Points of no return

Deputy Chairman of the Security Council of the Russian Federation Dmitry Medvedev reflects on what caused the current geopolitical crisis and what will guarantee the world’s future

The 100th anniversary of the Soviet Union, which was marked last year, came amid tectonic processes that originated three decades ago and triggered powerful and devastating upheavals in 2022. The foundations of the post-Soviet international order, which was until recently considered perhaps not the best, but still, a more or less familiar state of affairs, tumbled with a metallic screeching sound. The international airbags failed to deploy, and broad, deep cracks appeared in the global peacekeeping system.

A possible reason for what is happening can be found in the legacy of the long gone and relatively recent history. After all, what we are witnessing now has taken place more than once throughout history when world empires are nearing the end of their existence.

Let’s take a look at the events of the relatively recent past that are within living memory. The beginning of the tragedy that is unfolding in Ukraine dates back to the late 20th century, to wit, the collapse of the Soviet Union. For a long time, our powerful country relied on post-war agreements and the mutual interests of the participating countries, bloc-based confrontation and nuclear missiles, food supplies to its satellites, tractors and tanks, and “socialist realism,” although the communist regime didn’t last nearly as long as the centuries-old Russian empire which it deposed.

I will not elaborate on the political leaders’ motives that led to the breakup of the Soviet Union. Nor will I delve into the arguments about who exactly undermined the Soviet Union: whether the cause was the underhand practices of external enemies, an uncompetitive economy or the arms race. It is quite possible that its last leader, who passed away in the year of the Soviet Union’s centenary, wholeheartedly believed that he was acting in the best interests of the multiethnic people of the great state, the head of which he became after the notorious “hearse race.” At the same time, the leaders of the union republics cynically thought only about ways to take the helm in the independent states that were created on the still smoking remains of the vast country. One way or another, Foros and the August coup followed and then the end of the Soviet Union which, for the older generation, remained a beloved Fatherland and a wonderful dream about justice.

The West looked down upon that with the arrogant squint of a victor and a sense of superiority, thinking only about ways to satisfy its selfish interests. It used every avenue in its efforts to push our country into the abyss in order to completely eliminate its longtime competitor. The soothing rhetoric about equal partnership, the brave new world without dividing lines and similar bright-eyed rubbish was a distraction and turned out to be hollow formulas that camouflaged the far-reaching designs of our eternal adversaries.

The motley crew of politicians who came to the helm in the new Russia was unable to cope with the new threat. Someone acted thoughtlessly because of a lack of political culture and experience, while others were honestly mistaken in interpreting the intentions of the “new friends.” Hard times came: people were rapidly sliding into poverty, and the backbone sectors of the economy, which came under landslide privatisation, fell into decline. Separatism flourished, hotbeds of tension sprang up across the country, and the Caucasus was on fire.

President of the Soviet Union Mikhail Gorbachev and President of Russia Boris Yeltsin were often credited with the fact that after the “communist monster” had died they managed to keep things from degrading into a semblance of a civil war, as was the case after the October 24, 1917 coup. This is true and also not true, at the same time. The critical mass of discontent could have morphed into a full-on civil confrontation, on the threshold of which we found ourselves in 1993. However, back then no one was trying to fan the fire of the conflict from abroad, because the Western world was okay with a weak, defeated and submissive Russia. All of that will get underway a little later, in the mid-1990s. Our multiethnic people then acted wisely and averted the attempts to rock the country and to provoke a devastating internal aggression.

The most important achievement that the leaders of the disintegrated Soviet Union and the first head of its legal successor, Russia, can be credited with is that they avoided the most terrible mistake, preventing the potent Soviet nuclear potential from being scattered across the patchwork quilt of the new countries that came to replace a great power.

At the cost of incredible efforts, Russia gradually overcame the most challenging times. It compelled everyone to take Russia into consideration in the international arena, fully paid off its external debt and began to rebuild its economy and the social sphere. It rebuilt respect for its armed forces, continued to pursue a policy of nuclear deterrence and prevented provocations.

But history is relentless. Rome and Constantinople. Arab caliphs and Genghis Khan. The rise and inglorious demise of Napoleon. The “sunset” in the colonies of mighty Britain. The Europe of Charlemagne. The Incas and Persians. The Ottoman Empire and Tsarist Russia. Whatever chapter of the world chronicle you may look up, you are bound to find the same thing.  After the heyday of the empire and its golden age, there is a long way to the same end, which is disintegration and war, or war and disintegration. This is the law of the world. This is what happened to the Soviet Union albeit in a delayed manner. The war could have broken out earlier in the 1990s, or in the first two decades of the 21st century, but it is now that it has flared up. These events are in line with the inexorable and pitiless course of world history. A large country is dying and a war breaks out. Sooner or later. The piled-up internal contradictions and resentments become overpowering. Crass nationalism and envy and greed arise. The neighbouring countries, seeking to further carve up the collapsed empire and to get a piece of it, act as powerful catalysts for war. In our case, it was the Western world’s thuggish and cynical position. Emboldened by impunity and ideas of exceptionalism and fictitious messianism, the Anglo-Saxon civilisation simply lost it.

Two dates can be considered points of no return. The first one can be traced back to the autumn of 2008, when the Western world supported Georgia's aggression against the Ossetian people and praised up to the skies a fool, a drug addict and a reckless adventurer who was later rejected not only by his own country, but by a foreign one to which he fled as a coward, as well. The aggressor was then met with a swift and firm rebuff.

The second point of no return can be dated back to the spring of 2014, when the people of Crimea expressed their will during a legally held referendum and permanently rejoined their historical homeland. In the Western world, this prompted a frenzied and impotent hysteria, which continues unabated to this day. Their convulsions are fuelled by Neanderthal Russophobia and the desire to create a new Frankenstein in the form of Ukraine - a special “anti-Russia,” which the President covered in his writings. What else is there to say? The wise predecessors of today's brainless Western political hacks had the following to say: Quos Deus vult perdere prius dementat, meaning whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad. It was this insane hysteria and the obsessive desire to tear our country apart that ultimately led to the special military operation.

History also shows something else: any collapsed empire buries half the world, or more, under its debris. Those who first destroyed the Soviet Union and are now trying to annihilate the Russian Federation appear to be unwilling to understand this. They have kept their delusions to the effect that, having sent the Soviet Union to kingdom come without a single shot, they will be able to bury today’s Russia without much of a problem for themselves as they throw the lives of thousands of people involved in the conflict into the furnace of war. These are extremely dangerous misconceptions. It won’t work the way it did with the Soviet Union. If the issue of Russia’s existence is raised in earnest, it will not be decided on the Ukrainian front. Not by any means. It will be a question of the future existence of human civilisation. And there should be no ambiguity here. We don't need a world without Russia.

Of course, one can continue to flood the neo-Nazi Kiev regime with weapons and to thwart every opportunity to resume talks. Our enemies are doing just that and are unwilling to realise that their goals clearly lead to a total fiasco where everyone stands to lose. It will lead to a collapse, an apocalypse, when life the way it is now will have to be forgotten for centuries until the smoky debris ceases to emit radiation.

Russia will not allow this to happen. We are not alone in this regard. Western countries and their satellites represent only 15 percent of the world population. There are many more of us, and we are much stronger. The peaceful might of our great country and the high standing of its partners are the key to preserving the world’s future.

https://iz.ru/1475574/dmitrii-medvedev/tochki-nevozvrata