Perspectives of Information War

What is necessary to win the information war? The main victorious principles are the essence of the national idea.


“Work, brothers!”

At the political evening organized by Ruslan Ostashko on the occasion of his birthday, the brightest was the performance of a young and daring Pole (there will also be other epithets) Tomash Maceičuk. Here is a brief summary of Tomash’s speech, taken from his Vkontakte post: “My God, how I like it when your butts explode. I am alone. There are 20 of you. I say – ukies are cutting you like pigs. There are screams in response. I look into your eyes and say yes, I was there, yes, I helped the Ukrainians, yes, I was burning your fucking ribbons – what for did you come to Ukraine? What did you think about? Wanted romance? You got a bullet in the ass. It happens, right? Well? Did you like the performance? One Pole against a crowd of patriots! What is power, little brothers? Power is in the truth. Painfully? Yes, let it hurt, burn and bake. This is just the beginning!”

The lie in Tomash’s words is in the fact that Ukrainians are not only pro-Western “Maidauns”, but also pro-Russian “quilted jackets”. If the first have the right to seize power in the cities, then the second ones have the same right. If the first ones have the right to receive Western weapons, the second ones also have the right to receive Russian weapons. If the first ones have the right to invite Western military, then the second ones also have the right to invite Russian military. However, the rights of “Maidauns” to attack “quilted jackets” don’t arise. Such a right can only be appropriated and accepted by Nazis. The Maidauns appropriated this right at the suggestion of American administration and European politicians. This means that we are dealing with Nazism and its support.

Let’s leave Tomash’s lie behind and focus on the truth in his words. He didn’t quote it in his post Vkontakte, but the beginning of his speech, in essence, was as follows: “Your planes bomb Syria, while on the Donbass…” and further in accordance with his post. So, it’s true that all our power is thrown into distant Syria and we can’t apply it against the Ukrainian Nazis. We have a weak excuse that bombing brotherly Ukraine is not a good idea, etc. But we don’t have to bomb Ukraine! It’s only necessary to send to the forefathers those who are now bombarding with impunity the cities of the former Ukraine that rebelled against Nazism. We can’t do it, and this was the truth of Tomash’s words. The patriotic audience could easily score him with their feet, but it was a discussion evening, and it was necessary to score him with words. They didn’t sound, and Tomash was extremely pleased with the effect produced by his speech.

Would this speech and such a reaction to it be possible three years ago, when a half-Nazi coup took place in Ukraine, and we were ready invade our troops there to suppress it and called things by their own names? No. Tomash would be immediately called a fascist, he would try to wash off during the rest of the speech, but he would hardly succeed, as he had already shown his essence. So, during the past three years, in the information war (between whom and whom and for what – we will define later) we can note a retreat. Three years ago, Russian propaganda was arousing fear on our enemies. They literally yelled that they didn’t understand the meaning of the images and messages transmitted by it. Head of European diplomacy Federica Mogerini was gathering meetings where secret agreements to counter Russian propaganda were adopted. At the present time, European bureaucracy doesn’t have to make special efforts to cope with it. Dry words about the Russian threat, monotonously repeated by European leaders at every opportunity, are enough.

Let’s allocate several levels of informational war. The first level is interpersonal. At this level we lost the war for Varvara Karaulova against IGIL. The next one is local. I think that the troops of information operations are created to resolve exactly local conflicts and must contribute to the achievement of our victory, for example, in Syria. And, finally, global level, which includes all the previous levels. Without information war at this level, information wars at lower levels will significantly lose their effectiveness. At the global level, which is a subject of interest for us, an information war is an implicit war between good and evil. Why the implicit one? Because it is not determined clearly what is good, and what is evil, and in the warring parties there is both good and evil. For example, in the protests against the immigration policy of Donald Trump, the humanist principle is visibly present. At the same time, I don’t think that people taking part in these protest actions understand to the very end that the forces behind the organization of these protests are responsible for the chaos in the countries from which migrants are fleeing. Thus, the victory in the global information war will be won by the party that will be able to prove that it is completely, not partly on the side of good. In other words, by the party that will be able to clearly describe its position with such words, in the light of which no one will doubt, where the good is and where the evil is.

Noting the retreat on the information front that has happened in the past three years, we must also state the disorder in the wording of our position. Is it possible to interpret the struggle for a multipolar world against the unipolar as a struggle between good and evil? On the eve of the First and Second World Wars, the world was multipolar. Is this the world we are fighting for? Obviously not. Can the struggle between good and evil be presented as a struggle of patriots against globalists? Also not. We are globalists ourselves and participate in the global struggle for a future world order, and Ukrainian Nazis, for example, who also consider themselves patriots, are in the opposite camp of the ongoing global information war.

One can argue for a long time whether it was necessary or not necessary, possible or impossible to introduce troops to Ukraine, but the formulation of the grounds for the introduction of troops, which was considered by the Federation Council and for which it voted, seems to me to be a failure. The formulation was in terms of national policy: “In connection with the extraordinary situation that has developed in Ukraine, the threat to the lives of citizens of the Russian Federation, our compatriots, personnel…”. After it, an unpleasant picture of the suppression of citizens of Ukraine by citizens of a stronger state, Russia, is drawn, and it turns out that we can’t carry out the planned plan in any way, because the whole world will rise up against us in righteous anger. A completely different result could be achieved with a globalist, democratic (international, not national) formulation: “To restore democracy and hold scheduled early presidential elections…”. That would be true. Exactly for that we would have introduced our troops to Ukraine. To ensure equal rights and political views for all the segments of the population, regardless of nationality, and for organizing democratic elections. It’s quite another matter, isn’t it? Claims to the introduction of troops into Ukraine in this case could be found with great difficulty.

Meeting in the UN Security Council, we won’t be able to lock ourselves in a cozy national swamp, like some Swiss canton. Nothing can be done about it – it’s the legacy of the USSR. Accordingly, the wording of our goals in all international affairs should reflect our global essence.

Information war is a war for the resources. In the information war, resources are people with their souls that can feel and their mind responsible for logical conclusions. Therefore, a victorious information war is an offensive war, not a war of defense. What do we have in this component of the information war? We have a deep, echeloned defense. Yes, we sometimes hold brilliant counterattacks, among which Vitaly Ivanovich Churkin’s speeches in the UN Security Council are especially memorable, but on the whole we are defending ourselves. For example, it is not we who introduced economic sanctions against the EU and the US for organizing a half-nazi coup in Ukraine. We responded only by counter-sanctions, after the United States and the EU, having portrayed themselves as righteous and seized the initiative, imposed sanctions against us. In this regard, the recent statement of Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov that we won’t remove our sanctions from the European Union until the Minsk agreements have been implemented could be considered the beginning of the counteroffensive if this statement looked like a systemic one, rather than a one-time trolling which can be ignored.

In order to determine the warring parties in the global information war, let’s take a short look at its history. We are talking about the struggle between good and evil, so we must turn to its rational origins, to the very beginning of the birth of human society. In his book “The Fates of Human Communities”, the American scientist in the field of evolutionary biology, physiology and biogeography Jared Diamond showed that the institution of power was born in response to the inability of primitive morality and primitive technologies to resolve social conflicts. Since then, power, morality and technology have been evolving in unity and in mutual contradiction, creating information wars. Let’s skip many years of civilization and go directly to the origins of modern Europe, to the era of the Roman Empire, when in response to the disintegration of the state due to idleness of power, Christian morality is born, and the Middle Ages together with it.

The Age of Discovery gave the go-ahead to new ways of producing liberal ethics. At the same time, it was the most appropriate tool for the colonists to establish domination over the colonies. Christian morality no more exists, instead of it there is complete individual freedom, if there is no prohibition of the law (aborigines are not people, therefore, the law isn’t applied to them), minimal intervention of the state (metropolis) is a very convenient position for achieving goals by any means. Jared Diamond, describing the cruelty of both Catholic and Protestant colonists towards the aborigines, asks himself, why were they doing so? And he gives an answer – because they could do it. We must give an answer, which we have been giving since the very first time we encountered this kind of a cruelty of civilization during the Great Patriotic War. They were doing so because they didn’t consider other people as human beings. Because the European civilization didn’t impose the necessary moral constraints on them. In other words, we are obliged to call the European colonists “fascists”, and European colonization – “fascist”.
Fascism is not an obligatory attribute of Catholicism or liberalism, but liberal prescriptions are especially conducive to it, which will be shown by the whole subsequent history. After the semi-Nazi coup on Maidan, we should add that we don’t care how the fascist covers his actions, in the name of God or the struggle for freedom, whether he is a cultured person or not. We don’t care what kind of nationality the fascist is – he can be Jewish as well as Russian. It doesn’t matter to us what kind of race he has. Fascism is an absolute evil for us, with which we fought and will fight. Fighting with fascism and building peace in the world is our national idea.

Cruelty of savages is natural. Cruelty of civilization is already fascism.

Liberalism was bringing dividends. Dividends allowed the development of culture – the era of enlightenment began. A more developed culture made it possible to capture more colonies, which yielded even more dividends. Thus, an inverse positive relationship was formed, which was broken only by a limited number of lands available for colonization. While they existed, there was no force in the world capable of resisting liberalism.

The first ones to test the effectiveness of liberal ethics were the Dutch. The first half of the 17th century was the period of Dutch colonial hegemony. Before the bourgeois revolution in England 1640-1650-ies the Dutch fleet was about 10 times larger in the number of ships than the English fleet, and only after the revolution the wide British colonial expansion unfold that brought England and Holland to face each other. As a result of three wars (1652-1654, 1665-1667, 1672-1674), England won. One beast gnawed another beast. France lost almost all of its colonies during the Napoleonic wars, but after another round of liberalization, since 1830, it embarked on the path of fascist conquest again, and by 1870 already had decent colonial possessions: Tunisia, Morocco, colonies in West Africa and the Indochina Peninsula. Catholic Spain by 1826 had lost all its colonies, with the exception of the islands of Cuba and Puerto Rico. Imbued with the spirit of liberalism, the United States gained independence by 1783. Fascism, connected with the spirit of liberalism, was manifested in the fact that the USA, by the middle of the 19th century, began expansion in Latin America, China, Japan and the Pacific Islands.

When the Protestant (as we all know, Protestantism is the spirit of liberalism) German Empire appeared in 1871, the division of the world had already taken place, and liberalism no longer yielded additional dividends in the form of colonies. This was the beginning of the crisis of liberalism. However, stronger countries as a result of wars could still take away the lands from the weaker ones. The world began moving towards the First World War. If we answer in the style of Jared Diamond on the question, why the First World War happened, the answer will be – because it could happen. Civilization had no moral constraints or fear of a world war.

The First World War has led to the formation of the USSR, which defied the colonial world order. There appeared a force capable of resisting liberalism. Unfortunately, if we consider the essence of the information war, a key mistake was made in the system of the Soviet state: Marxism was declared the one and only true theory. It deprived the system of flexibility and led to its death. As a consequence of this mistake, attention wasn’t paid to the development of democracy, which can be viewed as a system of competition of alternative points of view and the identification of the most beneficial one. Instead of it, the stakes were made on brute pressure by force – the “dictatorship of the proletariat” and on the coups – “proletarian revolutions”. As we now understand, coups in the world were leading to military conflicts, lowered the cost of human life and, consequently, were leading to an increase in the degree of exploitation of the working class, with which the USSR was theoretically fighting. On the other hand, a rather weak institution of democracy appeared in liberal countries only at the beginning of the 20th century. Until recently, the authorities there had been established through violence. Modern democracy, from the point of view of which we judge the events of that time, is itself the result of an information war that began with the appearance of the USSR. Therefore, Marxism was natural and the only possible alternative to the global fascism of that time.

The newborn Soviet Union, advocating social justice, launched an offensive in the unfolding information war. Fascists adjusted, evaluated and sought ways to counteract. In 1928, they, led by British ruling circles, accepted the decision fateful for the destiny of the world – to support Hitler who was losing his small popularity. Judging by the Nazi greetings of the members of the British royal family, they were really attracted by the plan to conquer Russia by Germany and, perhaps, they didn’t even plan to defeat Germany afterwards. Perhaps, due to the fact that too painful were the memories of the First World War. And, apparently, the disappearance of the ideological enemy in the face of the USSR and the strengthening of Nazi Germany at the expense of it seemed to them quite an acceptable solution, but they were mistaken. As the continuation of the First World War, on April 9, 1940, Germany invaded Denmark and Norway. By June 22, 1940, the French agreed let Germany occupy most part of French territory. July 16, 1940 Hitler issued a directive on the invasion of Britain, and only after his failure on June 22, 1941 Germany attacked the USSR. For us, the most brutal war in our history begins, which we win. The red flag with the sickle and hammer above the defeated Reichstag forever becomes a symbol of the great victory over German Nazism, and the language we spoke with Nazi Germany is the language necessary for victory over global fascism.

Fascism will further manifest itself in the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, in Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, burned by napalm and DDT, etc. And we will still have separate victories – the first man in space, the first flights to the Moon, the first vehicles sent to explore other planets, but we can say that after the great victory in the information war the great retreat of the USSR begins. We don’t withstand, above all, information strikes, and our country breaks up.

Russia, as the heiress of the USSR, is also the heiress of those information processes as a result of which the Union has disintegrated and which continue to bring harm to our country. In particular, this concerns the interpretation of the history of World War II. What we call “rewriting the results of the Second World War” is a consequence of this process. Here we must understand that on May 9, 1945, the First World War – the war between fascist colonial empires – had ended, and the essence of the World War II was that it was a continuation of the ideological, information warfare between different systems that were radically different from each other. There are no hybrid wars. We can say that the World War II has not yet ended, if fascism is not defeated. Only tactics has changed. Therefore, we must correct the mistakes that the USSR made in the hope of peace with those with whom peace is impossible. The date of the beginning of the World War II on September 1, 1939 doesn’t reflect the role of its participants in any way. In particular, it doesn’t reflect the fact that after Germany’s attack on Poland, France and Great Britain didn’t start any military operations against Germany, but actually planned to start them against the USSR. Therefore, we should be attributed the date of the beginning of World War II to April 9, 1940 – to the date of the actual entry of France and Britain into the war.

As a result of the collapse of the USSR, liberalism receives such a powerful recharge that the American philosopher Francis Fukuyama declares in 1992 about the end of history, which means the final victory of liberalism in the whole world. Fascist liberals perceive it as a permissiveness returned to them from the heyday of colonialism. 7 years pass – NATO begins the bombing of Yugoslavia. Then followed the invasion of Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, the support of provocations, military coups and terrorists in Georgia, Egypt, Syria, Ukraine and Turkey. And finally, in the US elections, Donald Trump has won, who directly accuses the previous administration that the policy of intervention in the affairs of the Middle East had led to a catastrophe. Nevertheless, as we see now, our hopes for any rapid changes in US policy are not justified. The cultural layer associated with fascism is too heavy and weighty. What should we do in this situation?
We have to stop being embarrassed to call the fascists “fascists”, and fascism – “fascism”. This is the language where we are the judges, and therefore, we can manage information flows, prioritize and not allow the “tail wagging the dog”. For example, Berlin called Erdogan’s comparison of the policy of the German authorities against Nazism vile for their prohibition of meetings in support of him. To call us scoundrels for accusing the Merkel administration of Nazism for supporting the coup in Kiev is already impossible. This is we who must blame her for meanness for trying to turn everything upside down, declaring us aggressive. And what else should we be in relation to fascists and fascism? In the end, we should accuse Merkel of supporting Nazism in Ukraine. And, alas, the same thing we should do with the new US administration for providing military assistance to the Kiev junta. And we ourselves should remind our Western partners of the essence of the accusations at any convenient opportunity, until LDNR shelling stops, and Minsk agreements are implemented.

Let’s look at our history again. Russia was lucky to be close to European civilization, to enrich by its culture, to participate in its development and not to become infected with fascism. It was fortunate that the cold lands that she was developing in Siberia, the Far East and Alaska, were not so prolific and were little populated. Therefore, there were no particularly intransigent reasons for enmity with the local people. But the desire to keep up with the increased European wealth exerted its pressure.

At first it was the expenses of Anna Ioannovna’s court, so huge that there was no money for the war with Turkey, and we had to conclude peace. Taxes increased. For their arrears, not only the peasants, but also the landlords are being beheaded. Peter III grants liberty to the nobility. Now the nobility too is free to pursue European luxury. Common costs have increased, and the source of wealth has remained the same – people tied to the ground. Therefore it is not surprising that peasant revolt of Pugachev arises. Paul tries to quell the nobility, but unsuccessfully. He is being killed, and we have since then studied history as a history of the hatred that the nobility felt towards him.

In the next century, the demographic factor begins to exert a strong influence. Not only peasant families were multi-child, but also noble families. The estates were divided among the heirs, and a new generation of nobles became petty. The demoralizing petty nobility forms a class of the intellectuals, in which the idea of ​​a state without an idle class ripens. The peasants became land-poor, and by the end of the nineteenth century, a frequent phenomenon was famine among the common people. The frequency of peasant revolts is increasing. They are taking on an increasingly threatening scale. Meanwhile, in the air there was already the smell of the First World War, to which it was necessary to prepare.

It would seem, here it is, the solution of all our problems, an example of advanced Europe – liberalism. But our liberals don’t understand that the path traversed by Europe works only in conjunction with European colonialism. The cruel process of fencing and the liberation of lands for more productive use are possible only when there are established ways of transporting people to the colonies, even as slaves. Therefore, Stolypin’s liberal projects just led to disaster, and not to greatness. The liquidation of the Russian community only liberated the destructive force. An attempt to relocate part of the peasantry to Siberia didn’t yield anything. In Siberia there were no lands suitable for cultivation, and the peasants returned. The industry, which could have mastered a large number of freed hands, didn’t exist. With the First World War, the revolution became inevitable.

Was there an alternative? Yes, it was. The alternative was to destroy the superfluous people that didn’t fit into the market. This alternative was described by Hitler in his plans to conquer Russia. And exactly to it we returned after 1991, destroying industry, education, science and health. The flag, which was also Vlasov’s one, perfectly symbolizes it. Of course, it’s not so clearly expressed as in Hitler’s plans, but, alas, it’s clearly present in our modern life. I’m afraid that this is the true reason of the fact that we officially abandoned the offensive rhetoric. To be called back “fascists” for the attitude to our own people is not very desirable. And, therefore, this is the reason because of which Ukrainian Nazis with impunity keep on shelling the Donbass. As Margaret Thatcher put it, for Russia 20 million people is enough to service oil and gas pipelines. To our happiness, but not without struggle and losses, in October 1917 we went on a much more humane way of development. We went on the way that led us to unattainable hitherto greatness.

I hope that now the preachers of the revival of the idle class understand why Russia has followed the path of its liquidation. Yes, the modern level of production and the legacy of the USSR allow us to revive and maintain it for some time. But for the victory in the information war the power has to stop the information war with our history and our own people, especially since the result of this war is predetermined. As in October 1917, the people will win. The sooner this happens, the sooner we win in the global information war, and with less loss.
Without an integrated struggle for justice, it’s impossible to launch an offensive against fascism.

How can idleness (the reverse side of which is exploitation) be determined? In economic theory, there is a principle that is very reminiscent of the socialist one – from each according to abilities, to each according to his work. According to the principle of economic theory, the owners of the various factors of production receive payment in proportion to the maximum contribution of their factors in overall production. Idleness can be defined as a violation of this principle of equitable distribution.

For example, management is one of the factors of production. But if production volumes are falling and revenue of managers grow, we observe a clear idleness of management. Because of the law of increasing needs the current level of consumption of the leisure class after a while becomes insufficient and grows. Over time, the consumption becomes increasingly more idle, and increasingly divorced from the real economy. The public interests and the leisure class, in the end, come into irreconcilable conflict, culminating in the elimination of the idle class. Most often in the history it happened through the conquest of one state by another – younger, with less idle control, such as in the classical case of the victory of Rome over Carthage.

The lifetime of the idle class depends on two factors: the size of the state and the growth rate of its consumption. For example, ancient Greece was much smaller than the Roman Empire, and its destruction happened faster. And the eastern part of the Roman Empire thanks to Christianity, which imposed restrictions on idleness, lived for 1000 years more than its western part. Despite the size of Russia, its economy is relatively small. The Orthodox Church doesn’t affect the idle and depends on it itself. Therefore, the trend of development taken after 1991 can’t last long.

The last gesheft, which colonialism received from the destruction of the Soviet Union, has long been eaten, and the problem of the impossibility of maintaining an idle class is observed all over the world. For example, in the United States Trump won under the banner of the fight against financiers – the most outstanding representatives of the idle class. From the Democratic Party Bernie Sanders could advance – directly agitating for democratic socialism. The last surge of neocolonialism in the form of various color revolutions doesn’t bring any benefit at all, as the markets for sale are destroyed and refugees appear. Thus, the building of a just society is the greatest global challenge, the solution of which is a clear signal of taking the side of good.

Information war can also be viewed as a process of reprogramming the society for achieving the most urgent goals. Let’s repeat the main goals. Our first goal is to establish the priority of peace over democracy. If democracy is carried by bombs and rockets – this is fascism. If under the guise of fighting for democracy, part of society is being armed and democratic elections are disrupted, after which a civil war begins – this is fascism. First – peace, then – democracy.

The second principle is the restoration of peace through the restoration of democracy. “The EU declared the conditions for holding elections in the Donbass. Elections in the Donbass are possible with the free participation of Ukrainian parties and the media”. Wonderful! Only first we need to restore democracy in most territory of Ukraine. It’s necessary to conduct democratic elections in Ukraine involving parties from LDPR, the work of all media, including Russian media, as well as observers from the US, EU and Russia (for the time of elections introduce the external management of EU, US and Russia), and to ban Nazi groups. And only after that we can start talking about the participation of Ukrainian parties in elections in the Donbas.

Leave a Reply