,” where the worker, having become the master of his country and destiny, himself determines the choice of decisions of his government.

“The working class, which mainly supplies the soldiers and on which the material sacrifices mainly fall, is especially the natural enemy of wars, since wars contradict the goal pursued by it: the creation of an economic system based on the socialist principle, which will actually realize the solidarity of peoples.” Having come to power and set about creating a new system, the working class, in contrast to the old world with its omnipotence of capital and the policy of military adventures, puts forward the only principle of existence acceptable to the working people - the principle of peace and equal cooperation. Expressing the will of the workers of the first socialist republic, Lenin, immediately after the revolution, on behalf of the Soviet state, solemnly declared “a complete break with the barbaric policy of bourgeois civilization, which built the welfare of the exploiters in a few selected nations on the enslavement of hundreds of millions of the working population in Asia, in colonies in general and in small countries”, about the desire of the Soviet Republic to live in peace with all peoples, to direct all its efforts to internal socio-economic and cultural construction.

These Leninist thoughts and statements, the Decree on Peace, adopted the day after the victory of the October Revolution, as well as all subsequent peace-loving policies of the Soviet state and the countries of the socialist community, are a natural expression of the very nature of the new, socialist socio-economic system. This is not a temporary foreign policy tactic determined by the specific historical situation, but a strategic political line that meets the fundamental interests of socialist society, its worldview and ideological guidelines: “Socialists have always condemned wars between peoples as a barbaric and brutal affair.”

From the above it follows that the specificity and uniqueness of the modern coexistence of two different social systems, in contrast to similar situations in the past, are determined not simply by the fact of their actual presence next to each other, but by the very important circumstance that one of them by its nature excludes wars between nations and becomes an active factor in the formation and establishment of a system of interstate relations that would exclude war as a means of solving controversial problems. Therefore, peaceful coexistence as a certain type of relationship between two systems, presupposing, to one degree or another, an official renunciation of the use of military force in their historical rivalry, did not develop on its own, but as a result of a long and persistent struggle for peace, active counteraction to the forces of international imperialism, huge efforts aimed at strengthening the economic and military power of socialist countries and their political influence in the world.

“Socialism brought into life a new, previously unprecedented type of international relations developing between socialist states. Their solid foundation is the same type of socio-economic and political system; Marxist-Leninist ideology; class solidarity; friendship, cooperation and mutual assistance in solving the problems of building and protecting a new society; the struggle for peace, international security and social progress; equality, respect for the independence and sovereignty of each state.” Along with the socialist countries, which have become the determining force of modern historical development, the establishment of a new type of international political, economic and cultural relations is significantly facilitated by the peace-loving and anti-imperialist position of many developing countries, active speeches in defense of peace among the widest circles of the world progressive community, and the growing international solidarity of workers class, the broadest masses of working people in all countries. These are the social and historical foundations of the emergence and formation of modern peaceful coexistence of various socio-political systems.

Peaceful coexistence is not some kind of always equal state of international relations, but is a process of development of these relations, which has its periods of decline and rise, a more or less optimal level of peaceful cooperation and competition between the two systems. It can simply mean a state of peace maintained in unfavorable conditions of political and ideological rivalry, and various more favorable and developed forms of peaceful cooperation, presupposing the existence and operation of a system of broad economic and cultural ties, a certain trust between states and an active dialogue aimed at regulating and the solution of controversial problems, in other words, the situation in international relations that developed in the 70s, which was called the detente of international tension.

During these years, a positive turn was made in relations between the USSR and France, agreements were concluded with Germany, a quadripartite agreement on West Berlin, a number of agreements between the USSR and the USA, with other capitalist countries, and important documents of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe were adopted. Thus, the policy of détente received concrete forms of its implementation and became a real and positive factor in international relations, characterized by a certain content and direction. It was expressed in actions and decisions aimed at overcoming the Cold War in the establishment and development of normal and stable interstate relations, in the rejection of the policy of resolving controversial problems through military and political violence, in a certain readiness for peace negotiations and agreements that take into account the interests of all parties , in recognition of the principles of non-interference in internal affairs, equal and mutually beneficial cooperation, respect for the independence and territorial integrity of each country.

The positive results of the easing of international tension achieved in the first half of the 70s were evidence of the correctness of the policy of peaceful coexistence and confirmed the real possibility of solving complex problems in the presence of the good will of the parties and a sincere desire for agreement on vital issues of modern human existence. They also contributed to the establishment in the minds of the overwhelming majority of people on our planet of the idea of ​​the unconditional value of peace, the widespread popularity of the policy of peaceful coexistence and detente, and the understanding that this policy today is an urgent imperative of the time, the primary condition for the existence of mankind, an important criterion for all human activity. Detente is necessary for all countries participating in normal international communication, and the attitude towards it today serves as an important criterion for the political and moral attitudes of a particular state, of every political and public figure.

Peaceful coexistence is not identical to the social status quo, it does not freeze social progress, but, as we have already noted, is a necessary condition and result, that is, a more consistent and deeper implementation of its principles is directly dependent on the success of social development. Thus, it in no way removes from the agenda the main task of modern international life, determined by the contradiction between the socialist and capitalist systems, their economic, political and ideological confrontation, but only presupposes such forms and methods of solving it that exclude the use of military force. In other words, peaceful coexistence does not exclude class struggle, but affirms the acceptability and permissibility of only special forms of waging this struggle, methods and means of achieving the goals of the modern revolutionary, socialist and national liberation movement, protecting various class interests, including the interests of modern capitalist states .

The corresponding principles of peaceful coexistence, forms of socio-political activity and international relations fully meet the objective aspirations of socialist countries, the world communist and labor movement. They are organically consistent with the Marxist teaching on the ways of socialist construction and revolutionary transformation of capitalist relations. The communists, as Lenin repeatedly noted and in the documents of the communist and workers' parties, recognized and recognize the peaceful way of implementing the socialist revolution, the real possibility of achieving the goals of the working class without war. Lenin consistently opposed the export of revolution and its pushing by war. “Such a “theory,” he wrote, “would be a complete break with Marxism, which has always denied the “pushing” of revolutions that develop as the severity of the class contradictions that give rise to revolutions matures.” The Soviet Republic has had and continues to exert its main influence on the process of world revolutionary development through its economic and social policies, a real example of a practical solution in the interests of the entire working people of the problems of social and cultural construction. It is “to this field,” Lenin noted, “that the struggle has been transferred on a worldwide scale.”

In our time, even more favorable conditions have emerged for the peaceful solution of the tasks of socialist construction and the world revolutionary movement. The material and political basis of these conditions and the policy of peaceful coexistence are the unusually increased economic and defense power of the socialist system, the successes of the national liberation movement, developing countries also interested in peace to strengthen their acquired political independence, the strengthening of the general anti-war movement, and finally, the very fact of the impossibility the use of modern thermonuclear weapons, without endangering the lives of all humanity, including the party that started such a war. Conditions have emerged that significantly limit and constrain the actions of imperialism, which is still guided by the outdated “right of force”, seeking to maintain its positions in developing countries through economic and political pressure or through the direct export of counter-revolution, and unequal economic and political relations with them inherited from the colonial era. . Of course, even in conditions of peaceful coexistence, no one assumes that capitalism will voluntarily give up the advantageous positions it has historically acquired, refuse to protect its interests, or reconcile itself with the successes of socialism and the revolutionary movement. He opposed and will oppose socialism, compete with it, but so that his actions do not contradict the generally accepted conditions of detente, he must renounce the use of military force, observe the principle of non-interference in the affairs of other states, respect their independence and sovereignty, and take into account what is asserting itself today as legitimate the right of peoples to equal economic and political relations.

Equally, communists, who are the initiators of peaceful coexistence, cannot reconcile themselves with capitalist exploitation, abandon their internationalist responsibilities and not provide assistance to peoples fighting for their freedom and independence, not contribute to the success of the international revolutionary movement, the forces advocating the strengthening of universal peace and security. Even under conditions of détente, communists fulfill their class and international duty, but they do this in forms that fully comply with the principles of peaceful coexistence. Fidelity to these principles and the consistent correlation of the foreign policy activities of socialist countries with them are explained not simply by the convictions of communists, but also by the fact that adherence to these principles contributes to the most objective course of historical development, leading to the further strengthening of the positions of socialism.

Indeed, the easing of international tension, as the experience of the past 70s has shown, favors socialism, strengthening the positions of developing countries, and the communist and general democratic movement in capitalist countries. And this cannot in any way serve as a basis for accusing socialist countries of interfering in the internal affairs of other states or of somehow inspiring revolutionary actions from outside. The favoring of fair international relations supported by détente to socialism is only evidence of the organic connection of the world with socialism, equal international relations with the policies of socialist states. Revolutions, class struggle, and national liberation movements do not occur by order and cannot be canceled by any international agreements. They are an objective reaction to class and colonial oppression and express a necessary process of social development and renewal. Any demand for freezing these processes is incompatible with the sacred right of peoples to self-determination, to choose those forms of life that best suit their own interests. It is also unacceptable to violate the principles of peaceful coexistence simply because compliance with them will supposedly benefit only socialist countries. Such reproaches and considerations from representatives of the capitalist world are unfounded; they indicate either their uncertainty that capitalism will be able to maintain its privileges without resorting to military action, economic and political intervention, pressure on other countries, or their reluctance to build their own on new principles. international relationships.

Peace, equality and fair cooperation cannot threaten the real interests of peoples, no matter what socio-political systems they live in. They are incompatible only with the interests of the tycoons of the military-industrial complex of the capitalist world, with the interests, ambitions and aspirations of the militaristic circles of the USA and NATO, with those reactionary forces that are in the grip of rabid anti-communism, racist and nationalist extremism, and are ready, for the sake of their own selfish and inhumane goals, to plunge humanity into the fire of nuclear disaster.

Today, even more than ever, the unacceptability of a policy “from a position of strength” that hopes to achieve military superiority and allows the use of armed forces and wars to solve controversial international problems is obvious. It is impossible to win the arms race, like the nuclear war itself. “The continuation of such a race on Earth, and even more so its expansion into space, will accelerate the already critically high rate of accumulation and improvement of nuclear weapons. The situation in the world may acquire such a character that it no longer depends on the mind or will of politicians. It will be captured by technology, military-technocratic logic.” And this again confirms the truth of the proposition that in the conditions of the modern world there can be no alternative to peaceful cooperation and interaction of states and peoples. Peaceful coexistence, as confirmed by the 27th Congress of the CPSU, was and remains the basis of the foreign policy strategy of the party and the Soviet state. While ensuring continuity in its international activities, the Soviet state at the same time adapts it to the realities of the modern world, with its specific features. Thus, continuity in foreign policy does not come down to repeating what has been done, but is expressed in the search for new forms of foreign policy activity that contribute to the successful implementation of fundamental guidelines in a changed situation. As M. S. Gorbachev emphasized, “we need special accuracy in assessing our own capabilities, restraint and the highest responsibility when making decisions. What is needed is firmness in upholding principles and positions, tactical flexibility, readiness for mutually acceptable compromises, and a focus not on confrontation, but on dialogue and mutual understanding.”

The current situation in the world, which has resulted from the ongoing arms race, and the unusually high level of military confrontation require the search for new ways and approaches to solving problems of relationships between different social systems, states and regions. Strict consideration of the military-technical means and capabilities of the warring parties, maintaining an approximate equality of their nuclear potentials, necessary for military-political deterrence, are, of course, an important condition for modern foreign policy activities. At the same time, it is quite obvious that the level of current nuclear weapons has reached such limits beyond which it will go from being a factor of deterrence to a factor of nuclear destruction that cannot be controlled and controlled. The way out of this vicious circle is not in the petty calculation of military-technical details, constant “links” and “links” in which real problems that require solutions are drowned, but in bold, scientifically based foreign policy initiatives and programs that express ideological and political will to peace, creating the necessary atmosphere of trust and fundamental determination of the parties in which many specific technical problems can easily be agreed upon.

It was precisely these considerations that guided Soviet Union in their large-scale and at the same time specific foreign policy actions of recent times. The series of unilateral steps we have taken - a moratorium on the further deployment of medium-range missiles in Europe, a cessation of all nuclear explosions from August 1985 until the beginning of 1987, a moratorium on the testing of anti-satellite weapons, proposals to reduce the nuclear arsenals of the USSR and the USA to 50% , armed forces and weapons in Central Europe and others were called upon to give impetus to negotiations in Geneva, Stockholm and Vienna, to help curtail the arms race and strengthen trust between states. The program for the complete elimination of nuclear weapons throughout the world, put forward in the Statement of M. S. Gorbachev of January 15, 1986 and confirmed by the XXVII Congress of the CPSU, serves the same goals. The Soviet Union proposed, acting in stages, to consistently implement and complete the process of liberating the Earth from nuclear weapons over the next 15 years, until the end of the current millennium. This program and the private constructive foreign policy initiatives of our country that preceded it were rightly characterized by M. S. Gorbachev as an organic fusion of the philosophy of creating a safe world in the nuclear-space era with a platform of concrete actions. New striking evidence of the constructive nature of the USSR's foreign policy activities was the large compromise proposals made by M. S. Gorbachev during a meeting with R. Reagan in Reykjavik. This meeting and the Soviet proposals put forward at it created a qualitatively different situation in international relations. After it, as M. S. Gorbachev noted, “no one can act the way they acted before. The meeting was useful. She prepared a possible step forward, towards a real shift for the better, if the United States finally moves to a realistic position...”

Some bourgeois political theorists believe that a decrease in international tension in one area inevitably leads to its increase in another and that in this regard it is impossible to talk about the end of the Cold War while there is an ideological struggle. On this basis, one of the conditions for detente is the renunciation of ideological struggle, peaceful coexistence, etc. in this area. Thus, on the one hand, the ideological war unleashed by the conservative circles of the capitalist world against socialist countries is justified, and on the other hand, an attempt is being made to ideologically disarm socialism.

Of course, the limitation of militaristic military-political activity caused by détente in a capitalist society, in which the politics of peace comes into conflict with the fundamental interests of its influential circles, is often compensated by increasing tension in the ideological sphere. However, this is not evidence of the incompatibility of the ideological struggle with détente. It all depends on how and by what means the ideological struggle is waged, what functions it performs and what goals it pursues. If it is intended to replace military-political means to carry out the tasks of the same “Cold War”, that is, to interfere in the internal affairs of other states in order to prevent their normal and sovereign development by political means, then it is truly incompatible with the principle peaceful coexistence. But if the ideological struggle is waged by means of ideological dispute and persuasion, then it is a natural and necessary element of the coexistence of two different social systems, the rivalry of worldviews and ways of life. To exclude the possibility and necessity of ideological dispute, collision and comparison of different points of view on life, culture, art, social ideals means to prevent one of the forms of natural interaction of various ideological and cultural traditions, the effective search for true and fair forms of spiritual life, and ultimately the development and those general progressive and democratic foundations on which future humanity will be able to build its relations. Refusal of the ideological struggle in this understanding essentially means rejection of one of the essential factors of social progress as a whole.

The ideological struggle is necessary and fully compatible with the easing of international tension, but only if it is not put into the service of the “cold war” and is not carried out by its means, if it does not result in “ideological and psychological war”, in ideological sabotage, if it is not limited to the propaganda of racism, militarism and aggression, and is not accompanied by the sending of agents, the financing of anti-government activities in other countries, deliberate disinformation and slander, propaganda aimed at overthrowing the existing legitimate government, etc. It is these forms of ideological struggle that have become resort to last years The reactionary militaristic circles of the capitalist world, encouraged by the American administration, are trying to freeze or completely suspend the process of detente, to change the existing approximately equal balance of forces in their favor, in order “from a position of strength” to dictate unequal conditions of peace and cooperation to socialist and other countries.

The ideological war waged by the United States against socialist countries is an expression of the general aggravation of the international situation caused by the active actions of the American administration and NATO circles aimed at intensifying the arms race, the policy of dictatorship from positions of military superiority, the use of trade for military-strategic purposes, the creation ever new and even more destructive means of mass extermination of people. In other words, reactionary militaristic circles in the West today are making desperate attempts to slow down the process of detente, intensify confrontation between capitalist and socialist countries, and prevent normal and mutually beneficial international cooperation.

The peaceful actions of the Soviet Union have not yet met with positive retaliatory measures from the United States and some allied countries. Moreover, the conservative militaristic circles of these countries are doing everything possible to misrepresent the peace-loving actions of the USSR, cast doubt on their effectiveness and feasibility, and prevent a return to detente and an end to the insane arms race. And yet, the truly constructive nature of the Soviet proposals breaks through the smokescreen of misinforming bourgeois propaganda, is realized by ever wider sections of the population of capitalist countries, leads to a noticeable change in the political atmosphere, and revives hope and faith in normal peaceful international cooperation. The Soviet Union builds its foreign policy on the basis of taking into account the real conditions of modern world development, the interests of all peoples, and offers them a program of radical and practically feasible solutions to pressing life problems, and above all the problems of the world. These proposals represent a kind of “moment of truth,” forcing Western partners to reveal their true intentions and goals. The CPSU and the Soviet state, following the behests of Lenin, are pursuing an honest and open foreign policy, addressing it not only to the governments of capitalist countries, but also to their peoples.

In the difficult international conditions of recent times, the Soviet Union and other socialist countries are doing everything necessary to prevent the reckless and inhumane policies of the militaristic forces of the West, in order to give detente a stable, irreversible character, and to achieve a radical breakthrough in the cause of general disarmament. Realistically assessing the current state of affairs, seeing and taking into account the enormous difficulties lying in the way of solving the tasks set, the Soviet government and the governments of other socialist states base their actions on the fact that there are also very significant preconditions of a positive order that can serve as the basis for the successful solution of the task of preserving and strengthening peace. Their activities and belief in the success of peace and social progress are based on a realistic analysis of the trends and possibilities of modern world development and the corresponding philosophy of political realism and historical optimism. Optimism is based primarily on the awareness of the fact that real socialism, represented by the community of socialist countries, has today become a powerful and permanent factor of peace and social progress, that there is a deep interest of all peoples of the world in eliminating war from the life of society, in establishing a system of democratic and fair relations between all countries.

The Russia-NATO Council should urgently discuss the possibility of adopting a memorandum of understanding between the North Atlantic Alliance and the Russian Federation to ensure mutual security. This is stated in the report entitled “Preventing War: How to Reduce the Risk of Military Incidents between Russia and NATO?”, published on August 26.

Its authors note a noticeable deterioration in relations between Russia and Western countries over the past year and a half in connection with the situation in Ukraine. They indicate that 66 incidents occurred in the sea and air space involving the armed forces of Russia, NATO countries, Sweden and Finland. At least three of them were extremely risky.

It is noted that the professionalism of the military so far insures against the undesirable consequences of such incidents, however, in conditions of increased distrust, there is a threat of a dangerous miscalculation or accident that could even lead to an open military confrontation between Russia and the West.

In this situation, experts propose to urgently convene a Russia-NATO council and sign an agreement similar to the US-China agreement of 2014. The document should establish the principles and procedures of interaction that must be followed during contacts between naval and military aircraft. It is also proposed to prohibit the imitation of an attack by launching missiles. In addition, the idea was voiced of holding annual meetings to analyze all events related to the implementation of the agreement.

Experts point out that during the Cold War there were two such agreements - from 1972 and 1989, concluded between the USSR and the USA. Now it is proposed to include in the agreement not only the remaining NATO countries, but also Finland and Sweden.

It should be noted that the document was prepared by a special working group of the project “Building a Greater Europe: Necessary Measures until 2030,” which includes experts from the influential British research center European Leadership Network, the Russian International Affairs Council, the Polish Institute of International Relations and the Organization for International Strategic Studies (USAK ) in Ankara.

The appeal was signed by a group of experts, including former minister Foreign Affairs of Russia Igor Ivanov, his British colleague Malcolm Rifkind, former head of the Polish Foreign Ministry Adam Rothfeld, former heads of the military departments of Great Britain, Germany and France.

International security specialist Victoria Legranova believes that at this stage of Russian-NATO relations, the signing of any document of mutual understanding is a positive thing.

But it so happens that in the current situation of confrontation, Russia is not the main factor for the United States. The Americans are now trying to transform the internal NATO structure: to get away from the right of veto within the Alliance, so that the decision on a particular operation is made by a majority vote, to close the strategic nuclear forces of France and Great Britain at a single command center, to lobby for the interests of the concerns of the military-industrial complex.

Unfortunately, the “hawkish reflexivity” of the Americans is winning so far and will continue to win for some time. Another thing is that the situation has reached such a stage that a real factor of military conflict has emerged between the countries participating in the military bloc and Russia. After all, the structure of Euro-Atlantic security, which by the early 90s was still functioning at a fairly good level, is currently completely destroyed.

Judge for yourself. On June 13, 2002, the United States withdrew from the Treaty on the Limitation of Missile Defense Systems of May 26, 1972, according to which the Americans could deploy anti-missile defenses only on their territory, as well as all means for aiming and guiding missile defense weapons, and now the missile defense system is already in Europe.

On March 10, 2015, Russia suspended its participation in the meetings of the JCG (Joint Consultative Group) on the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE). Thus, the suspension of the CFE Treaty signed by Russia in 2007 has become complete. And although Russia seemed to have put an end to the CFE Treaty, there were reasons for this. In particular, the Baltic countries did not want to join the treaty. And if so, then what is the point of knowing how many tanks the Bundeswehr has if they are hiding their number in Latvia from us?

Not to mention the fact that, thanks to the efforts of the Americans, the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF Treaty) is coming apart at the seams. That is, the United States has led and continues to pursue a unilateral policy of killing the European security system. As a result, we have come to the point where the number of sorties on both sides is constantly increasing. And this is quite dangerous, given that military aircraft often fly with transponders turned off (a transceiver radar device that allows you to “see” an aircraft, in particular, on ground-based radars). Accordingly, the workload on dispatchers accompanying civilian ships increases. In addition, with modern types of weapons, some mistake or misunderstanding can lead to dire consequences.

Deputy Director of the Tauride Information and Analytical Center RISI Sergey Ermakov notes: the problem is that the Alliance, after the crisis that began in Ukraine, did not accept the reunification of Crimea with Russia, and the conflict that broke out in Donbass is not associated with the mistakes and actions of the current Kyiv government, but shifts all responsibility onto Russia.

As a result, the military bloc blamed us for all the troubles and stopped cooperation through the Russia-NATO Council. Simply put, the Alliance does not perceive Russia as a full-fledged partner.

And whoever argues - let's get together and sign. Yes, but for some reason our group Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation to NATO Alexander Grushko They clearly interfere with their work - either they accuse them of espionage, or they declare that there is no money to rent the premises.

I repeat, the work of the Council was terminated only on the initiative of the Alliance, which left only consultation mechanisms in the military sphere that are beneficial to it. Yes, the military bloc is interested in removing the threat of escalation. But first of all, because he is already overstrained from the number of exercises that he has planned.

The experts of the report under discussion pay attention to all these issues. But once again the result is a blurring of responsibility for the tension in the relationship. But we must clearly say that it is the Alliance that needs to restore the work of the Russia-NATO Council.

By the way, the working groups of the Russia-NATO Council worked on the problems of incidents in the air. We even held joint exercises to reduce the anti-terrorist threat in the airspace, in which ground services were also involved. Naturally, then everyone knew at what frequency whose transponders worked, and no one turned them off then.

It also seems strange to me to appeal to American-Chinese and American-Soviet relations in the sense that certain agreements have already been adopted within the framework of the Russia-NATO Council. What will the new ones give? Well, okay, we agree to sign another memorandum of cooperation, of intentions to live together, etc. But even before the Ukrainian events, Russia offered a simple thing - an official statement with signatures from NATO that the missile defense system being built does not threaten our country. The Alliance responded, saying, why is it needed?

In addition, the report under discussion says nothing about the role of the OSCE, although the same Adam Rothfeld, when he headed the International Peace Research Institute in Stockholm (SIPRI), constantly advocated giving the organization a more significant role.

Thus, this report, in my opinion, although it raises the problem to a high level, is essentially an attempt to resolve major disagreements in small steps. In addition, it does not reflect pressing Russian problems, and yet at the time when this report is published and being discussed, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg is in Tbilisi, where he meets with the entire Georgian elite on the occasion of the opening of the Alliance training center there.

Member of the Scientific Council under the Security Council of the Russian Federation, professor of the Department of Politics of the Faculty of Political Science of Moscow State University Andrei Manoilo believes that there is nothing new in the proposals presented in the report.

Experts correctly note the risks of escalation associated with the fact that NATO concentrates its forces along the borders of the Russian Federation, and Russia responds in a symmetrical manner. And all this resembles a certain race that will not lead to anything good. But these are pretty obvious things.

As for the proposals, I did not see any elegant solution to the problems that are being stated. Western colleagues have absolutely no desire to use the NATO-Russia Council platform for negotiations. If they were interested in it, it would have been functioning to its fullest a long time ago. In addition, the Americans, in principle, are not yet ready to use various channels to finally clarify their position. They believe that the pressure that is being put on Russia will bring results over time.

But with China, the United States is playing a completely different game. The Americans are now actively returning to the Asia-Pacific region, transferring a fleet there, and restoring military bases in the Philippines in order to contain China by all means. And the provocations that the Americans periodically stage in the South China Sea, and to which Beijing also periodically responds, fit into the positional nature of the confrontation. And since we are talking about positional actions, then rules of the game are necessary. Therefore, at the end of 2014, the United States and China signed an agreement defining formats for interaction in emergency situations.

As for Russia, the call to revive the Russia-NATO Council will achieve nothing. Only a multi-step diplomatic combination, which has not yet been proposed, can reduce the risk of a cold conflict escalating into a hot phase.

A third world war is not excluded, but its likelihood, fortunately, is quite low. Let's look at why, and what can be done to prevent it.

The worst-case scenario is a world war between the West - NATO, USA, EU with Japan, Taiwan, South Korea - and the East - the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) with Russia, China, Central Asia as members, and India, Pakistan and Iran as observers.

Moreover, there will be four nuclear powers on each side, and the main issue will be the conflict between the West and Islam. At its center will be an explosive mixture of a divided territory (Israel-Palestine) and Jerusalem - a walled capital.

We've been through this before: the Cold War, the main issue of which was the conflict between the West and communism. At the center was an explosive mixture of divided Germany and Berlin - divided by a walled capital - and Korea, cut in two by the demilitarized zone. And at the same time, without a direct, “hot” war, with the exception of those waged by the wrong hands: Korea, Vietnam. Why?

Undoubtedly, one of the reasons was the factor of nuclear deterrence. They came to the edge, but turned away - just like during the Cuban-Turkish Missile Crisis of 1962. And, of course, nuclear deterrence also plays a role today, limiting strikes against Israel, American support for Israeli strikes against Arab-Muslim countries, Syria-Iran in particular, and any attack on Russia-China. However, nuclear deterrence is not the stuff that positive peace is made of: no depolarization, and definitely no solution or reconciliation.

The NATO and Warsaw Pact Cold War system was polarized, with secret police monitoring contacts, speech and thoughts, looking for treason. But the world was not polarized: there was a huge non-aligned movement. Europe was not polarized: there were 10 neutral or non-aligned countries. And in the end a powerful anti-war movement arose.

The NATO+ – SCO+ system is less polarized, but the world and Europe are more polarized. At the moment there is no non-aligned movement and no strong peace movement.

The vote at the UN demonstrated that 3/4 of the world is united in its “yes” to Palestine and “no” to the US-Israel. Both of these states turn any of their moral superiority into moral inferiority through ongoing expansion-occupation-blockade and extrajudicial killings on foreign territory. The world is not against the US-Israel defense of the real borders of the [Jewish] national home or the borders of 1967, it is against the force and excesses that seem incapable of changing the course of things. By reversing these policies, they could regain the moral high ground.

However, there are still no actors - bearers of a specific peace policy like the Helsinki Agreements. The reason lies in the difference between the conflicts along the lines of the West - Islam and the West - communism. Islam, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, covers more of the world's territory and population than the West, but it has few friends outside - unlike the West, which is imitated and admired by Russia-China-India, Latin America and Africa.

Everywhere except Israel, Islam has a huge diaspora that is growing due to immigration and birth rates. Not a superpower, not an alliance, just “Islamic cooperation”, but present everywhere.

The result is uncertainty and fear: what do they want? A challenge to other worldviews guaranteed by freedom of speech and conscience. Islam offers the West, suffering from materialistic individualism and selfishness, healing spiritual unity and complicity.

But Islam also threatens Western institutions with unwanted changes. Western secular states won the battle against the church thanks to atheism, which was also exported to Muslim colonies as a pledge of their loyalty to the state and the empires behind it. Today, part of the Islamic diaspora is striking back, demanding loyalty to Allah and the ummah (community), placing it above loyalty to Western states.

For immigration to benefit the cause of peace, immigrants must respect the laws and customs of their host country, and must be welcomed with interest and respect in a mutually beneficial dialogue that enriches everyone with something new. If this process is disrupted by one or both parties, immigration should stop and the ummah should be built at home.

What about other dangerous spots and areas in the world?

The saga in Afghanistan is nearing its end, and not only due to the departure of NATO - except for the protection of what all this was started for: a base for a possible war with China and an oil pipeline. There may be wars between India and Pakistan, but no other country has the adamant position on Kashmir to participate in them. The world's concern about Israel is not anti-Semitism, but an alliance that could involve so much of the rest of the world.

North Korea has nuclear weapon, and missiles, but she will never attack or be attacked. The struggle for a peace treaty and normalization of relations with the United States may bear fruit for the benefit of all.

Taiwan and China will slowly converge toward a Hong Kong-style “one country, two systems” solution, with Taiwan becoming part of China while maintaining a high degree of autonomy. Common sense would require the same for limited Tibet. And in neither case do we have a conflict from which we can arrange a third world war. For it to happen, there must be strong ties - like the United States has with other NATO countries and Israel. Or like the ones that supposedly exist between Russia and China.

The confrontation between the West and Islam remains. The lack of cohesion on the Islamic side helps here. But we are missing out on a non-aligned Hindu India that stands in solidarity with the West in any significant confrontation. Indonesia and Egypt are on the side of Islam, neutral Yugoslavia is no more, Latin America is the Christian West, and Africa is divided.

We need moderate actors on both sides. Tunisia-Türkiye and non-aligned powers, Egypt and Indonesia. And the West—maybe Germany, which is experienced in interfaith dialogue? Germany must play the main peacekeeping role!

Johan Galtung (Norwegian sociologist and mathematician, scientist and practitioner. Founder of the discipline of “peace and conflict studies”).

The calculations of American geopoliticians seem accurate, and their actions unmistakable. In six months, they carried out a blitzkrieg, effectively occupying Ukraine and dragging the EU into an informational, political and economic war with Russia. After signing the Association Agreement with Ukraine, the EU assumed responsibility for managing both Ukraine's foreign economic activities and its foreign and defense policy. By shifting the main costs of occupying Ukraine and inciting war with Russia onto the EU, the United States has already recouped its costs through the appropriation of Ukrainian assets. Russia managed to save only Crimea from occupation by the American-Nazi regime, and Donbass is becoming a chronic zone of armed conflict, creating chaos and tension on the border between Ukraine and Russia. The latter, as it seems to American strategists, they lured into a political trap. Application Russian army To liberate Donbass, he guarantees that the EU and NATO will be drawn into the war against Russia. The non-use of Russian armed forces to force the Nazi junta to peace will entail the creation of a growing vortex of chaos in the center of Europe, which is already internationalizing, becoming a source of destabilization for Russia.

The outbreak of a regional, and possibly a world war, on terms favorable to the United States seems inevitable. Russia seems to them doomed to a heavy defeat due to the loss of Ukraine, firstly, and the consolidation against it of all the developed countries of the world, including, along with NATO allies Japan and Korea, secondly. According to the plan of American geopoliticians, the weakening of Russia should entail its return to American control, as it was under Yeltsin, and the weakening of Europe should lead to its economic subordination through the formation of a transatlantic free trade zone on American conditions. By doing so, Washington hopes to strengthen its position and maintain global dominance in competition with a rising China.

There is, however, a flaw in this cynical logic. Acting on the basis of the archetypes of Anglo-Saxon geopolitics, the Americans resurrected the corpses of Euro-fascism and built a political Frankenstein in Kyiv, which began to devour its parents, presenting Brussels and Washington with increasingly large bills, which will soon have to be paid not only in dollars and euros, but also in business interests, as well as the blood of American and European citizens. American and European politicians are not ready for this. Consequently, to end the war it is enough to create conditions for the aggressor to understand the inevitability of receiving unacceptable damage from its continuation.

1.Undermine war-mongering forces

To stop the war, it is necessary to stop the action of the forces driving it - the American ruling elite, the European bureaucracy and the Ukrainian Nazis. The first of them is basic, the rest are derivatives. You can wage a bloody war against the Nazis, but if their funding and support are not stopped, they will involve more and more of their citizens in mass murder. You can explain to the European Commissioners as much as you like the flawed nature of their Eastern Partnership policy, but as long as they are manipulated by the United States through the media they control, networks of personal influence, a system of espionage and blackmail, no rational criteria will work. Therefore, war can only be prevented by ending US dominance in Europe and the world. For this it is necessary undermine the economic, informational, political and ideological foundations of their influence.

For all the power of the United States, its economic superiority is based on a financial pyramid of debt obligations that has long gone beyond the limits of sustainability. For its collapse, the main US creditors only need to dump their accumulated US dollars and treasury bills on the market. Of course, collapse financial system The USA will entail serious losses for all holders of American currency and valuable papers. But, firstly, these losses for Russia, Europe and China will be less than the damage from the next world war unleashed by American geopoliticians. Secondly, the sooner you leave the financial pyramid of American obligations, the smaller the losses will be. Thirdly, the collapse of the dollar financial pyramid will finally provide an opportunity to carry out reform of the global financial system on the basis of fairness and mutual benefit.

The dominance of the American oligarchy in the world and in the national media of countries open to American investment is a key factor of influence. In the USA, a very efficient system filtering information designed to justify any actions of the American government and its allies. With formal freedom of speech, the leading media broadcast only the point of view that meets the interests of the ruling elite and supports its policies. In this case, objectivity is sacrificed to political expediency. Everything that the United States does in the world is presented as good. And everything that opposes American foreign policy is evil. A deliberately distorted picture of the world is drawn, in which the crimes committed by the US authorities against entire nations look like feats for the benefit of these peoples, and responsibility for the massacres of their citizens is placed on the enemy. The dominant position of the American media in the interpretation of all events occurring in the world allows the American authorities to manipulate public opinion and commit global arbitrariness - to organize conflicts, commit crimes, appoint and punish those responsible, and declare winners.

The information environment is the main battlefield in a chaotic world war. Real fighting occur at the last stage - as a means of inevitable punishment for those countries and national leaders who dared to leave American control and dare to pursue independent politics. Until then, world public opinion must be convinced that the United States is pursuing a policy of good in the interests of the peoples it punishes, whose leaders personify the world's evil, which must be destroyed at any cost. Unlike previous world wars, where opposing powers and their coalitions produced clear propaganda condemning the actions of their enemies and justifying their own, in the chaotic war waged by the United States there are no obvious enemies, since no country is interested in a world war and is not trying to provoke one. The American oligarchy itself appoints enemies and determines their winners. American political psychologists and the media create an image of the enemy, and American diplomats and agents of influence incite their neighbors against him, and the military helps them defeat this enemy. In this case, any methods of influencing people’s consciousness are used, including Hollywood productions of non-existent events, false reports with invented characters, deliberate distortions of the meanings of the actions shown.

The policy of the American media is not to objectively cover events happening in the world, but to interpret them in a way that is necessary for the United States. By shaping public opinion, the media influence the majority of citizens’ assessment of both events and the actions of political leaders. Thus, they have a decisive influence on elections to government bodies. In a democratic society, in this way control over the will of voters is achieved, which makes it possible to manipulate the behavior of politicians. The latter must act as the media controlled by the American oligarchy suggests. Moreover, the more mature democratic institutions are, the more effective the manipulation of the policies pursued by a particular country occurs.

The fundamental importance of information weapons is most clearly demonstrated in Europe. Over the past two decades, the Americans have organized several regional wars on this continent, causing enormous damage to the Europeans. The Yugoslav war entailed enormous casualties and expenses, the legalization of Albanian terrorist organizations and criminal communities, worsened the conditions of European integration, provoking the fall of the then newly introduced euro. Civil wars and conflicts in North Africa have led to the destabilization of an important region for the EU and a sharp influx of refugees, eroding Europeans' fundamental faith in tolerance and a single labor market. Finally, the Ukrainian crisis destabilized Europe’s energy market and confronted it with the need to support the collapsing Ukrainian economy and involved it in sanctions against Russia that were ruinous for European business. All this did not prevent politicians and officials of European countries from not only supporting the outbreak of these wars that are contrary to their interests, but also from taking direct part in them, as well as paying the bulk of the costs. Through targeted media policies, American political strategists manage to zombify the European public consciousness and, thereby, subordinate the political leadership of European countries to their influence, forcing them to pursue self-destructive policies.

At the same time, the effectiveness of using information weapons has its limits. The lies, and even the monstrous lies, resorted to by the media controlled by the American oligarchy, do not have an all-defeating effect. The lower the level of education and culture in a particular country, and the more developed the information environment in it, the smaller it is. The rules of political competition dictate that the opposition must criticize government actions that run counter to national interests. This gives hope that it will be possible to “bring to clean water” European politicians playing the role of American agents influence contrary to the national interests of their countries.

As Alexander Nevsky said, God is not in power, but in truth. The flow of lies and falsification broadcast by the US-controlled world media must be countered by an objective information flow through social media, regional and national television. This will, of course, take effort. But with a creative approach, the truth will make its way, since the threat of a new world war frightens every person and, ultimately, stimulates the search for its causes. The public subconscious of the European peoples, especially the people of Ukraine, will remember the horrors of the last war with the correct formation of an associative number of modern and real fascists and their accomplices. The Ukrainian Nazis raised by American geopoliticians look no better than Hitler’s stormtroopers. Therefore, an objective presentation of information about Ukrainian Nazism will quickly cause a feeling of disgust and fear among the European average person. And among all the peoples of Eurasia, who suffered a lot during the last world war, the Ukrainian Nazis cannot evoke positive emotions.

The most effective efforts to prevent a new world war could be undertaken in the United States itself, whose population is tired of the chaotic wars waged by its authorities in different parts of the world for two decades. If the oligarchies need these wars to dump debts and appropriate assets, then ordinary citizens receive nothing from them except dead and disabled people, as well as fear of terrorist attacks. The spread of negative attitudes towards Washington's military adventures could be helped by the above measures to undermine the American monopoly on the issue of world currency, which would reveal the default state of the US financial system and entail a sharp reduction in government spending. Then American politicians will have to choose between continuing a chaotic world war and maintaining an acceptable standard of living for the population.

Finally, US dominance in world politics is based more on the routine habit of its allies to submit to Washington's pressure than on the real dependence of European and Japanese politicians on American handlers. As soon as the dollar financial pyramid begins to fall apart, the Americans will have nothing to pay for the maintenance of their military bases. Germany and Japan will be able to free themselves from the oppressive feeling of occupied territories and take a more independent position. As truthful information about the crimes of the Ukrainian Nazis spreads, the monopoly position of the American media will be eroded and the effectiveness of their propaganda will decrease. In the event of a further deterioration in the level and quality of life in the EU due to deterioration in relations with Russia, business and social pressure on European politicians will increase.

2. Reassure the aggressor with the inevitability of retribution

The factors listed above, if used skillfully, will work to weaken US political dominance in the world. But their impact will be insufficient if Russia remains the main victim of a global chaotic war, in the fight against which and for the resources of which the United States will build a coalition of its allies. The latter can only be stopped by the threat of unacceptable losses. Just like the desire of American geopoliticians after the end of World War II to establish world domination was stopped by the threat of the use of Soviet atomic weapons. Otherwise, the threats of Truman and Eisenhower atomic bombings Korea and the USSR would have embodied in a universal catastrophe.

The current situation, however, differs from the Cold War era in that the American administration does not consider Russia as an equal rival, trying to return us to the state of a vassal territory, as it was in the first decade after the collapse of the USSR. American advisers to both the current and past Ukrainian leadership tirelessly convinced the latter of their total superiority over Russia, which they presented as a country dependent on them. Having written off Russia after the collapse of the USSR from the list of independent powers, American geopoliticians today consider it as their rebellious colony, the leadership of which must be punished, and the country itself must be dismembered and pacified forever as a controlled territory of their empire. They proceed from the non-viability of Russia in the conditions of the economic sanctions they organize, clearly overestimating the degree of their influence. This overestimation of capabilities, on the one hand, gives rise to a feeling of impunity and permissiveness among American geopoliticians and their agents of influence, creating the risk of a global catastrophe. But, on the other hand, it is a source of their weakness when faced with real resistance, for which they are morally and politically unprepared.

Thus, American geopoliticians were unable to fend off the decisive actions of the Russian leadership to repel the American-Georgian aggression in South Ossetia, as well as to reunite with Crimea under the threat of genocide of the Crimeans by US-raised Ukrainian Nazis. Faced with determined resistance from Assad, the United States and its European allies were unable to occupy Syria. They won only where the victim could not offer real resistance due to either demoralization and betrayal of the ruling elite, as in Iraq or Yugoslavia, or the total superiority of the aggressor’s forces, as was the case in Libya.

In fact, the doctrine of a chaotic world war implemented by the United States does not imply the possibility of defeating the American armed forces, as well as conducting combat operations on the territory of the United States itself. Therefore, before attacking the next victim, they deprive it of its chances of resistance, creating overwhelming superiority with the help of its allies and paralyzing it with informational, economic and political weapons. In the event of a real danger of military defeat even in a local conflict or the transfer of hostilities to US territory, American geopoliticians will have to refrain from confrontation, as happened 40 years ago with the Cuban Missile Crisis. The same applies to their allies - not a single European leader will provoke a war if he understands the risk of it transferring to his own territory.

The fear of defeat and even stubborn resistance stems from the philosophy of superpower implicitly implemented by the American power elite. As shown in the almanac “However,” superpower cannot stand the threat of long-term resistance and does not accept defeat by its very nature. Prolonged resistance raises doubts about the unlimited power of superpower, and defeat turns this doubt into confidence and, thereby, undermines its essence. All armed conflicts started by the United States after the collapse of the USSR were characterized by such superiority of the United States and its allies, which in principle excluded the possibility of defeat and even prolonged resistance by the enemy, as well as the transfer of hostilities to American territory. In the absence of confidence in a stunning victory, the American oligarchy will not dare to enter into a conflict fraught with the loss of the image of superpower.

3. Debunk the aggressor

The Ukrainian crisis poses a great threat to the American-centric image of superpower due to Russia's ability not only to resist, but also to inflict unacceptable damage on the United States. Therefore, American diplomacy is trying hard to instill in the Russian leadership the fear of defeat in the event of military intervention to suppress the Nazi insurgency in Ukraine. By pumping up political and psychological pressure with threats of economic sanctions and international isolation of Russia, the United States simultaneously fully supports and strengthens the Nazi junta, pushing it to further escalate the conflict. By doing so, they are trying to paralyze the political will of the Russian leadership to take decisive action until the Nazi regime becomes strong enough to resist the Russian armed forces and gain the ability to inflict unacceptable damage on Russia. Or until the United States convinces its European allies to send in their military contingent to protect the Ukrainian Nazis from the resistance of the Russian people of Ukraine.

The tactics used by the Americans to psycho-politically suppress the political will of the enemy until the necessary conditions for his defeat are created without risking America are based on the ideological dominance of the United States as the main bearer and interpreter of the basic values ​​of modern civilization: human rights, democratic freedoms, the rule of law, scientific, technical and social progress . This ideological dominance creates a superpower image of infallibility that Americans rely on to manipulate the minds of their adversaries. And, oddly enough, many experienced politicians succumb to this suggestion, sincerely believing that Americans are not capable of banal deception due to their moral authority. Before Yanukovych, Gaddafi, Hussein, Milosevic and many leaders of developing countries who believed the promises of American ambassadors, officials and politicians became victims of a naive belief in the honesty of Americans.

Undermining US ideological leadership is a key direction in the fight against American aggression. Having lost the image of an infallible legislator of norms and patterns of behavior, the United States will lose the ability to instill in other countries an inferiority complex and the moral right to interfere in their internal affairs. This will sharply reduce the effectiveness of the American “soft power” policy, without which methods of military-political coercion will not work.

It is impossible to challenge the ideological leadership of the United States in the value system it imposes. Attempts to convict American politicians and officials of cynical deception, fraud and crimes against entire nations do not produce the desired effect in the conditions of the dominance of the American oligarchy in the global media and information networks. The ideological dominance of the United States can be undermined only by overthrowing the value system that underlies it.

As shown in "However", the value system underlying the current superpower, epitomized by the global dominance of the American-centric oligarchy, comes from the postmodern concept of man's liberation from God and the moral limitations it imposes. As Dostoevsky noted, if there is no God, then everything is permitted. The absolutization of human arbitrariness ultimately results in the right of the strong, as demonstrated by the American oligarchy, which is trying to govern the entire planet at its own discretion, relying on its assigned monopoly of issuing world currency. It is possible to put a limit to this arbitrariness only on the basis of more high system values ​​that limit the freedom of human will. Above the will of man can only be the objective laws of the universe, recognized by rational thinking, and the moral commandments established by the Almighty, recognized by religious consciousness. The former are established on the basis of the scientific paradigm of sustainable development, the latter should be taken as axioms in the system of global lawmaking.

All great religions limit the freedom of human arbitrariness by observing a certain system of moral norms. Modern post-Christian Western civilization does not recognize the absolute nature of these norms, interpreting them as relative ones that can be violated if opportunities and circumstances allow. The American oligarchy has the potential for global dominance to the extent that international circumstances allow. These circumstances can be changed by limiting US capabilities by expanding the capabilities of its competitors. This change is achieved within the existing world order through world war. To avoid it, it is necessary to change the world order itself - to introduce absolute restrictions on the arbitrariness of both the human individual and any human communities, including states and their associations. Thus, the very basis for the existence of a superpower that threatens the safety of humanity will be eliminated.

4.Take over ideological leadership

The ideological basis for a new world order can be the concept of social-conservative synthesis, combining the value system of world religions with the achievements of the welfare state and the scientific paradigm of sustainable development. This concept can be used as a positive program for the formation of a global anti-war coalition, which should offer principles that are understandable to everyone for the ordering and harmonization of socio-cultural and economic relations on a global scale.

Harmonization of international relations can only be achieved on the basis of fundamental values ​​shared by all major cultural and civilizational communities. Such values ​​include the principle of non-discrimination (equality of people) and love for one’s neighbor, declared by all faiths, without dividing humanity into “us” and “strangers”. With this understanding, these values ​​can be expressed in the concepts of justice and responsibility, as well as in the legal forms of the rights and freedoms of citizens. However, for this to happen, the fundamental value of the human person and the equality of rights of all people, regardless of their religion, nationality, class or any other affiliation, must be recognized by all faiths. The basis for this, at least in monotheistic religions, is the understanding of the unity of God and the fact that each creed points to it its own path of human salvation, which has the right to exist. Based on this understanding, it is possible to eliminate forced-violent forms of interreligious and interethnic conflicts, transfer them to the plane of the ideologically free choice of each person. To do this, it is necessary to develop legal forms for the participation of faiths in public life and the resolution of social conflicts. This will make it possible to neutralize one of the most destructive technologies of the American strategy of waging a chaotic world war - the use of interfaith contradictions to incite interreligious and interethnic armed conflicts that turn into civil and regional wars.

The involvement of faiths in the formation of international politics will provide a moral and ideological basis for the prevention of ethno-national conflicts and will create the preconditions for transferring interethnic contradictions into a constructive direction and removing them through various instruments of state social policy. In turn, the involvement of faiths in the formation of social policy will provide a moral basis for government decisions. This will help curb the spirit of permissiveness and licentiousness that dominates today in the ruling elite of developed countries, and restore understanding social responsibility power before society. The values ​​of the welfare state, which have been shaken today, will receive powerful ideological support. In turn, political parties will have to recognize the importance of fundamental moral constraints that protect the foundations of human existence. All this will promote awareness of the global responsibility of political leaders and leading nations for the harmonious development of international relations and contribute to the success of the anti-war coalition.

The concept of social-conservative synthesis provides an ideological basis for reforming international monetary, financial and economic relations based on the principles of justice, mutual respect national sovereignties and mutually beneficial exchange. Their implementation requires a significant restriction of the freedom of action of market forces, which constantly generate discrimination against the majority of citizens and countries in access to benefits.

Liberal globalization has undermined the ability of states to influence the distribution of national income and wealth. Transnational corporations have gained the ability to uncontrollably move resources previously controlled by states. The latter were forced to reduce the degree of social protection of citizens in order to maintain the attractiveness of their economies for investors. At the same time, the effectiveness of state social investments, whose consumers received freedom from nationality, decreased. As a result of the appropriation of a growing portion of the income generated in the world economy by the American-centric oligarchy, the standard of living of the population of most countries with open economies is declining and the differentiation of citizens in terms of access to benefits is increasing. To overcome these destructive trends, it is necessary to change the entire architecture of international financial and economic relations by introducing restrictions on the movement of capital in order to block the possibility of its escaping from social responsibility, on the one hand, and equalizing the costs of social policy of national states, on the other hand.

Limiting the opportunities for capital to evade social responsibility includes the elimination of offshore zones that allow capital to evade tax obligations and recognition of the right of nation states to regulate the cross-border movement of capital. Equalizing the social costs of different states will require the formation of global minimum social standards, providing for a rapid increase in the level of social security for the population of relatively poor countries. To achieve this, international mechanisms for equalizing the standard of living of the population must work, which involves the creation of appropriate instruments for their financing.

Based on the concept of social-conservative synthesis, the anti-war coalition could set the task of forming global mechanisms of social protection. Thus, to finance international mechanisms for equalizing the standard of living of the population, it may be proposed to introduce a tax on foreign exchange transactions in the amount of 0.01 of the amount of transactions. This tax (up to $15 trillion per year) can be levied on the basis of an appropriate international agreement within the framework of national tax laws and transferred to authorized international organizations. Among them is the Red Cross (for the purpose of preventing and overcoming the consequences of humanitarian disasters caused by natural disasters, wars, epidemics, etc.); WHO (for the purpose of preventing epidemics, reducing child mortality, vaccinating the population, etc.); ILO (for the purpose of organizing a global system of monitoring the implementation of safety standards, compliance with generally accepted standards of labor legislation, including wages not lower than the subsistence level and the ban on the use of child and forced labor, labor migration); World Bank (for the purpose of organizing the construction of social infrastructure facilities (water supply, roads, sewerage, etc.); UNIDO (for the purpose of organizing technology transfer to developing countries; UNESCO (for the purpose of supporting international cooperation in the field of science, education and culture, protection of cultural heritage) The expenditure of these funds should be carried out on the basis of appropriate budgets, the approval of which can be delegated to the UN General Assembly.

Another area of ​​work for the anti-war coalition could be the creation of a global defense system environment, financed by its polluters. To do this, it is advisable to conclude an appropriate international agreement providing for universal standards of fines for environmental pollution with their transfer to environmental purposes in accordance with national legislation and under the control of an authorized international organization. It should centralize part of these funds for carrying out global environmental activities and organizing monitoring of the state of the environment. An alternative mechanism can be organized on the basis of the turnover of pollution quotas by expanding and launching the mechanisms of the Kyoto Protocol.

The most important direction of the positive program of the anti-war coalition should be the creation of a global system for eliminating illiteracy and ensuring access to information and modern education for all citizens of the planet. The creation of such a system should include the unification of the minimum requirements for universal primary and secondary education with the allocation of subsidies for their achievement to underdeveloped countries from funds collected through the tax proposed above. A service delivery system must also be created that is accessible to all citizens of the planet. higher education leading universities in developed countries. The latter could, at their discretion, allocate quotas for the admission of foreign students recruited through an international competition with tuition fees from the same source. In parallel, through the efforts of universities participating in this system, a global system for the provision of distance educational services should be deployed, open to all citizens of the planet with secondary education on a free basis. The creation and maintenance of an appropriate information infrastructure could be entrusted to UNESCO and the World Bank, with funding from the same source.

5. Put forward an anti-crisis program for harmonizing the world order

The anti-war coalition must put forward its program for stabilizing the world economy, based on the streamlining of global financial and economic relations based on the principles of mutual benefit and fair competition, excluding the possibility of monopolizing certain functions of regulating international economic exchange in anyone’s private or national interests. The widening gap between poor and rich countries, which poses a threat to the development and very existence of humanity, is reproduced and supported by the appropriation of a number of functions of international economic exchange by national institutions of the United States and its allies, acting on the basis of their private interests. They monopolized the issue of world currency, using the share premium to their advantage and providing unlimited access to credit to their banks and corporations. They monopolized the establishment technical standards, maintaining the technological superiority of its industry. They imposed international trade rules that were beneficial to them on the whole world, forcing other states to open their commodity markets and sharply limit their own ability to influence the competitiveness of national economies. They forced most countries to open their capital markets, ensuring the dominant position of their financial oligarchy, based on its monopoly of limitless issue of world currency.

Ensuring sustainable and successful socio-economic development for humanity as a whole presupposes the elimination of monopolization of the functions of international economic exchange in someone's private or national interests. In the interests of sustainable development of humanity and the harmonization of global social relations, eliminating discrimination in international economic exchange, global and national restrictions may be introduced.

In particular, to prevent a global financial catastrophe, urgent measures are needed to form a new safe and effective architecture of the global monetary and financial system, based on the mutually beneficial exchange of national currencies and excluding the appropriation of global emission income in someone's private or national interests. Commercial banks servicing international economic exchanges should be required to conduct transactions in all national currencies. In this case, their exchange rates must be established according to a procedure agreed upon by national banks within the framework of the relevant international agreement. If necessary, the role of a universal equivalent can be played by gold, IMF SDRs or other international units of account.

The functions and management system of the IMF must be changed accordingly. It could be responsible for monitoring the exchange rate formation of national currencies, as well as the role of issuer of world currency used for emergency lending of temporary deficits in the balance of payments of individual states and their national banks in order to prevent regional and global monetary and financial crises and maintain stable international economic conditions. exchange. Together with the Basel Institute, the IMF could also serve as a global banking supervisor, setting mandatory standards for all commercial banks serving international economic exchanges. To do this, it is necessary to democratize the management system of the IMF, all member states of which should receive equal rights. This is also necessary to give the IMF the right to exclude banks and states that violate established norms of monetary and financial relations from the general system of international payments. This will not only guarantee the stability of the system of international economic exchange from the arbitrariness of individual states, but also protect it from currency speculators, as well as close offshore zones used for money laundering, financing international crime and tax evasion.

In order to equalize opportunities for socio-economic development, it is necessary to ensure free access for developing countries to new technologies, subject to their refusal to use the resulting technologies for military purposes. States that agree to this restriction and open up access to information about their military expenditures should be exempt from the restrictions of international export control regimes. They should also be assisted in obtaining the new technologies necessary for their development. To achieve this, the activities of UNIDO (including the creation of an appropriate information network) and the World Bank must be sharply intensified. The latter should be provided with credit resources issued by the IMF for long-term financing of investment projects necessary for developing countries for the development of modern technologies and the creation of infrastructure. International regional development banks should also have access to these resources on the same refinancing terms.

In order to ensure fair competition, it is necessary to introduce an international mechanism to suppress abuse by TNCs of their monopoly position in the market. The corresponding functions of antimonopoly policy can be assigned to the WTO on the basis of a special international agreement binding on all member states. This agreement should provide for the rights of subjects of international economic exchange to demand the elimination of abuses of a dominant position in the market by TNCs, as well as compensation for the losses caused by them through the introduction of appropriate sanctions. Among such abuses, along with inflating or understating prices, falsifying product quality and others typical examples unfair competition should include understatement of wages in relation to the regional subsistence minimum, confirmed by the ILO. In relation to natural global and regional monopolies, price regulation procedures should be established at a reasonable level.

In conditions of unequal economic exchange, states should be left with sufficient freedom to regulate national economies in order to equalize the levels of socio-economic development. Along with the mechanisms adopted within the WTO to protect the domestic market from unfair external competition, the tools for such alignment are various mechanisms for stimulating scientific and technical progress and state support innovation and investment activity; establishment of a state monopoly on the use of natural resources; introduction of currency control norms in order to limit the export of capital and neutralize speculative attacks against the national currency; keeping the most important sectors of the national economy under national control; other forms of increasing national competitiveness.

Special meaning ensures fair competition in the information sphere, including the media. Access to the global information space must be guaranteed to all inhabitants of the planet as both consumers and suppliers of information. To maintain the openness of this market, strict antitrust restrictions must be applied to prevent any country or group of affiliates from dominating the global information space. At the same time, favorable conditions must be created for free access to the information services market for representatives of different cultures. The necessary support for this could be provided by UNESCO through the proceeds of the foreign exchange tax proposed above and payments for access to limited information resources (some of which, including points for launching communications satellites into Earth orbit, could be provided to this organization). At the same time, international standards must be adopted to suppress the dissemination of information that threatens social stability.

In order for all participants in international economic exchange to comply with established international and national norms, there must be a mandatory regime of sanctions for all violations. To do this, an international agreement must be concluded on the execution of court decisions made against participants in international economic exchanges, regardless of their nationality. In this case, it is necessary to provide for the possibility of appeal to an international court, the decision of which must be binding on all states.

The introduction of mandatory norms for all participants in international economic exchange and sanctions for their violation (as well as sanctions for violation of national legislation) presupposes the primacy of international agreements over national legislation. States that violate this principle should be limited in their rights to participate in international economic exchange. In particular, their national currency should not be accepted in international payments, economic sanctions may be applied to their residents, and their activities on the world market may be limited.

The anti-war coalition must be powerful enough to achieve the fundamental changes in international relations described above. They will be resisted by the United States and the G7 countries, which derive enormous benefit from their monopoly position in the world market and in international organizations. In order to maintain this position, the United States, in fact, is waging a chaotic world war, punishing everyone who does not agree with its abuse of a dominant position in the global financial and economic system. To win this war and rebuild the world economic order for harmonious development, the anti-war coalition must be prepared to apply sanctions against the United States and other countries that refuse to recognize the priority of international obligations over national norms. Most in an effective way forcing the United States to cooperate may be a refusal to use the dollar in international payments.

The anti-war coalition must put forward its peaceful alternative to the arms race in stimulating the development of a new technological order. This alternative must be based on broad international cooperation in solving global problems, which require the concentration of resources in carrying out breakthrough scientific and technical developments. For example, the problem of protecting the Earth from cosmic threats does not currently have a technical solution. To obtain it, we need scientific and technological breakthroughs based on integration intellectual potential leading countries of the world and joint large-scale financing of relevant international scientific and technological development programs.

The sustainable development paradigm, in principle, rejects war as its main threat. Instead of confrontation and competition, it relies on cooperation and cooperation as mechanisms for concentrating resources in promising areas of scientific and technical progress. It is better suited than the arms race provoked by geopolitics as a scientific and organizational basis for a mechanism for managing the formation of a new technological order. The main consumers of the latter's products are healthcare, education and culture, the development of which is weakly stimulated by military spending. At the same time, these non-production sectors, together with science, will in the near future account for up to half of the GDP of developed countries. From this follows the objective rationality of transferring the burden of state stimulation of scientific and technical progress from military spending to humanitarian spending, primarily to medical research and life sciences. Since the state provides more than half of the spending on health care, education and science, such a transfer would help strengthen the systematic approach to managing socio-economic development, which would limit the impact of destructive forces.

6.Liberate Ukraine from American-Nazi occupation

The practical implementation of the paradigm of sustainable development and the concept of social-conservative synthesis is objectively complicated by the interests of both the global oligarchy hiding behind US hegemony and aggressive influential social groups based on the denial of fundamental moral values, first of all - the LGBT community, racist, Nazi and radical religious organizations. In a bizarre way, the American junta in Kyiv relies on all these social groups. This gives the Ukrainian conflict a global, not only political-economic, but also ideological character. A characteristic feature This is the position of the Union of Orthodox Citizens of Ukraine, which consistently opposes European integration and deciphers the EU as nothing other than Eurosod.

It is hardly realistic to hope for the voluntary renunciation of these social groups from their identity, as well as the claims of the American oligarchy to world domination. The ostentatious stupidity of the speakers of the White House and the US State Department, who set the tone for the coverage of Ukrainian events by the world media, leaves no doubt about the seriousness of the intentions of the American ruling elite to unleash a world war against Russia. Ridiculous comments from official speakers of the White House and the State Department are intended to demonstrate the inappropriateness of any discussions and disputes regarding the policies being implemented by the US leadership.

From the above analysis, it follows that the only way to stop the US policy of unleashing a global chaotic war is to take a tough position towards the US and its allies, outlining the limits of their aggression, violation of which automatically entails the threat of the use of military force to protect Russia's national security. To do this, you need to build the correct coordinate system and accurately determine the actions of all participants in the conflict.

The World War IV theater has the following configuration:

The US is an aggressor country provoking a chaotic world war in order to maintain world domination;

The provocation of a world war is being waged against Russia, which the United States is trying to present as an aggressor in order to consolidate the Western world to defend American interests;

American geopoliticians have relied on the cultivation of Russophobic Ukrainian Nazism in continuation of the German and British traditions of weakening Russia;

The United States subjugated Ukraine through a coup d'état it organized and the establishment of a Nazi dictatorship under its control;

The EU is trying to colonize Ukraine by drawing it into the Association under its jurisdiction by imposing an illegitimate international treaty with illegitimate leadership;

European countries are being drawn in by the US and the EU bureaucracy to participate in the war against Russia, contrary to their national interests.

In this coordinate system it becomes obvious historical meaning the war in Donbass, as well as the reasons for the insane cruelty of the Kyiv junta in its desire to achieve victory through the physical extermination of the citizens living there. If the people's militia manages to defend itself from the Nazi junta and liberate Ukraine from it, then this will mean a mortal defeat of the superpower embodied in American aggression, which will then lose its magical image. The historical analogue of the Donbass resistance is the defense of Stalingrad, after which the superpower of German-European fascism went limp and the creation of an anti-Hitler coalition became possible.

The people's militia of Donbass, resisting the Ukrainian Nazis, protects Russia from American aggression, as well as the whole world from the fourth world war. Ukrainian Nazis cannot move to Crimea and start a war with Russia while they are tied up in a punitive operation in the Donbass. Without capturing Donbass, they will not be able to maintain power in Ukraine, which is doomed to economic disaster by breaking economic ties with Russia. Against the backdrop of a humanitarian catastrophe, the Nazi psychosis will quickly dissipate and the Ukrainian population will once again become receptive to objective information. This will destroy the socio-psychological basis of the Nazi regime, which can only exist in conditions of a victorious war with Russia through unlimited assistance from the US and the EU. Therefore, in order to stop a world war, it is necessary to limit this assistance, excluding the military component.

However, the United States, in inflating the Ukrainian crisis into a world war against Russia, is forced to go all-in. They cannot afford defeat without losing their image as the superpower that controls the world. If the Nazi regime they created collapses and its crimes against civilians become widely known, the infallible image of the United States in Europe will be shaken. Russia's defense of its rightness in this conflict will cause a crisis of confidence in the current political elite in many European countries, which, together with the growth of anti-American sentiment, will undermine US dominance in the EU and limit it in NATO. War will be avoided and it will become possible to build the single space of economic cooperation proposed by the Russian President from Lisbon to Vladivostok.

For the strategists of the American oligarchy, this course of events is unacceptable. They will not be able to replace the war in Europe against Russia with something similar in its global effect. Neither a war in the Middle East, nor a Japanese-Chinese conflict over the islands, nor even a war in Central Asia will be able to cause such tension and such consolidation of allies as the war in Ukraine against Russia. Therefore, American aggression in Ukraine will increase. The pressure on the Nazi junta will increase to further escalate military operations in the Donbass. Kyiv leaders will be forced to war until the last Donetsk citizen, regardless of the massacres of civilians. They will be set on armed provocations against Russia with the aim of dragging it into a war with the Ukrainian army, regardless of the massive casualties of its fighters.

Russian military intervention could have turned the tide and stopped the aggression of the Nazi junta. But its result will at the same time be the drawing into the Ukrainian conflict of the EU, which, under the association agreement, has undertaken to lead Ukraine in resolving regional conflicts. This will entail its internationalization and will be another step towards unleashing a world war. The provocation committed by the Ukrainian military under the leadership of American intelligence services to destroy a Malaysian Boeing with passengers from the EU is aimed precisely at this. The American-Nazi junta commits any crimes, including against its own citizens, in order to drag European countries into a war with Russia.

Russia's actions should not fit into the American scenario of unleashing a world war. On the contrary, action is needed to disrupt it. In particular, the internationalization of the Ukrainian crisis must not be allowed. To do this, it is necessary to block US intentions to drag European countries into the conflict and provide military assistance to the Nazi junta. Attempts to do so should be considered as entering into a war against Russia with all the ensuing consequences. For this counteraction to be effective, it is necessary to publicly and openly declare Russia’s position as quickly as possible regarding the unacceptability of the introduction of any foreign military contingents and supplies. military equipment to the territory of Ukraine. The ruling elite and the general public of the United States and European countries must understand that in the event of providing direct assistance to the Ukrainian Nazis in civil war with the people's militia, unacceptable damage awaits them.

Thus, in order to prevent the Ukrainian crisis from developing into a world war against Russia, it is necessary, firstly, to exclude the possibility of the defeat of the people’s militia and the “cleansing” of Donbass by the Nazis. Secondly, to launch extensive informational, public and diplomatic work to explain the essence of the catastrophe occurring in Ukraine as a consequence of the US-organized coup d'etat with the Nazis coming to power. Thirdly, declare a tough position on the unacceptability of American-European support for Nazi punitive operations against the Russian population, which will be considered by Russia as a declaration of war. Fourth, to create a broad international coalition of countries against the American policy of unleashing a world war, proposing the concept of social-conservative synthesis as the ideological basis for unification. Fifthly, to achieve the liberation of Ukraine from the Nazi regime established by the United States through the efforts of the people of Ukraine themselves. This requires extensive work to explain the true goals of the pro-American Nazi junta, which mobilizes Ukrainian citizens as cannon fodder to incite a world war against Russia.

It is quite possible that these actions will not be enough to stop American aggression or that they will not have this effect. Therefore, it is necessary to take measures to strengthen the system of national and international security that would prevent the defeat of Russia or the destabilization of its internal state.