06.02.2014 | "Geopolitika.ru" | Leonid Savin | The Ukrainian Dystopia - Domestic and Foreign Factors6 Feb 2014, 20:00
The Ukrainian Dystopia - Domestic and Foreign Factors
First of all, the situation in Ukraine is not as simple as it is being described by the Western media and Brussels/Washington politicians. The protest was started just before the Vilnius summit of the Eastern Partnership at the end of November 2013. Actually, most of protesters didn’t read the proposed agreement about the association with the EU, but were galvanized by leaders of the oppositional parties (Svoboda, Udar, Batkivschina). The slogan was that Ukraine is part of Europe (yes, of course, there was no doubt about this), but only a few interested individuals knew that such an agreement of association had previously been signed with… Jordan, Morocco, and some other countries.
This document was developed as tool of the EU’s soft power for engagement of the African and Eastern European markets. When President Yanukovich did not sign this agreement, the West initiated a colossal campaign against him: from political and diplomatic pressure to direct support of the Ukrainian opposition. We must take into account that the opposition, both nationalistic and liberal, was supported by the EU and USA years before through grant program.
Klichko’s Udar party was especially supported by Germany (he is also a resident of Germany). Russia has supported the decision of the Ukrainian president and provided a large discount for gas supplies and a loan of $15 billion. This gesture of good will was interpreted by the opposition and Ukrainian right-wing nationalists as the imperial ambitions of Moscow. From this point of view, Yanukovich is a puppet of Russia.
Some Ukrainian oligarchs also started to actually support the opposition because they are not pleased with Yanukovich and have their own funds abroad. Of course, there were long consultations between these oligarchs and Western politicians for how to better increase the pressure against the president, and the protests were intensified. We see that the general frontline of the protests was captured by ultra-radical groups similar to the Black Bloc of the antiglobalist movement a few years ago, but with a different political orientation.
After October 1 thousands of US military hackers and spies will get down to their cyber war activities.
The declarations for taking cyber defense measures can be heard more and more often in the US. US analysts state that information and communication networks, on which the national infrastructure depends on, are becoming vulnerable for cyber criminals.
Cyberspace defense issue is urgent not only for the US. “The statistics revealed that cybercriminals have upped the ante and are becoming more sophisticated and creative, distributing more aggressive forms of malware” - Defence IQ website states.
“Our statistics show that Trojans and rogueware ('fake' antivirus programs) amounted to almost 85 per cent of all malware activity in 2009. 2009 was also the year of Conficker, though this belies the fact that worms ranked at just 3.42 per cent of last year's malware creation”, the magazine read.
“The Conficker worm has caused serious problems in both domestic and corporate environments, with more than 7 million computers infected worldwide, and it is still spreading rapidly”. 
However it seems that the US is too concerned with the problem of cyber defense in comparison with other countries. On April 26, the CIA unveiled its plans to new initiatives in the fight against Web-based attacks. The document outlines the plans for the next five years and director of the CIA Leon Pannetta said that it was “vital for the CIA to be one step ahead of the game when it comes to challenges like cyber space security" .
In May 2009, the White House approved Cyberspace Policy Review , submitted to the US president by the members of a special commission. The document summed up the state of things in the US cyberspace and national information security. It was proposed to a appoint cyber security policy official responsible for coordinating the US cyber security policies and activities.
The report outlined a new comprehensive framework to facilitate coordinated responses by government, the private sector, and allies to a significant cyber incident. The new system of coordination would enable Federal, State, local, and tribal governments to work with industry to improve the plans and resources they have in place in advance to detect, prevent, and respond to significant cyber security incidents. The initiative also implies providing US counter intelligence with more technical and functional options and training of new cyber defense specialists.
"Russian leaders particularly the Prime Minister Vladimir Putin wants to resurrect The Russian Empire", - said the Head of the Pentagon Robert Gates. As Gates puts it, these "imperialistic intensions obstruct the US-Russian relations". The United States Secretary of Defense also believes that the "imperialistic intensions" are more common for Putin than for Medvedev. The Prime Minister of Russia is trying to make Russia the main player in the international arena by all means. This fact is very disturbing for the USA. "Are the Russians doomed to a new attempt to build an Empire?" - asks a world-wide known British historian Professor Geoffrey Hosking in his recent book "Rulers and Victims - The Russians in The Soviet Union." Thus this worries the Brits as well - "what exactly will Russians choose - the present state with parts of its territory lost or a new empire?" - asks Hosking.
"Who is mister Putin?"
This question asked in the beginning of Putin’s career has been created during the transmutation of the political language of current Russia from Modern into the Post-Modern. In classical language Putin as a human being is an essence, a reality, a personality in the first place. Then he’s being understood inside the political context along his political actions. This is the approach for the Age of the Enlightenment: there is Vladimir Putin, a politician, a person with certain specifics, with certain roots, and there is also his system of evaluations and thoughts. This was true until the Epoch of the Post-Modern has come...
Geoffrey Clarfield|Russia's new imperialists
A new breed of Russian nationalist is warping history in disturbing ways|30.03.200930 Mar 2009, 13:33
Russia's new imperialists. A new breed of Russian nationalist is warping history in disturbing ways
From 1920 to 1990, the Soviet Union was governed by totalitarian communists whose regime was inspired and legitimized by the writings of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin and the numerous state-supported commentators who followed them. These writers believed that "scientific Marxism" (as they variously defined it) explained all aspects of human history and culture, including the origin and development of religion, kinship, ethnicity, nations and empires, as well as the dynamics of the economy, politics, the arts and psychology.
They also believed that this system of thought contained the laws of history and that these laws predicted the ultimate downfall of Western capitalism, individualism and liberal democracy, and the international triumph of communism based on an economy of central planning and collectivization. The fact that Russia and Russian-speaking communists dominated the Soviet Union and its Eastern European and Central Asian satellite states for 70 years was justified at that time by the fact that the revolution had been started in Russia by Russians -- they considered themselves "first among equals."
Serious historians and political scientists have since demonstrated the correlation between Marxist regimes and the systematic violation of human rights, including the deportation of dissidents to death camps and the Gulag. Russian and other Marxist regimes caused the deaths of millions of their own innocent citizens.
With the rise of Perestroika and the subsequent collapse of the Soviet Empire in the early '90s, almost all Russian politicians and intellectuals rejected Marxism. One would think that the Russian and Turkic peoples of Central Asia would have proceeded by attempting to rewrite their history from an empirical, non-ideological point of view -- that they would have translated the works of Western, non-Marxist historians and anthropologists in an attempt to explain the strange and terrifying communist chapter of their history. They didn't.
Alexandre Latsa| Zivela Srbija! Kosovo je Srbija ! Hourrah !|19.03.2009
19 Mar 2009, 20:49
Zivela Srbija! Kosovo je Srbija ! Hourrah !
Hello, my Serbian friends!
It is an honour for me, to write to you, from Moscow!
In a couple of days, we will be the 24th March 2009, a tragic day, as 10 years ago, a military coalition of the most powerful countries of the planet, federated through NATO, started a military bombing campaign of 78 days on Serbia, your Serbia.
Officially, this military operation has been set off in order to stop the ‘’slaughters’’, or should I say the so-called on going genocide supposedly taking place in Kosovo. Do you know that in France, the number of one million dead people has been quoted on the television news?
Speaking to the Eurasia.org news portal yesterday, Dugin said the Nabucco project aims to bypass Russia as an alternative gas route and must be prevented at all costs, even if that means waging war. "If a military intervention is needed, then it must be done. This is directly relevant to the geopolitics of natural gas, and all means are allowed in geopolitics," he said.
Dugin is strictly in favor of Russian expansionism and nationalism and is closely affiliated with the Kremlin and Russian military intelligence. He is a strong proponent of the restoration of the Russian Empire through a partitioning of the former Soviet republics and unification with Russian-speaking territories.
"We have to topple Nabucco and partition Ukraine. Ukraine has to be divided into two vassal states. We have to always be a step ahead of our rivals. If we step back on natural gas, this obliges us to step back in other fields, too. And this is impossible to accept," Dugin opined.
Conservative thinkers in Russia are not celebrating the 60th anniversary of the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Instead, they are denouncing it as aggressive colonialism, yet another attempt to impose "Western" values on other cultures.
As the newly resurgent Russian state has asserted itself increasingly on the international stage, the conservative political elite has sought to flesh out something of an ideology that justifies the rejection of international institutions and Western criticism of political developments in Russia. In doing so, it has revived the 19th-century tsarist mantra of "Orthodoxy, autocracy, and nationality."
"I am deeply convinced that the conception of human rights varies from one culture to another, from one society to another, inasmuch as the very concept of the person varies," says political scientist Aleksandr Dugin, who heads the Center for Conservative Studies at Moscow State University and is a leading public proponent of the new Russian conservatism.
In Russian culture, Dugin says, a "collective anthropology" has predominated, meaning that the individual can only fully realize his or her potential when functioning as part of the entire society. The Russian conception of human rights does not include "the right to sin," meaning that society, especially in the form of the Russian Orthodox Church and the central state, has an obligation to protect itself as a means of protecting the rights of its citizens.
In his lecture in Moscow Alain de Benoist focused mainly on the topic of globalization and expansion of liberalism
The Centre for Conservative Research of Moscow State University (MSU) Faculty of Sociology gains stronger and stronger position among scholars and researchers. It cooperates with different universities and think-tanks, both Russian and international. As it was planned, the scale of enterprises endeavored by the Centre step-by-step becomes global.
On the November 24th, the Centre for Conservative Research organized at the MSU Faculty of Sociology a lecture of a well-known French philosopher, geopolitics theoretician, and founder of «New Right» movement Alain de Benoist. Among listeners were MSU students as well as members of Movement of Eurasian Youth. As it was planned, a large MSU lecture-hall become so crowded, that some people had to stand or sit on the floor. Numerous students, Eurasian movement activists, the Faculty of Sociology tutors, and journalists gathered to listen the lecture and ask French thinker a number of different questions.
The lecture, simultaneously translated to Russian, was dedicated to the inter-civilization problems of relations between states and nations. Alain de Benoist focused mainly on the topic of globalization and expansion of liberalism understood as an unified meta-ideology. He pointed out a paradox of contemporary liberalism, which is, according to de Benoist, more radical than communist ideology in the area of pursuing many aims that communists failed to achieve.
In his vast lecture, Alain de Benoist paid special attention to the task of proper understanding the terms «globalization» and «modern times», and defining their identity and main characteristics. He underlined such a qualities of globalization as abolition of time and space. As an example he gave the destruction of the New York Twin Towers (World Trade Centre) in September, 2001. According to de Benoist, during those events all the world borders became obsolete. All of the world population was able to watch the terrorist act simultaneously, and that fact largely influenced the world’s history. Planes and fast trains, as well as other contemporary means of transport, played a revolutionary role, completely abolishing the influence that space factor renders on the humanity.
Flavio Goncalves|Introduction to the Portuguese National-Syndicalist Movement|01.12.20081 Dec 2008, 09:41
Introduction to the Portuguese National-Syndicalist Movement
Lecture delivered at the VI Young Eurasian Intellectuals Congress in the Moscow State University, 27th of November, 2008, Russia
When we mention National-Syndicalism people always remember the Spanish version and ignore the Portuguese version of the phenomenon, pushed by Rolao Preto and many other Portuguese activists.
National-Syndicalism was hated by both the New State dictatorship in Portugal and by the Communist opposition; the Communists like to forget that they were not the only political movement prosecuted by the government.
I will not give you the History of this movement, but solely it’s political leanings that caused it’s members to be considered as “Fascists” by the Left and as “Communists” by the Right.
It was a workers oriented movement that also had many intellectuals, they wore blue jean shirts because those were the shirts the Portuguese proletariat used at the time.
They defended the implementation of a family wage to the housewife’s, considering that taking care of one’s home and family was a very hard and important work that should be paid as such.