---

Скачать книгу

---

always been those who drive and those who are driven, mother countries and satellites, seniors and vassals, slave-owners and slaves. Nothing changes but the style and the pattern of the curtain which hides this uncomfortable truth from the majority of the population. The states enjoying the sovereignty in its full range can be counted on the fingers of one hand. Normally the situation looks as follows: the state has its flag and its president. And that is it! These are the alpha and omega of the sovereignty of some 'proud and independent' country. Deeds, words and acts of this state are imposed by its 'partners'.

      In 1985 these sovereign countries were the USSR, the USA, Great Britain and China. All the rest had to more or less coordinate their steps with the 'big brothers' whose struggle against one another formed the main subject of the world politics. In just a few years' time, the reality looks far less promising for us. Today the Absolute State Sovereignty is maintained by Great Britain and the USA, two world powers forming the skeleton of the policy-makers, and China, which stepped in the shoes of the USSR, and which is now the country with the world's highest rates of economy growth.[2] Did we miss anybody in our list? I am afraid not. Todays Russia is not among the countries with the Absolute State Sovereignty. Our country enjoys only a restricted, partial sovereignty, the acquisition of the Complete State Sovereignty is the object of the unseen struggle carried out at the moment. Sometimes this struggle spills over onto TV-screens and the pages of newspapers in the form of news of the next terrorist attack or the 'earthshattering' international meeting.

      The internal problems of today's (as well as of yesterday's, though) Russia derive directly from the loss of the Complete State Sovereignty. Before we find out when we lost it, we have to clarify the terms. So, what is the Complete State Sovereignty?

      It consists of five different sovereignties:

      1. The recognition of the territory of the country by the international community, the flag, the national emblem and the national anthem.

      2. The diplomatic sovereignty, implying the ability to pursue an independent international policy, which means that the state should be free to choose its own friends and its own enemies. If you are on good terms with Iran, you will never care that the power in this country is held by the Ayatollahs who are not popular in the USA. You can punch the aggressor in the face and you need not worry that this aggressor is the democratically elected president of Georgia.

      Once the diplomatic sovereignty is achieved, objective processes start immediately and dictate the necessity of obtaining two further sovereignties. It is a well-known fact that military power and a strong economy are the only factors the diplomats have real respect for.

      So, the third and the fourth sovereignties will be:

      3. The military sovereignty – the ability to rebuff an aggressor and to provide security for yourself and your allies;

      4. The economical sovereignty – the economical and industrial development, providing for further advancement of the country out of its internal reserves.

      Is that all? No. There is also a fifth sovereignty, and as our history instructs it is the most important one. The lack of this is the first step that leads into the abyss.

      5. Cultural sovereignty.

      Let us refocus. Solely in the case of all five sovereignties being present is it possible to speak about the Complete State Sovereignty. If we consider all the modern countries from this point (or reconsider the history), we will immediately notice that practically every country lacks one or several of the abovementioned points. For instance, today's Germany doesn't have military sovereignty. German armed forces amount to ca. 250 thousand people.[3] Here it can be recalled that by the time Hitler came to power in 1933, the effective strength of the Weimar Republic's army had reached 100 thousand people, with which Germany was considered completely disarmed, as good as having no army at all! Yet at the time when the country of beer and sausages was full of strength and was actively developing, the corresponding figures were radically different. Just before the First World War in 1914, the peace-time strength of Germany was 801 thousand people. Is this an argument indicative of the German aggressive character? No. In the same year, France had the disposal of a regular establishment numbering 766 thousand.[4] Today, the population of Germany amounts to 83 million, i. e. it has grown by 20%, and its army in comparison with 1914 has shrunk to a quarter of its size.[5] What does it mean? Nothing but the lack of military sovereignty in Germany.

      Yet if anybody stated that a large army in today's world is an anachronism, I would refer to the article concerning the US Secretary of Defence, Donald Rumsfeld, just to give them a general idea of manpower of the American Army: 'Currently the armed forces of the USA amount to ca. 2.6 million men and women, from which 1.4 are on the active service, 876,000 of guardians and reservists are in the military bases, and 287,000 form the special trained reserve.'[6] Why then is the US so reluctant to reduce its huge army, even given the enormous yearly budget deficiency?[7]

      It is because a strong army is the sine qua non condition for having Complete State Sovereignty. And equally importantly, it is a possibility for one country to deprive other countries of their sovereignty at its behest, exactly as the USA has done with Iraq, and as it has done with Yugoslavia.

      The rules in politics would never change, just as the desire of street boys to be strong and muscular so that nobody could offend them. Germany has a small army because it has delegated a part of its sovereignty to NATO and 'personally' to the USA. Germans have no military sovereignty, and therefore no diplomatic sovereignty, whereas their economical sovereignty is evident. The German economy is the biggest in Europe, and Germany is the top GDP country of the euro-zone. So, why does Berlin send its soldiers to Afghanistan? Because Berlin is not allowed to act otherwise. What do German soldiers have to look for in Afghanistan? Do the Taliban endanger the security of Germany? No, the reason is different. The USA and Great Britain invaded a country of major strategic significance under the following contrived pretext; Afghanistan borders on Pakistan, Middle Asia (i.e. Russia), Iran, China and – over the little stripe of the Pakistan territory – with India. While there, the Americans get the opportunity to trouble quite a number of their political contestants. That is exactly why after Americans and the British came to Afghanistan, the drug production that had nearly been eradicated by the Taliban, was resumed, and what is more, on a massively industrial scale.[8]

      This is not purely coincidence. Drugs mean a possibility to kill the young of Russia, Iran and China. Drugs provide an excellent excuse to place these countries under one's control. Drugs mean corruption, which is one step away from the betrayal of one's own country. Drugs mean networking with the dregs of society, with its feculence, with people who are willing not only to import and sell the deadly potion, but also to organise the terrorist act and assassination as well – just for being paid.

      The interests of the USA are clear to us. But what about the Germans? Why on earth are they in Afghanistan? And Italians? And Estonians, and Latvians? I will not even ask about Estonian and Latvian soldiers – the matter is abundantly clear. Our Baltic friends had never had the real sovereignty – and will never obtain it. But Italy and Germany? From the first glance these countries are self-sufficient and sovereign. But, alas, they are not free to stop sending their soldiers to this senseless war! While studying history and politics, please, keep in mind a simple truth: the ownership of a flag and an emblem per se counts for nothing. Never be surprised if a country acts against its own interests. The simple fact is that this country does not have a real autonomy.

      So, let us check, what the situation with all compounds of the Complete State Sovereignty looked like in different years in our country.

      What did we have in 1952? In this year all five sovereignties were present:

      ● recognition, flag, emblem and anthem were present;

      ● the diplomatic sovereignty – the ability to conduct an independent international policy was disputed in arms during the

---

Скачать книгу