Evgeny Satanovsky (02/05/2019) From two to five. Evgeny Satanovsky: “I really do not want the third in a hundred years of the country's disintegration Satanovsky last publications

Ukraine will remain a problem for Russia as long as the security border of the Russian Federation does not correspond to the western border of the USSR. This was stated by political scientist Yevgeny Satanovsky.

The expert is convinced that the Ukrainian problem continues to exist only because Russia allows it to exist. The situation will not change as long as Moscow allows Kiev to arrange "reprisals" against the Russian language, Donbass, Odessa and other crimes. Also, Russia should stop relying on the Minsk Agreements, realizing that no one in Kiev will comply with them. “And if you have already understood, stop pretending that you did not understand,” he said.

According to Satanovsky, Russia should act towards Ukraine “as it should”. First of all, we are talking about the declaration of the leaders of nationalist and radical formations, as well as the leaders of the formations waging the war in the Donbass, war criminals "with the search all over the world and liquidation." The next step should be the announcement of Poroshenko as illegitimate president, the political scientist believes.

“We warned them before the World Cup. I have a good idea of \u200b\u200bhow and what is being done on this territory. I am convinced that until the security border - no matter, Russia, the Russian world - will not be laid either along the western border of the USSR, or along the Dnieper at least ... Do you think that Galicia is not needed? And I think that in Berlin the bases were removed in vain. I love Lviv, I am ready to confine myself to a military base, ”Satanovsky said on TV Center.

Earlier, the political scientist expressed the opinion that Russia could have closed the topic of Ukraine four years ago, if it had carried out a campaign to Transnistria. In this case, the Russian Federation would not need a bridge to Crimea, and the international reaction would hardly be radically different from what Moscow has now, Satanovsky is convinced.

But Russia decided not to "bicker" the Western leaders, leaving them room for maneuver on the Ukrainian topic and the opportunity to "get away" from Russia with it.

“If we had not done this, then our troops should have really hit the territory of Ukraine, reached Transnistria and shut up this whole topic to hell. There would be no such theme of the construction of the Crimean bridge - it's a perversion! This would be a territorial sickle situation. You say that we are there - and that we are not in Kharkov, Dnepropetrovsk, Odessa, Nikolaev, Kherson, Kiev? " - said Satanovsky, stressing that everything said is his personal position and a manifestation of "insanely violent imagination."

Satanovsky is convinced that Ukraine could not oppose anything militarily to Russia. The question of destroying the Armed Forces of Ukraine "from a raid" is not worth it, since Ukraine de facto does not have an army, and the ATO "painted with swastikas" in Donbass "would fly ahead of its own screech."

Famous orientalist about Russia after Putin, Middle East solitaire and "adventurous but sensible" Trump

Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Turkey are competing with each other in their influence on Russian Muslims and are strengthening in our country, says Yevgeny Satanovsky, director of the Middle East Institute, noting that such influence should be treated very carefully. In an interview with BUSINESS Online, Satanovsky told why the idea of \u200b\u200bputting Russia on the neck is widespread in the Arab world, whether Erdogan can be considered a “Turkish Stalin”, and Iran is our ally, and what catastrophes the 2030s can turn into for Russia.

Yevgeny Satanovsky: “Iran is our temporary companion and partner, a country with which we maintain economic relations - not the most ambitious compared to Turkey or China” Photo: "BUSINESS Online"

"THERE ARE NO AMERICANS IN THE IRAQI OIL INDUSTRY"

- Yevgeny Yanovich, recently it became known that Rosneft has agreed with Iraqi Kurdistan to develop five oil blocks on its territory. Where did our oilmen have such courage? Is it because, as they say, Iraqi Kurdistan is more dependent on Turkey than on Baghdad?

- Iraqi Kurdistan depends on everyone. He depends on Baghdad because without his consent he will not be able to export oil. When the oil smuggling channels through Turkey were cut off, through which the same oil was flowing DAISH ( the Arabic name of the terrorist group ISIS, banned in Russia— approx. ed.), the Kurds have almost no alternatives. When our people took up this issue in Syria, the Americans were forced to engage in suppression of smuggling in Iraq. Moreover, Turkey is at war with the Kurds today, and the relations between Kurdistan Region President Massoud Barzani and Recep Erdogan are very difficult.

Iraqi Kurdistan depends on Iran, because there are no alternative routes for exporting oil, except through Basra and further through the Shatt al-Arab (a river that flows through Iraq and Iran) by sea. There are ideas for cross-border oil export and its transportation to the world market through Iranian territory, but it is not clear what to do with all this. No neighbor supported Kurdistan during the independence referendum ( although on September 25, 2017, 92.73% of local Kurds voted in favor of the independence of Kurdistan – approx. ed.). In addition, Barzani lost Kirkuk on this ( handed over to the federal forces of Iraq last October — approx. ed.). Fighting for power within the framework of an inter-clan brawl, in conditions when the local opposition, the Gorran (Movement for Change) party continues to grow, Barzani actually surrendered Kirkuk to Shiite units. Peshmerga ( armed Kurdish forces — approx. ed.) retreated, snarling listlessly, and the Shiites occupied the territory.

The Shiite militia is now constituted as part of the Iraqi army. In addition, a party was created on this basis, which collected many votes in the last elections. And the Kurds will not be able to get rid of this threat. So I would not say that it was safe for Rosneft to be tied to the Kurdistan government. Moreover, there is no need to expect any gratitude here - in the pursuit of money, these people are ready to blame their problems on anyone.

- Sechin is a risky person, as we know from his biography.

- Igor Ivanovich Sechin is a unique person. He can, knowing the size of Rosneft, which is developing and rather quickly striving for the role of Gazprom in the oil industry, use support from the very top to resolve problems with the governments of Erbil ( capital of Iraqi Kurdistan — approx. ed.) and Baghdad. The management will certainly do this, and with the highest degree of probability the situation will return to normal. It’s not even a matter of risk, but the fact that Vladimir Vladimirovich [Putin], as the president of the Russian Federation, directly involved in foreign policy and energy policy on major issues, has an amazing ability to negotiate with all local players. He, of course, fails to come to an agreement with the "Westerners", but the problem here is simple: they do not want to come to an agreement with anyone while Vladimir Putin is in the leadership of Russia. And you can't do anything about it. To leave office only to please the "Westerners" is sheer stupidity. In all other cases, Putin manages to negotiate. In this context, we have a unique position in Iraq, and some local collisions can be corrected in the most miraculous way, given that British Petroleum has been chosen as the main oil operator by the government of Baghdad. And there are practically no Americans in the Iraqi oil industry.

- Doesn't the absence of the Americans open up opportunities for us to establish ourselves in the Iraqi oil market - at least through Kurdistan?

- It does not reveal anything to us, because there are Chinese oil campaigns and Malaysian campaigns. Yes, Lukoil works there, as does Gazpromneft. And Rosneft. But I do not get tired of repeating: if your competitors are not in some place, this does not mean at all that everything has opened up madly for you. Nothing like this. If Marilyn Monroe divorced Joe DiMaggio, this did not automatically mean that everyone who wanted her got her. Even John F. Kennedy was killed. You never know what has been discovered? You also need to be able to use these opportunities ( according to the announced intentions of Rosneft, its total recoverable reserves in Kurdistan may amount to about 670 million barrels, and the amount of payments to the government - up to $ 400 million. However, the Baghdad government called the deal illegal — approx. ed.).

Photo: kremlin.ru

"IF YOU LIKE IN A CUTTLE IN IRAQ, YOU WILL BE KILLED IN THE MOST CRUEL AND BLOODY THRILLING WAY"

- We talk and write a lot about Syria, but you rarely hear about Iraq, where the militants of the banned group Daesh seem to be almost finished. What is the real state of affairs there, in your opinion?

- Islamist militants have been largely driven out of Iraq. This was partly due to the fact that local sheikhs received subsidies and, in agreement with the field commanders, took back those militants who came from the Republic of Iraq back to their places of origin. That is, the physical destruction there affected a small number of terrorists, but it is impossible to calculate it. Because, if you believe the government troops, it will turn out that more terrorists were killed there than the population of the entire country. And in Syria the statistics are the same. This is a very difficult situation, which for the Americans in Iraq was facilitated by the fact that the Shiite militia fought on the side of the government, a little bit Kurds (a little bit, because the Kurds did not fight very much at all, but mostly seized territories for an independence referendum, which they successfully failed in September last year). Plus the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps - the IRGC with General Qasem Suleimani ( major General and Commander of the Al-Quds Special Forces in the Corps — approx. ed.). Suleimani surprisingly commanded his units near Mosul, operating next to the American target designators. And somehow they, the Americans and the Iranians, did not notice each other, despite all Trump's shouts against Iran and the sanctions against Qasem Soleimani that one is amazed at the consistency of US policy. But in fact, the Americans are very pragmatic, and the CIA and the Pentagon are acting completely on their own and separate from the US State Department and from everything that is said in the White House.

- Can a new radical and even more terrible in its content movement grow from the fragments of the defeated Islamic State, as in its time Daesh emerged from Al-Qaeda ( , — approx. ed.)?

- The banned ISIS was only at first called the "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant", and then simply the "Islamic State". In fact, these are just local Sunnis who did not receive a stake in the government of Iraq and did not receive oil money ( one of the groups that took part in the creation of Daesh was called the "Army of the Sunnah and the Community" — approx. ed.). Where are they going now - not to destroy them all? But since they are not destroyed and are not integrated into the new reality, anything will arise on this basis. Especially if you throw in the money of "zalnikov" ( gulf countries — approx. ed.). In this case, support for the Islamic State is a Qatari project, while support for Al Qaeda is a classic Saudi project. In what form can a new group emerge? Yes, whatever! And whether it will be more radical or less - these are all nonsense and inventions of our colleagues from the press. Iraq is the most brutal country in the region since antiquity, and as such it, perhaps, has remained today in relation to its own population. If you took part in a coup in Syria, then you can be exiled somewhere as an ambassador or imprisoned - there were dozens of such examples in the post-war period. But if you fell into a coup in Iraq, then you will certainly be killed in the most cruel and bloodthirsty way. We remember from history what Assyria was like, which honestly recorded its cruelty on bas-reliefs ( it is believed that in ancient Assyria, located on the territory of modern Iraq, they invented impaling — approx. ed.).

- You once mentioned that Iraq is a quasi-state since the death of Saddam Hussein. Has it remained so to this day?

- Of course, like most of the Middle East and other regions here. Well, is Sudan a state? Or Somalia? Or Yemen and Afghanistan? In addition, a huge number of countries have been destabilized after the "Arab Spring" and at the moment are not states as such. Although, at first glance, they have everything: state flags, anthems, ambassadors and all the formal structures of power. But the Middle East and Africa are primarily systems of tribes and ethno-confessional groups. Accordingly, what the Iraqi government controls is not very clear, even in the Shiite zone. The government may formally include representatives of the Kurds and some Sunni, but these people do not control Iraqi Kurdistan or the Sunni areas. Separatism is flourishing inside the Shiite zones of Iraq. Who said that the Iraqi prime minister can control areas where the majority is, for example, the population supporting Muqtada al-Sadr ( leader of the "Mahdi Army", known for having raised an uprising against the international occupation forces in the holy Shiite city of Al-Najaf in April 2004 – approx. ed.)?

It is necessary to understand this, but no one wants to understand this. Therefore, it is difficult to say how Rosneft will act with its oil projects in Iraqi Kurdistan. This is causing great invectives from Baghdad. Iraqi Kurdistan has not become an independent state and, it seems, will not become in the coming decades. It is not very clear who generally advised Rosneft in terms of the prospects for Iraqi Kurdistan.

"Islamist militants were mainly driven out of Iraq" Photo: Mikhail Alaeddin, RIA Novosti

“WHY RUSSIAN MUSLIMS SHOULD RESTORE SYRIA? DO THEY HAVE ANY OTHER BUSINESS? "

- Not so long ago, Russia signed an agreement with Bashar al-Assad that our military group will be present in Syria (at the Khmeimim base) for the next 40 years. Does this mean that the Assad regime, which everyone recently thought was over, is so confident in its longevity?

- Hong Kong was once leased by Great Britain for 99 years, but those who gave it to the British hardly survived until the end of this period. The Americans have a Guantanamo base, but neither the US is ruled by the president who signed this treaty, nor is there a previous government in Cuba. Even the days of Fidel Castro are over. Nevertheless, the contract is valid. It does not correspond to the physical life span of this or that ruler. So it is here.

- I mean the longevity of the Assad regime, not himself. If the Americans do squeeze him out and appoint their successor, won't this jeopardize the just concluded agreements with the Russian Federation?

- The mode can be anything. But when a Russian military base is present in a country, this is a very serious factor. Recall that in Syria, since the Soviet era, there has been a logistics center for the Navy. The only thing that can force the contingent to leave this base is the decision of the government of their own, and not a foreign country. Who decided to close the bases in Cam Ranh (Vietnam) and Lourdes (Cuba)? Our management, which decided that we no longer need to be there ( in 2001 — approx. ed.). Now the same guide has changed its mind ( in November 2013 Vladimir Putin and the President of Vietnam Truong Tan Shang signed an agreement to establish a joint base for submarine maintenance and repair at Cam Ranh — approx. ed.). Because an understanding has been reached that, after all, one must be present somewhere outside the homeland. Accordingly, we will see what kind of regime will be in Syria in 40 years. But this does not negate the importance of the Russian military presence in the SAR - in the eastern Mediterranean, that is, on the road from the Black Sea through the straits to the Suez Canal. It is not very clear who, how and how will be able to knock Russia out of this bridgehead. Especially if you consider that in Crimea, despite numerous attempts, there is no NATO, but the Russian fleet. I leave out of the brackets other Black Sea fleets, including even the Turkish one at the moment. While maintaining the Khmeimim base, we are guaranteed that there will be no problems for Russian shipping in this region. And we'll see. For us, 5 and 10 years is a long historical period, let alone 40 ... This is a prerequisite for restoring much in the civil and military fleet from what we have destroyed. If, of course, they will seriously undertake the restoration, and will not be treated in the same way as the implementation of the "May" presidential decrees.

- And who will restore the war-torn Syria? Can Russian Muslims, for example, take part in this?

- It doesn't work to drop 10 thousand rubles and use this money to restore Syria. They are recovered either with state subsidies, or within the framework of some loans and investments. In general, I prefer not to make predictions in such cases. Moreover, not a single forecast on the planet has yet come true, except for one - that we will all die someday. In economics, and especially in specific things, forecasts are absolutely ungrateful. Money loves silence. But, knowing the Syrians, I can say that they have always been a trading people and at the same time one of the most intelligent in terms of setting up production in the Middle East. Moreover, they are very patriotic. Therefore, the Syrians are the ones who will rebuild Syria in the first place. Let's not forget about the Syrian emigration - primarily the old emigration. There are many waves of Syrian emigration across the planet, and I saw more than one billionaire among these guys. Having received the appropriate guarantees and preferences, the Syrian diaspora abroad may well take up the restoration of their homeland.

Who restored the Soviet Union after the war? Did they write out a separate Marshall Plan, gave us money? No, we had nothing but our pocket and our hands. And the destruction in the USSR was much worse than in Syria. Nevertheless, we did everything ourselves.

- It is believed that Syria spoils relations with the Muslim world largely because of the Alawite group that is in power there.

- Syrians are secular people. Under Assad Sr., the secular component was dominant in the SAR. Unfortunately, Bashar al-Assad turned out to be very democratic and soft in comparison with his father Hafez Assad. At the same time, he wanted to liberalize the country: he released all the Islamists from prisons, and they immediately led the detachments that nearly destroyed Syria in the civil war. If we are talking about fanatics, about radical Islamists, then the Assad regime really has big problems with such. In Russia they are being shot, but in Syria there are still a lot of them, and a huge number of fanatics have now been squeezed into the province of Idlib. These people from Idlib do not need to rebuild Syria at all - they need to slaughter everyone who is not like them. At the same time, they are engaged in extermination of each other, and they are not at all hindered by the fact that they are all Sunnis. It is much more important whether they are pro-Saudi or pro-Turkish groups. Splits also occur between different wings of political movements, as was the case between Jabhat al-Nusra ( terrorist group banned in Russia, — approx. ed.) and "Ahrar ash-Sham" in the same Idlib. In this situation, I do not quite understand why Russian Muslims should deal with Syria? Do they have other things to do? Even if there are, not the entire Ummah, but some specific people and corporations. Perhaps they will cooperate as a city with a city on the model of twinning. Although purely economic relations can hardly be called twinning. Or some specialized republic of the Russian Federation or autonomy will suddenly start special relations with the Syrian region. But you can't force anyone. A business can only pretend that it is ready to execute commands from above, but in fact it will not do anything that is contrary to its interests, reasonable logic and profit. Will the state then compensate him for the losses? Having been born, he did not compensate and will not compensate. Not to go to the porch after that.

So let's agree: Syria must be rebuilt by the Syrian people and the Syrian government. If serious obstacles are imposed on them in this, the Russian government and our military diplomats will certainly try to help. But nothing more. The idea that Russia can sit on its neck and hang its legs (they say, let the Russians - regardless of the nationality of the soldiers of the military contingent - fight and let the Russians restore) - this, of course, is a healthy idea, and it was born throughout the Arab world. But we have already lost the Soviet Union once. Therefore, it is not necessary to overextend and provide fraternal assistance, having your own problems.

Photo: Mikhail Ozersky, RIA Novosti

"THE ATTEMPTS OF THE HOLY PATRIARCH TO PROVE THAT ALL OUR TROUBLES FROM THAT THE PEOPLE HAVE GONE FROM THE CHURCH ARE AN EXTREMELY DEACTIVE IDEA"

- In this regard, I want to ask: does Russia now have some kind of ideological mission in the Middle East, similar to the one that was during the times of the Russian Empire and the USSR?

- The ideological mission is cretinism, which was invented by idlers and idiots who could not and cannot do anything except to plow others for themselves. This was the case under the Soviet Union, but in the Russian Federation this category of people did not die out, to my great regret. Even now they continue to instill in the leadership the idea of \u200b\u200bthe absolute necessity of an ideological mission, and hence of themselves, armless and brainless fools, as a nurturing force. For those who are not very good at doing something themselves, this is generally a very pleasant thing. But I don't really understand, why the hell do we all return to this path? Are we really sheep? Explain to me what ideological mission did Peter I and Catherine the Great have, who, oh, how well ruled the country they led? When they forged an empire, did they have an ideological mission? I understand that in the 19th century, German professors invented all this nonsense for Nicholas I. And under the Soviet Union, it became even more entrenched and still remains in the brains of some.

- The mission was simple: Russian emperors were building a "true Orthodox kingdom," providing assistance to the Slavic and other peoples falling into the orbit of our interests.

- You know, that's why Nicholas I lost the Crimean War. Because in a situation where he controlled everything in the world (and he did control a lot, including most of Europe after the Napoleonic wars), I wanted to justify why we need all this. Moreover, in the 1830s we also have straits ( Bosphorus and Dardanelles — approx. ed.) were generally under control. Well, they came up with it. As a result, they blew the Crimean War, and after two tsars they got a revolution.

The role of the Orthodox Church in the history of Russia and in its movement along the path along which it reached the Arctic and Pacific Oceans is much less significant than it was thought up by people inventing ideological and other missions. Just the same as today. For believers, it may be offensive. But let's separate the struggle for power and resources from the real state of affairs. The irrepressible struggle for power and resources, quite material, and at the same time for an attempt to control, referring to things that did not exist, do not and will not, lead to the emergence of militant atheism and to very serious tragedies - thus, as a result of which the church after the revolution not only lost its position, but practically disappeared and did not affect anything before the Great Patriotic War. And in today's conditions, we can once again run into the same rake. I don't really believe in various myths about what kind of role or what role it will be. You can, of course, like in Syria, come up with another mission, which benevolent and sincere, but not very smart people tried to break through at the beginning of events. I remember one of our guys, who is famous, good-looking, speaks a lot and has to do with armament in the Middle East: he said that Syria is the original Christian land, in which he was right. On this basis, he called for the restoration of everything that had been since the time when shields were nailed to the gates of Constantinople. It was very useful to have all the Russians in Syria slaughtered, but for nothing else. Al-Qaeda could only applaud him. In my opinion, the same applies to the attempts of the Holy Patriarch to prove that all our troubles are due to the fact that the people left the church. This is an extremely destructive idea. Although it sounded among the Jews: they say, all your troubles and the Holocaust - because you are atheists, and even marry not your own. Much of this has happened among Muslims. The idea is absolutely explosive. Therefore, I am very far from ideology and am extremely hostile to it. I really do not want the third collapse of the country in a hundred years. Those who climb with this stupidity do not want this either, but they provoke him.

- Nevertheless, it was in vain that you mentioned Catherine the Great as an example of de-ideologized government. It was not for nothing that, for example, she named one of her grandchildren Constantine. Historians testify that she was going to put Constantine on the Byzantine throne freed from the Turkish sultan someday.

- How do you know about her?

- From the historiography dedicated to the Catherine era.

- Let's not ascribe notions and tales of various fools to the great empress. Catherine, as an ethnic German woman who converted to Orthodoxy solely to be included in the leadership of the country where this faith dominated, was an extremely pragmatic person. And it is no coincidence that she categorically banned missionary work on the territory of the empire, provoking a very difficult reaction from the then hierarchs of the Orthodox Church. Catherine's predecessor, Peter I, folded this hierarchy, generally speaking, into a ram's horn (Peter did not like anyone who would mind him at all). His heirs, judging by the results, were not so worthy. However, under Nicholas I, the German professors substantiated everything for us and came up with a mission: a) we go into battle for the Slavic brothers, b) we go straight to the Byzantine throne. And why bother his late grandmother Catherine about how she called her children and ordered to call her grandchildren? Not only did I not see the Byzantine Emperor Constantine, I didn’t see him at the head of the Russian Empire either.

- He ruled the Kingdom of Poland, and from the throne, knowing about the riots in the capital after the departure of AlexanderI simply refused, yielding to Nicholas.

- Yes. But the rest are notions, a chest called "Alternative History and Fantasy". Put it on your bookshelf and forget it. Otherwise, you and I will turn into something like the Ren-TV channel, which have, if not a world conspiracy, then reptilians. Catherine was engaged in a specific war with the enemy along the borders - primarily with the Turks. She gnawed off a huge number of territories, including Sochi and Anapa. And even Ukraine was part of the Turkish Ports - which was not part of Poland. From the time of Catherine to the defeat of the Ottoman Empire, it was still far away. And we brilliantly and tragically blew through the Crimean War - tragically for Nicholas I, who was much better as a man and a commander, and as a leader of the country than all Soviet times wrote about him. And he died, having caught a cold, giving rise to legends that he shot himself out of grief after defeat.

But, in the end, both the country's leadership and the leadership of the Russian Orthodox Church are free to do whatever they want. What mythologies will feed them, I do not know, but if this happens, they will destroy everything again. As they say, God loves a trinity. The Russian empire then the leadership headed by the tsar crashed? Banged. The Soviet Union leadership headed by the Politburo crashed? It crashed. Who prevents in our times from repeating the same mistakes a third time? Nobody.

- I hope that "love for the trinity" will misfire this time.

- But in the 30s we will see if I live. In order for something not to happen, you need to either act in the right direction, or at least not act in the wrong direction. In the meantime, I see that in our pursuit of power and resources, everyone pulls the blanket over himself, including where it all can explode.

Photo: kremlin.ru

"ANY LEADERSHIP OF TURKEY AFTER ERDOGAN WILL BE ANTI-RUSSIAN"

“But, for example, the relations between Putin and the“ Turkish Sultan ”Erdogan are quite pragmatic. It is difficult to read any ideological codes in them.

- They are pragmatic on the part of Vladimir Vladimirovich. And they are often not very pragmatic on the part of Erdogan. Since Recep Erdogan is a person who piously believes in his mission to revive the Ottoman Port and in the influence of Turkey as Agabeylik, the “elder brother” in the entire space where the Turk once stepped, from Yakutia to Gagauzia. The Turkish president is a very imperial and very illogical person. He, of course, managed to reformat Ataturk's Turkey, and today it is Erdogan's Turkey, that is, a completely different country. But here's the question. Because the influence of the Turks on the territory of Russia is very important for Recep Erdogan, and this influence is far from only economic. It is very noticeable in a number of regions of the Russian Federation, and it is impossible to get rid of it by teams from the center. Attempts after the downed Russian Su-24 ( in November 2015 — approx. ed.) were and provoked a dull but stubborn resistance of the local elites. For whom, if their main investor is the Turkish investor, nothing can be done about it. You cannot replace it, because too many relatives of these elites live in Turkey, have a business there, or simply took money there.

But what will happen after Erdogan is interesting. Because it is already clear today that any post-Erdogan leadership of Turkey will be anti-Russian. Erdogan is simply fighting against everyone in the world - with his pro-American military elite, with his pro-American and pro-European businessmen, with Islamists like Fethullah Gulen, who lives in the United States. And in this capacity, he is forced to listen to his main support - the businessmen of Anatolia, who are conservative and for whom the gas price is important and that Turkish construction firms work in the Russian Federation. But nothing more. Erdogan himself is a rather dangerous and unpredictable neighbor. I don't think one can speak of him as a pragmatist. Putin is an unconditional pragmatist, so he tolerates all these "quirks" and gently reduces communication to what is useful for Russia. But for this, thanks to Vladimir Vladimirovich, not Recep Erdogan.

The influence of Turkey in Russia may not have become so noticeable, but it remains. I would not say that the corresponding jamaats have disappeared in our country. Moreover, we are continuing the competition between Qatar, the Saudis and Turkey over the influence on Russian Muslims. In a number of regions of the Russian Federation, using each other's mistakes, they are strengthening. I sadly observe the situation with the influence of Qatar in Ingushetia ( just at the beginning of this year Yunus-Bek Evkurov went on a visit to Qatar — approx. ed.). And in Dagestan, I would not say that the Saudi influence has decreased. Although the Saudis are no longer concerned with us, as it was in the first and second Chechen wars, but more with Syria and Iraq and, fortunately, are stuck in Yemen. And their main money goes not to our territory, but to the Middle East. In this sense, we are lucky. But I am always careful about contacts between Russian Muslims and foreign ones in order to avoid the influence of visiting emissaries in the Russian Federation, including through their local cadres. We do not yet have our own local cadres, and all attempts to form them lead to the fact that they are trying to saddle radicals from the Middle East. And the Egyptian University Al-Azhar is definitely not our assistant in this. I quite a lot at one time watched people from Syrian and Egyptian universities. For example, children from Bashkortostan were recruited to al-Qaeda educational institutions in Yemen - they seemed to leave to study, and then suddenly it turned out that they were already participating in battles with the Houthis. The TV channel Ren-TV, already mentioned by me, was reporting practically from the battlefield, proving what heroic young people they are. Apparently, the journalists who did this did not understand anything at all.

Fortunately, our Muslim Brotherhood remains on the banned list of the prosecutor's office, but their lobby, when Muhammad Morsi was President of Egypt, almost managed to get them removed from this list. Things were generally amazing in Russian political circles. The Muslim Brotherhood lobby operated in the State Duma, the Foreign Ministry, and academic structures.

- There is nothing surprising in the fact that the Islamic agenda in Russia is very relevant. According to official estimates, we have about 20 million Muslims ...

- No, this is an obvious mistake: 20 million are people who belong to ethnic groups that traditionally profess Islam. Agree, this is a huge difference compared to the phrase "we have 20 million Muslims." We do not have 20 million Muslims, we do not have, conditionally, 100 million Orthodox Christians, but we have people belonging to ethnic groups whose basic religion was or is Islam or Orthodoxy. Of course, the percentage of de facto practicing religious rituals and truly believers in Islam is higher than in all other ethno-confessional groups in our country. Let's say 15-20 percent. That's a lot, but nothing more.

- You said about the absence of “your own” management personnel in the Russian Muslim environment. But are the muftis Talgat Tajuddin, Ravil Gainutdin and others not influential enough to control the situation in the ummah? Or is it just a front facade?

- Religious background - it is the background. As well as in Orthodoxy. Otherwise, Bishop Diomede would not have been in Chukotka ( sharply criticized the leadership of the Russian Orthodox Church in 2007 — approx. ed.), there would not be so many Protestant groups that are very skeptical of their neighbors in the faith of Christ. The Islamic ummah is certainly split into as many parts as it can be split. Both in its own Middle East region and beyond. Hardly anyone here controls anything at all. It is simply impossible, and even more so in Islam. There is no rigid vertical of power here, except, perhaps, the institution of ayatollahs in Iran. But they also have a fundamentally different system.

It should be understood that the religious factor in his relations with the state is much more inflated than in reality. The flow of people going to the Islamic world to fight, does it mainly for money. Very few go to terrorist and radical organizations on different fronts based on their beliefs. Most are mercenaries. Or those who left the local authorities, having quarreled with them over the redistribution of property or during the struggle of the elites. They go to the forest or the mountains - simply because the local elites are deeply corrupt and are completely unable to cope with the situation. We see this today in Dagestan, with which Vladimir Vasiliev has to work in a rather tough regime, mowing a clearing in which the previous leadership has misbehaved. I remember how a dear person, a senator from Dagestan, once harshly objected to me in the Federation Council to arguments that they had such a large Salafi ummah (and I think that half of their religious points are pro-Saudi Salafis). And then what happened happened. This is an objective reality. It is in vain to expect from people what they cannot.

In any case, has the war in Chechnya been extinguished? Redeemed. Remnants of some radical Islamist groups in Chechnya, for example, sometimes try to carry out terrorist acts. Sometimes these attacks are directed at local Christians, as was the case recently, sometimes at local authorities. But they cannot seize power in the republic. Another alarming situation: often in the corridors of power you can see guys with Russian passports, with the Russian language, who have received a good Islamic education by our standards - they come to the administration, entering the local power structures. As a rule, they are greeted with open arms, because they declare: “We speak the same Russian language with you! Let us solve all problems with Islam in favor of the state, because we are patriots. Yes, we will also bring money, and we will do everything for our own money. Very often, the authorities are led to this. The result is the emergence in the Russian Federation of cells that are not inclined to build a Russian state, and even more so to subordinate the central government in Moscow, which for them is a complete jahiliya ( paganism, primitive ignorance before the adoption of Islam — approx. ed.). But they will not say anything about jahiliy to the local governor.

Photo: shaimiev.tatarstan.ru

"WE STILL REMAIN A TERRITORY WHICH MAY BE USED FOR WORLD ISTOBLISHMENT IN ANY CASE"

- Tatarstan is not a problem area in this sense? After the agreement with the republic was not extended and the “law on native languages” was pushed through the State Duma, there is noticeable fermentation among Tatarstan nationalists and intellectuals.

- It is clear that under Mintimer Sharipovich Shaimiev, a flexible and wise man who understood in his time that the country was crumbling, certain processes were going on in Tatarstan. Those who want to remember that a couple of decades ago, before Putin came to the presidency, the question was not whether the Russian Federation would crumble or not - it was not even discussed - but into how many specific pieces, 8 or 10, and how they will then live with each other. How many different Russians will we have? And already everything was formalized territorially: there was already the Ural Republic of Eduard Rossel (no matter how much later they assured that the Ural franc was released "just like that, for themselves"). Tatarstan, with its oil and industry, was certainly one of these parts.

- Could a whole Volga caliphate arise?

- Caliphate or not, but Mikhail Sergeyevich Gorbachev laid a huge mine under the RSFSR, making an attempt to equate the autonomous republics with the union ones, knowing full well that most of Russia was made up of national and autonomous republics, from Mordovia to Yakutia. But Gorbachev wanted to leave Yeltsin a terribly leaky "blanket" - and then sew it back from the scraps. "Thank you", of course, for this to Mikhail Sergeevich, as well as for everything else - great and very sincere. Nevertheless, the country did not collapse. Then Boris Nikolayevich experimented with his reforms - “take as much sovereignty as you can” - within the framework of keeping yourself in power. And the theme was simple: when Yeltsin leaves the presidency, everyone shakes hands and disperses in different directions. And then the topic changed, but it changed quite by accident. It was such a historic turn that no one could have guessed. But the memory of the very possibility "to disperse in different directions" remained. What if Putin ceases to be president, because there is no one eternal. Why can't the situation repeat itself? A strong ruler never leaves a strong one "in the kingdom" for himself.

As you know, Vladimir Putin became the head of the country by accident. He was just very quiet, did not express ambitions. Nobody could have guessed that he would be a very strong leader of the country, and today - a political patriarch of a planetary scale (and this is really so: remember how many European and American leaders have changed while he was building up his experience). But the fact that the country would follow the same disastrous path as the Union was predictable. Suddenly, in the 2030s, everything will return to normal? Even if Putin chooses the role of Deng Xiaoping and installs a successor in 2024. But will he leave in the 30s? Most likely it will go away. Because there are no eternal ones. Even the toughest ruler - remember Lee Kuan Yew in Singapore - could not control the country at the age of 80–90. We see this in dozens of examples.

And this is where different things can happen. It's good for the regionals when there is no boss above you in Moscow. Nobody pesters, you can print your money, you can share in a huge number of different ways everything that is on your territory and become very rich and influential. But on the ground everything is there: some have diamonds, some have timber, some have oil and gas, some have profitable transit or large ports. This is real, and this reality is taken into account by everyone - in Washington, in Brussels - to the extent that Brussels is generally able to take into account something. The EU itself is now crumbling into a patchwork quilt. But why not? Gnawing off a piece from a neighbor is generally sacred. We saw this in the 1975 Helsinki Agreement on the Inviolability of Borders in Europe. It died less than a decade and a half after it was taken. Where is that Yugoslavia, where is the GDR and the FRG, where is the Soviet Union? Yes, nowhere.

But we still continue to be a territory that, if something happens, can be useful to the world establishment. So Tatarstan simply exists here in objective reality. It is impossible to say that there are no other subjects of the Russian Federation that would like to follow the same path.

As for the language, everything is clear here. Where the local leadership is focused on developing their language to the detriment of Russian ... What can you say to him? Economic processes, career growth of children, forcing them to learn Russian and English - where to get away from this? Or will the children of nationals stay in their region all their lives? But the objective interests of the local elite make them object: "And our language - will it die out?" This is a separate topic, maybe experts would have figured it out, but no one ever asked them. The Russian language has dominated and will always dominate throughout the former territory of the Soviet Union. Even in special zones like Ukraine, where a real war is going on against him. You can, of course, try to strangle him, as in the Baltic states - in the same Latvia, where the imposition of the Latvian language is going on even where the Russian population has lived from time immemorial. But even there the Russian language retains its position, because the Latvian language, excuse me, is not the language of international communication.

"Nobody could have imagined that Putin would be a very strong leader of the country, and today - a political patriarch of a planetary scale" Photo: kremlin.ru

- Let's go back, if I may, to Turkey. Has it already de facto become a theocratic Islamic state?

- Turkey became Erdogan's dictatorship, of course, with strong Islamic content, but also with a very strong secular component. Just like our country, Turkey existed for many decades in the form of a secular regime. She's used to it. There are many more believers there than we have, simply because it is a country of Islam. And in Islam, as we remember, there are much more active believers than in Christianity. And the religion itself is quite young. Of course, for almost one and a half thousand years, this statement sounds pretty funny, but she is in a state of seething, boiling and revolutionary protuberations - similar to those that were in Europe during the religious wars of the 16th century. Maybe you want everything to happen faster, but the speed of processes in the religious world is approximately the same for all confessions.

Erdogan is a man, of course, a believer, and for him Turkish Islam is one of the components of his neo-Ottoman future. Because, firstly, you need to restore the empire, and secondly, let Islam in the correct Turkish form be around the world. In this regard, the Islamists of Turkey have greatly increased their influence - especially through the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Religious Affairs. At the same time, note: as soon as competition with the same Gulen arose, the scheme of the late General Alexander Lebed instantly worked: “Two birds do not live in the same den” ( words spoken to the general Anatoly Kulikova in 1996, — approx. ed.). Well, yes, Fethullah Gülen and his jaamat helped Erdogan defeat the army, trample the judicial system, change the constitution, remove those and these, take power ... And then, actually, why such an ally? He's too strong. And now Gülen is the main enemy of Recep Erdogan.

Let's not forget that Erdogan only recently, on June 24 of this year, once again won the presidential elections in Turkey - in the first round, gaining 52.5 percent. And what we see now is his first steps after the elections. They said that Erdogan with his oncology was about to leave for another world, but they talked about this for a long time. I'm not more worried about how he will behave in the near future, but what will happen after him. Erdogan is cleaning up the political field, including within his Justice and Development Party (AKP). Many of those who could compete with Erdogan have already left the clearing, including his longtime favorite Ahmet Davutoglu ( served as Prime Minister of Turkey until May 2016 — approx. ed.) - the author of the book "Strategic depth" and the very idea of \u200b\u200ba new Turkey. Which of the former is still left? Is that Hakan Fidan, who is at the head of the special services - the National Intelligence Organization. But here everything is clear: as long as Stalin is alive, Beria is also alive. Those who know too much cannot be sent into retirement, he just needs to be killed. But for now it is necessary.

It is possible that after Erdogan, a serious rollback from the current politician will begin, including in religious terms. In particular, the hunt for Gulen's Jamaat supporters contributes to this.

- Do you think there will be a rollback back to Ataturk, to secular Turkey?

- You cannot enter the same water twice. The rollback will be towards some other mood. But to what extent this will happen is difficult to predict now. Who under Stalin could have predicted what would happen after Stalin? Could someone have called the name of Khrushchev? It wasn't even funny. Repression by Erdogan, of course, is milder than that of our "leader of the peoples", but this is a colossal repression for Turkey. So Erdogan may well be considered the Turkish Stalin. And guessing about his future and the future of Turkey is not my trade. I’m not a palmist or a Baghdad thief - I don’t know how to guess by the coffee grounds and lamb shoulder blades.

- It's a pity, the Baghdad thief was a wonderful friend for Khoja Nasreddin.

- Well, this is in the works of Leonid Solovyov. And in life - who knows.

"Iran is just such a factor on the planet, somewhere useful for us, and somewhere competing with us." Photo: kremlin.ru

“WHAT IS IRAN IS OUR ALLY WITH? I STILL REMEMBER THE STORY ABOUT THE MURDER OF GRIBOEDOV "

- Leonid Soloviev, by the way, is your colleague, considering that he was not only a writer, but also a good Leningrad orientalist. Now - about Iran. At the very beginning of the year, we witnessed unrest and a "price revolution" within this always stable state. Is there a risk that a color revolution will come to Tehran under some green banners?

- Iranian society does not at all resemble what it is usually portrayed. What was ridiculously called the "price revolution" was actually an Islamic Revolutionary Guards' (IRGC)-inspired riot that was supposed to demonstrate to the supreme leadership that the government, in the form of Hassan Rouhani, was failing in its responsibilities. That is why people were allowed to spur without suppressing them long enough. This is the intra-elite competition between the people of Rouhani and the people of the IRGC - in the struggle for financial flows and control over the economy. And that's it! The hopes of the Americans, who fanned these events in the press to unthinkable heights, remained hopes. They cherish them since Jimmy Carter said about Ayatollah Khomeini the "brilliant" phrase "We have agreed with this guy" and forbade the Shah to liquidate him. In general, all American forecasts for Iran have always been the greatest stupidity and have not come true in any of the cases. The riots of December - January are a common internal struggle. The regime itself is quite stable and in control of the situation.

If we take into account Donald Trump with his program "to zero Iran's oil exports", then now the press is pouring information that Tehran is about to collapse, literally tomorrow. Because all countries, one after another, will refuse to buy Iranian oil. Of course, this affects Iran, and the information noise raised by the Americans reaches our press as well.

- But our same press is increasingly considering Iran as our ally.

- He has never been our ally and never will. From what devil is he an ally? And no one has allies. In fact, I still remember the story about the murder of Griboyedov ( died in 1829 during the pogrom of the Russian embassy in Tehran — approx. ed.). Of course, you don't need to hide other people's wives in your embassy ( it's believed that Alexander Griboyedov hid in the embassy two Armenian women from the harem of a relative of the shahAllahhar Khan Qajara — approx. ed.), but nevertheless the Persians finished off the Russian ambassador without regret.

Iran is our temporary travel companion and partner; the country with which we maintain economic relations is not the most ambitious compared to Turkey or China. What is our alliance? Well, when you need to close some hole on the Syrian fronts, you can use the pro-Iranian Shiite militia, of which only Hezbollah is fighting decently. Yes, it’s better than dragging our servicemen there, as they once did in Afghanistan. But this is a temporary collaboration.

It is also true that the aggressive American trade policy makes our interests with Iran coincide on many issues. But, if Iran needs to forget about Russia in its own interests and communicate only with Americans and Europeans, it will do it. With whom has Iran signed contracts for the supply of hundreds of aircraft? With Airbus and Boeing, not with Russia. The hopes that we will now sell a huge amount of our Superjets to the Iranians are not worth a dime.

Iran is just such a factor on the planet, somewhere useful for us, and somewhere competing with us. The Iranians did not fight with us in the 90s, their sphere of influence is the Shiite world. They tried to establish their influence with us, including in the Sunni territories. In the same Bashkortostan, the influence of the Iranians could be seen on the example of local villages, but this was a mild influence. The Iranians have never tried to create a bridgehead for some Hezbollah in the Russian Federation, as in Iraq or Syria. And special thanks to them for that. But everyone in Iran remembers that this country was going to be divided, that even at the beginning of the twentieth century, a good half of Iran - both the Caspian Sea region, and Shiraz, and much more - was to become a part of the Russian Empire. That in 1943 it was on the basis of these agreements that we occupied half of the country, and the Americans - the other half. Therefore, they do not feel any particularly warm feelings for us there, as in Turkey. With the difference that in all Turkish dictionaries, Russian is "Moscow giaur" (not the most complimentary term), while Iranians do not. But they also remember whose princess Stenka Razin drowned.

This is how the story developed: everyone tried to conquer everyone. Therefore, our entire south is either former Iran or former Persia. At the same time, under Peter, Mazandaran and Gilan were part of the Russian Empire (returned a little more than 10 years later). But there was also “big Iran”, which stretched into Central Asia - the Iranian-speaking zone. Now there is nothing left of it except Tajikistan. Who was advancing there? Also the Russian Empire, and behind it the Soviet Union. In some places there were quite a lot of Persians in the border areas. And in Persia this is also well remembered.

So I would not bet on Turkey, China or Iran as an ally. Even our bets on the "fraternal", only yesterday Soviet, socialist Ukraine went to pieces and fell into tartars, although it seemed completely impossible.

Photo: Sergey Subbotin, RIA Novosti

“AROUND US - CREEPING POST-SOVIET SPACE. LOOK AT IT AND BE SAD "

- How are our relations with Israel developing? Can our Russian lobby in the Promised Land somehow compete with Jared Kushner and with the Americans in general?

- In fact, Jared Kushner has no influence on Israel. There is the United States with its military and economic influence on Israel. It is clear that the amount of military equipment he receives from Washington is important to him. And it is clear that Jerusalem returns everything with high interest rates, because the Americans never help anyone if it does not bring them good dividends.

As for Russia, in Israel we have not a lobby, but simply a significant part of the population, which is Russian-speaking. We even have a Russian-speaking part of the elite there - I mean Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman (born in Chisinau), Minister of Environment Zeev Elkin (born in Kharkov), who is Benjamin Netanyahu's right-hand man and, possibly, the future mayor of Jerusalem, and now Minister of Affairs Jerusalem. We can mention Yuri Edelstein, speaker of the Knesset (a native of Ukraine, graduated from high school in Kostroma, lived in Moscow) and many others. These are the people with whom our bosses speak Russian. It is enough to watch on TV at Yakov Kedmi, who is now, of course, a pensioner, but in the past he led Nativ.

Today the Russian leadership is doing nothing that could be directed against Israel. Emigration there is free, as in all other countries, there is no oppression of Jews on religious grounds. It is clear that the status of Russian rabbis in our country is determined mainly by proximity to the authorities or distance from them, and not by Israel. But the dialogue is going on here, and there are no particular problems.

Trying to work to increase Russian influence in Israel by reducing American influence is a pointless thing. As, however, in any other country in the world - Kazakhstan or China, Iran or Turkey. Israel will never take one side against the other. To date, he has built a balanced and near-perfect relationship with Russia. That is why the Israeli Prime Minister has met with Putin 13 times over the past 9 years, and each time is more and more positive. But with the American president everything was difficult for them, and before Trump it was very bad. With Barack Obama, not only our relations were not built very well, Israel also felt it.

As far as military affairs are concerned, this is an almost perfect coincidence. It is no coincidence that, given a completely different approach to Iran, both we and the Israelis have an understanding that Israel does not oppose Russia in the Middle East, and Russia does not oppose Israel in ensuring its security. Israeli Defense Minister Lieberman visits us, meets with Sergei Shoigu, and the Iranian Defense Minister, who also often participates in our international military conferences, has to endure this. At the same time, Israel is considered a country of the Western bloc (although it is not a NATO member and never will be). But we do not have the same relations with anyone from the Western bloc as we do with the Israelis. Just recently, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and Chief of General Staff Valery Gerasimov traveled to Israel. For almost the first time in history, Moscow's military campaign in the Middle East does not contradict Israeli interests, since Jerusalem does not need a fragmented Syria that is crumbling into small parts, where one al-Qaeda drives the other. Assad in this sense suits them more.

The very approach - we have more than Kushner's, or less influence - reminds me of a question addressed to a child, whom he loves more - dad or mom. And the significance of Trump's son-in-law has been exaggerated many times over. Israel has a separate relationship with Russia and a separate one with America. Of course, the volumes of trade with the United States are incomparable with the volumes of trade with us, but for objective reasons. The United States is now the main power in the world. Nobody interfered with the Soviet Union not to destroy the country, but to evolve. But the choice in favor of evolution was not made. They dismissed themselves, and they did everything possible to slam the country for decades. Moreover, in many areas this inertia in the Russian Federation is far from being stopped.

- Are you still inclined to believe that in the 2030s we will still see an interesting movie called "Armageddon"?

- There is nothing more interesting than an adventure movie. But it’s better to watch it in cinemas than in real life. And so - we have already experienced interesting things. The collapse of the Soviet Union was so interesting! If this had not happened, many would probably be bored: there was a big country, it was developing ... So about interest ... I am always afraid of interesting things. But there are historical patterns, and they do not depend on us. Even nine women cannot have a baby in one month.

Nevertheless, there is a progressive positive movement. The situation with Crimea is good. The situation with Syria is so phantasmagoric ... Who could have predicted until recently that we will successfully pass this campaign with minimal losses? In addition, we have gained tremendous practical experience in how to conduct modern combat operations in such a difficult environment.

How everything will turn further depends on us. Around - the crumbling post-Soviet space. Look at almost the only stable territory called Kazakhstan. But what will happen there after Nursultan Abishevich Nazarbayev? Take a look at Turkmenistan with its colossal food and currency crisis. It is completely incomprehensible how the fate of this "gas bag" will turn out. Let's look at Kyrgyzstan and drug-producing Tajikistan and scratch in the back of the head: "Oh, how unstable it all is!" We are looking at the Caucasus - well, even more so ... It seems that we could rely on Armenia, but oh no, the government has changed in Yerevan. And then it is not clear. And the famous Slavic brotherhood collapsed so that it still rings in my ears. Ukraine has demonstrated to us that it was not necessary to invest money in the country - all these hundreds of billions of dollars in gas discounts - but that it should be distributed five billion to its bosses.

Everything around us has collapsed and is rolling in tartarars. We could be next, and already should have been. Many worked for this, and Madeleine Albright, then US Secretary of State, spoke frankly about it. I am sure that half of our bosses of the 90s were sharpened for this and were preparing for this. And someone is preparing now - these people have not gone anywhere. Someone ran across Poland and other Europe, and now they are already here - big bosses in small parties. You look at it and feel sad.

Photo: kremlin.ru

"THE USA IS SUPERPOWER, AND WE ARE SUPERPOWER IN ONLY ONE INDICATOR: WE CAN DESTROY THEM"

- I can't help but ask a question about Donald Trump, who is forbidden by strict American uncles and aunts as a “boy from a good family” to meet with “bad boy Vova”, but he still wants and meets. Is this his sincere desire or are there certain industrial circles behind Trump who are pushing him to this?

- Nobody pushes Trump - he is a person of an absolutely adventurous plan, but a very experienced and intelligent president who won the presidential election simply because he is much smarter than everyone thought about him, and plays with fresh cards. He meets with Putin because he wants to. I believe that it is much easier for him to find a common language with Putin than with half of his Democrats and Republicans. Because they are both pragmatists. The difference is that Trump does not stop fighting for his own power, because most of the American establishment and a significant part of the US population would like him to at least kick out of the presidency and not win the next election. And best of all in their fantasies - to be shot. This still distinguishes him from Vladimir Vladimirovich, whom you can "gnaw" as you like, but he wins the elections with a result of 76 percent of the votes. This is a fact: he is the president of a country where the majority of the population is for him, including those who grumble a lot about him and those who do not like the government (and who may like it, with the exception of the Minister of Defense, Foreign Affairs and a couple of other person on this list?). So Putin's position is incomparably stronger than Trump's. Despite the fact that no special elites are behind Trump, these are all fairy tales that back in the 70s were invented by people who did not really know how America works. This is from the category of "conspiracy theories", invented earlier in different corners of the Politburo. As his employees used to say to me: "The system is one-party, but multi-entrance." And it was in the Central Committee. And in the higher school of state security there were also theorists ... Some of whom still go to the Academy of the General Staff to work out nonsense and tell how everything in the world works. Although they have never worked anywhere and abroad and do not know anything there.

Calling Trump a "boy from a good family" is probably possible, but Putin has behaved much more decently all his life and much more decently as a person. In this regard, I like our president much more. But the main thing is that Putin and Trump find a common language, and then - how karma will fall. The president of America can do much less than the president of Russia. Objective reality forces Trump to talk all sorts of nonsense about what a terrible enemy of Russia and Putin he is, so that he is not finally torn to shreds. And so half of America knows that he is our "agent". Therefore, the very fact of meeting with Vladimir Vladimirovich for Trump is a rather risky thing, it is such a slap in the face of his enemies. Can he lift sanctions on Russia? Can not. Can he stop barking at us? Can not. Can he say that all the stories about Russian meddling in the American elections are nonsense? Even that he cannot. Although, on the other hand, he knows for sure that no one in Russia elected him - not even Vladimir Zhirinovsky, who drank to his victory. We just didn’t like - and rightly so didn’t like - Hillary Clinton, suspecting that this Gingema would definitely not make us any better.

We have severe limits on what we can achieve in dialogue with the Americans. In the areas in which they need - titanium for aircraft, space - they, of course, will cooperate with us. But Americans are not sentimental, and it depends only on us what role we will have in the world. Ridiculous shouts about Trump meeting with Putin - "Hurray!" - usually emitted by people who have never had their own money, nor their power, nor their risks associated with money and power. Therefore, they react to some terribly strange factors such as “met - did not meet”, spoke well or badly ... Trump's face changed as she shook hands with Putin. I watched the corresponding video for a long time and tried to understand where she changed in her face ... As far as I know, a woman can change in her face, realizing that her shoes are shaking or makeup has come off, or something other extraordinary happened, and now she now I would very much like to fix the unbuttoned button or the untied shoulder strap, but it is impossible, because there are cameras around. Then the woman's face changes. But the American press rallied about how Putin stunned Melania by shaking her hand, and our media began to sing along at the same time. Well, they are such idiots.

What will be the consequences of the Helsinki meeting between Trump and Putin, whether they will meet again, etc. - I will not guess. Nobody ever knows how it will be. Very often it comes out, as in that joke about a sparrow, a cow cake and a fox (In winter, a sparrow flew, froze and fell. A cow walked by. The cake - a splash! - and covered the sparrow. The sparrow warmed up and chirped. Hence the three morals: not the enemy who put you in the shit; not the friend who pulled you out of the shit; you sit in shit, sit and don't chirp!). Here is the same thing. It's like Mao Zedong's poisonous offer to Nikita Khrushchev to swim in the pool together ( during the visit Nikita Khrushchev to Beijing in autumn 1959 — approx. ed.). Mao was a famous swimmer, he could easily swim across the Yangtze, but Nikita Sergeevich - somehow not very much in his family shorts. What was then the tough enmity between the Soviet Union and China and how did it all end on Damansky Island ( in the spring of 1969, the largest military Soviet-Chinese conflict happened here — approx. ed.), we know.

It's not bad when you have a meeting of two world-class leaders. They say that America is dying out, but it will go out for a long time, it is a superpower, and we are a superpower in only one indicator: we can destroy them. And they will not be able to do anything against it. In economics, we are certainly not a superpower. However, the meeting of the American and Russian President, which passed positively, even against the background of today's Cold War, sanctions and other nasty things, is already good. But personally, I completely stopped going to America.

- Why? You didn't get on the sanctions lists, did you?

- I do not like meaningless things. On my last visit, I was asked for a long time by a strange man, who was standing at the customs officer's place, about what my Institute of the Middle East was doing. And before that, they kept me for half an hour in a local "monkey house" with potential illegal immigrants, taking my passport so that this sort of "customs officer" could get there. And I got the understanding that it is probably harmful to my health now to visit the United States. Skype works, which means I can talk to my mother-in-law anyway. As for the sanctions, I am absolutely invulnerable to them. To do this, you just need not to keep a foreign passport, not to teach children abroad, not to buy real estate there and not open accounts there. Just nothing.

Evgeny Yanovich Satanovskywas born on June 15, 1959 in Moscow. Russian orientalist and economist, one of the leading experts in the field of politics and economics in Israel and other countries of the Middle East. Founder and President of the Research Center "Institute for the Middle East" (formerly the Institute for the Study of Israel and the Middle East). Candidate of Economic Sciences, Professor. Third President of the Russian Jewish Congress (2001-2004). He is married with two children and three grandchildren.

Graduated from the Moscow Institute of Steel and Alloys in 1980 and worked as an engineer in the pipe rolling department of the State Institute for the Design of Metallurgical Plants. In 1984, due to the death of his father, in order to support his family, he got a job as a hot shop worker at the Hammer and Sickle plant.

By his own admission in a speech at the Federation Council, since 1982 he worked on the topic of religious extremism in the USSR State Security Committee. In 1982, under the influence Sergei Lugovsky, whose father, together with Satanovsky's father, worked at MISiS, entered his circle for the study of Hebrew. In the mid-1980s, he participated in Jewish public life and became a member of the Historical and Ethnographic Commission. In 1988 he left the plant and went into business, becoming in 1989 the president of the financial and industrial group of companies "Ariel".

Since 1993 - President of the Institute for the Middle East (until 1995 - Institute for Israeli Studies, until 2005 - Institute for Israeli and Middle East Studies.

In 1999 at the Institute of Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences under the scientific supervision of Doctor of Economics, Professor Vladimir Isaev defended his thesis for the degree of candidate of economic sciences on the topic "Specificity of the economic development of Israeli society in the 90s" (specialty - 08.00.14 "world economy and international economic relations").

Since 1995 at the filing Vladimir Gusinsky began to create a Russian Jewish Congress. 2001-2004 - the third president of the Russian Jewish Congress. Replaced in this post Leonid Nevzlin... Previously, he was Vice President responsible for charity, higher education, culture, science and sports. Member of the Board of Directors of the World Jewish Congress.

He teaches geopolitics and economics of the Middle East region at the Department of Jewish Studies, head of the Department of Israeli Studies at the Center for Judaism and Jewish Civilization at the Institute of Asian and African Studies at Moscow State University. Since 1998, he has lectured at the Higher School for the Humanities. Dubnova (Hebrew University of Moscow). He also taught at MGIMO.

Vice President of the International Council of Regents of the International Center for University Teaching of Jewish Civilization at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Member of the Presidential Council of the Russian Society for Friendship with Arab Countries. Member of the editorial boards of the journals "Diaspora", "Bulletin of the Jewish University" and "Eastern Collection", the academic council of the "Library of Judaica". Until 2012 - Member of the Supervisory and Coordination Council of the quarterly scientific journal "State, Religion, Church in Russia and Abroad."

Participates as an expert and speaker in specialized scientific conferences. Participates in his friend's programs Vladimir Solovyov at the Vesti FM radio station, where also from Tuesday to Thursday, together with Sergey Korneevsky broadcasts "From two to five". Participant of Russian socio-political talk shows on state TV channels, including "Evening with Vladimir Solovyov" (since 2015).

On the Russia 1 TV channel, he commented on Donald Trump's statement that he hopes to conclude a new agreement with the Russian Federation, which will be "much better" than the previous one.

“One should not be surprised at his actions, they are more or less stereotyped, as was the case with Iran, as it was with North Korea, and now with this treaty on medium and short-range missiles. In essence, it turns out that Trump wants something new. agreement, a new agreement, and in this agreement he wants to get more favorable, in his opinion, conditions. Like any businessman, "Kedmi said.

“He hopes that he will succeed, but so far he has not succeeded anywhere. And therefore they (USA - approx. FBA) suddenly changed their tone regarding the withdrawal from this agreement. They say:“ Within six months we will finally decide, and maybe something will change. "He hopes that it may still be possible to agree on new conditions that are more beneficial to him," the expert believes.

At the same time, Kedmi believes that Trump's hopes for bargaining with Russia are in vain. "Perhaps the Americans will understand that by leaving and finally breaking this treaty, they will create even worse strategic conditions for the United States - in general, and in Europe - in particular," he suggested.

According to him, Trump "hopes that the withdrawal from the treaty will lead to an aggravation of relations" between Russia and Europe, instead of leading to an aggravation of relations with the United States. "" At least that is how they represent it all, "Kedmi said. in fact, according to the expert, Trump "substitutes Europe" because today it is "more or less safe."

“By becoming a platform for missiles threatening Russia, Europe is putting itself under attack, a powerful blow, much stronger and much more dangerous for it than it thinks,” he is convinced. The Israeli expert pointed out that Trump's steps confirm Washington's strategic miscalculation, which allowed the American army to find itself in the position of "catching up" when "Russia's strategic power has become much stronger and outweighed the American one."

"The gap is growing, and withdrawal from this agreement will lead to an even greater advantage for Russia at all levels over the Americans," Kedmi stressed.

Soloviev asked the expert how it could have happened that the United States, with all its defense spending, let Russia go ahead. According to Kedmi, "Russia is exporting its intellectual capabilities, but inside it continues to develop faster and faster."

“Probably, this speaks not only of talents in Russia, but also of a slightly dismissive assessment, an incorrect assessment of Russia in the West,” the expert noted. As for costs, Kedmi cited Israel as an example, which created the strongest army in Europe at a relatively low cost. In his opinion, the main reason for the current situation in the United States is the ineffective use of funds.

Vlasov as the leader of "another Russia" in the theoretical civil war, which arises in the inflamed minds of a number of representatives of the domestic opposition on the theme of the Great Patriotic War, that it turned out to be a civil war - well, in general, there was such a Hitler "liberator". It's not the same for everybody! I was somehow very much cut across for a number of reasons: a lot of people in the family died in that war, and in general, I am somehow very skeptical about the post-war reality in the world. And it is no coincidence that I was honored to write a whole book "Once upon a time there was a people", which, to my deep satisfaction, was banned, withdrawn from sale in Ukraine and the Baltic states, greatly offended by what was written there. In the Baltics it started right in Estonia - well, good!

And given the fact that the national bosses are personally for me for some unknown reason ... The fork could have gone a completely different path - we could have gone exactly the same way as Ukraine: we had the same oligarchs, we also had the level of disintegration of the Union in Belovezhskaya Pushcha. .. And what, in fact, was better than each of the three presidents who dispersed? And it could easily be like this in every country! We would now glorify Vlasov, as Bandera is glorified in Ukraine now. And who could object to what if it was for the top level of the authorities the subject of his personal pride? Well, maybe that is, after all, Russia has remained as a big metropolis. That is, it did not collapse, as Brzezinski sincerely dreamed, because when Pan Zbigniew said that Russia with Ukraine is an empire, and without Ukraine it is not an empire! I remember, I still managed to catch him at the Yaroslavl Forum, he said many things to his students beautifully, but pointlessly - of course, Russia became an empire not thanks to Ukraine, but thanks to Siberia! Siberia, further the Far East - everything that happened, this is the Empire!

Yes, of course, another topic began with Ukraine, more precisely, it continued - these are the passage to the West to the very Europe, which was in Rurikovich's times partly quite "our all". It is enough to recall the origin of the then princely family, and who sat there over this whole Europe - those same Scandinavians were sitting! Lord, what's the difference ?! We mainly had ethnic Swedes, but there were Danes, Norwegians - in general, there was no difference! They were collected in one such large generic pool and knew it very well. And then somehow there was also the Livonian War under Ivan Vasilievich - which, as a matter of fact, we did not have with this very West! And what will we not have with him yet! Those who assume that we will somehow disperse calmly, will not disperse!

 

It might be useful to read:

• How hydrocracking differs from synthetics;
• Do-it-yourself easy installation of a rear view camera on a car;
• Graphite grease: characteristics and application on a car;
• Graphite Lubricant: Automotive Applications;
• Green grease Castrol LMX: characteristics and use;
• How to connect a camera to a Chinese radio tape recorder;
• Car oils and everything you need to know about motor oils;
• Evgeny Satanovsky (02/05/2019) From two to five. Evgeny Satanovsky: “I really do not want the third in a hundred years of disintegration of the country Satanovsky last articles;