3.1 Laws of the Great Space
The fundamental law of geopolitics is the principle of Greater Space, highlighted by Mackinder and Haushofer and developed by Karl Schmitt. According to this principle, the national sovereignty of a state depends not only on its military strength, technological development and economic base, but on the size and geographic location of its lands and territories. Classics of geopolitics wrote down hundreds of volumes, proving that the problem of sovereignty directly depends on the geopolitical independence, self-sufficiency, autarky of the region. Those peoples and states that really strive for sovereignty must first solve the problem of territorial self-sufficiency. In our era, only very large states located in regions strategically protected from a possible attack (military,political or economic) of other state entities.
In the period of the confrontation between capitalism and socialism, the need for blocs, Large Spaces was obvious. No one doubted that a country could be “nonaligned” only at the cost of its removal from the sphere of planetary geopolitics due to marginalization and displacement to the periphery. In addition, all the "non-aligned" all the same made a choice in favor of a particular camp, although less radical than direct supporters of socialism or capitalism. The destruction of one superpower, of course, seriously changes the geopolitical space of the earth. But at the same time, the principle of Large Spaces does not lose its strength. On the contrary, today the geopolitical project of “mondialism” is becoming more widespread, the meaning of which is to turn the entire surface of the earth into a single large space,managed from the american center.
3.2 Pax Americana and the geopolitics of mondialism
The project of the pro-American, “atlantist” Great Space, the creation of the planetary Pax Americana or the establishment of a “new world order” with a single “world government” are, in fact, geopolitical synonyms. It is such a plan that is being developed and implemented today in the international politics of the West, and first of all, the USA. It is obvious that the mondialist concept of the Great Space completely excludes any forms of genuine state and political sovereignty of any peoples and states. Moreover, the bipolar world gave incomparably more degrees of freedom (sovereignty) to states included in the sphere of influence of one of the two Large Spaces than is planned in the mondialist project, if only because that planetary confrontation forced not only to suppress satellite states, but also to bribe them. The united planetary Great Space of Mondialist futurologists will mean the complete disappearance of even the faint shadow of any sovereignty, since the power (military or economic) suppression of fragmented and atomized "small spaces" will become the only way to control (the need for bribery and deceit will disappear by itself in the absence of a possible geopolitical competitor).will be the only way to control (the need for bribery and deceit will disappear by itself due to the absence of a possible geopolitical competitor).will be the only way to control (the need for bribery and deceit will disappear by itself due to the absence of a possible geopolitical competitor).
The current situation poses for every state and every people (and especially for states and peoples that were previously part of the geopolitical bloc opposed to the Atlantic West) a viable alternative either to integration into a single Great Space under the leadership of the Atlantists, or the organization of a new Great Space that can withstand the last superpower. The question of genuine geopolitical sovereignty is directly related to this alternative, but at the same time there can be no full sovereignty for an individual people or state in either of two cases. When adopting the mondialist model, all sovereignty is generally deliberately excluded, since "world government" becomes the uncontested and only center of power, and in this case only the planetary pseudo-empire of the "new world order" is sovereign. All its parts become colonies. When organizing a new Large Space, we are dealing with relative sovereignty within the framework of a large geopolitical formation, since this possible Large Space will be relatively free in determining the ideological and worldview dominant. Hence, nations and states,who will be included in this block will be able to count on at least ethnocultural sovereignty and direct participation in the creation and development of a new macroeology, while the mondialistic version of the “new world order” is already ideologically finished and developed and is offered to all the peoples of the earth as a colonial analogue liberal market American model.
3.3 Paradox of Russia
The peculiarity of the current geopolitical situation is that the initiative to destroy the Eurasian Greater Space, which existed until recently in the form of a socialist camp, came from the very center of this camp, from the capital of Eurasia, Moscow. It was the USSR, represented by Gorbachev, who initiated the inclusion of the Eurasian bloc in the mondialist project. The ideas of "perestroika", "new thinking", etc. at the geopolitical level, meant the complete adoption of the model of a single Great Space and a conscious transition from a bipolar world to a unipolar. At first, the socialist camp was destroyed, the Eastern bloc was cut. Then, geopolitical self-liquidation was continued, and those regions that today are called "neighboring countries" were discarded from Russia.
Be that as it may, Russia, as the heart of the Eurasian Island, like Heartland, in the current geopolitical situation, could better withstand all other regions than Atlantic geopolitics and be the center of an alternative Greater Space. But the fact of her geopolitical self-liquidation made her temporarily (hopefully for a short time) leave the central roles in the geopolitical confrontation. Therefore, it is necessary to consider other possibilities of creating an alternative Greater Space so that states and peoples refusing the mondialist project could take some independent steps, not expecting Russia's geopolitical awakening. (By the way, these steps could only accelerate such an awakening).
3.4 Russia remains the "Axis of History"
The geopolitical choice of an anti-Mondialist alternative outside of temporarily paralyzed Russia should nevertheless take into account the key strategic and geographical function of precisely the Russian lands and the Russian people, which means that the confrontation with modern mondialists, who to some extent control the Russian political space, should not go into general Russophobia. Moreover, the fundamental geopolitical interests of Russians, both culturally, religiously, economically, and strategically, coincide with the prospect of an alternative anti-Mondialist and anti-Atlantic Great Space. For this reason, the national trends of the political opposition within Russia will necessarily be in solidarity with all the antimondialist projects of geopolitical integration outside of Russia.
3.5 Mitteleuropa and the European Empire
One of the possible alternatives to the new Greater Space is Europe, which is opposed by certain political and ideological circles to the West to the Anglo-Saxon world, and above all, the United States. Such an anti-Western Europe is not a pure utopia, since such a project has been repeatedly implemented in history, although each time with certain errors or distortions. So, in the XX century, the Axis countries were the backbone of just such a Europe, although Anglophilia and Francophobia of certain circles in the German leadership (along with other circumstances) prevented the full implementation of this project. After World War II, such an attempt was made by De Gaulle, and France owes this policy to the fact that it is not today officially a member of NATO. Be that as it may, the idea of anti-Western, traditional, Imperial Europe is becoming more and more relevant today, when the presence of American troops on the European continent is no longer justified by the presence of the "Soviet threat" and becomes an open American occupation. Europe, in terms of its technical and economic development, is a serious opponent of America, and with increasing pressure from below the natural geopolitical interests of Europeans, the Mondialist and pro-American elite of European states may recede, and Europe will begin an independent geopolitical life. Trends in political emancipation and in the search for an ideological alternative are growing in Europe every day, in parallel with this, the chances of creating an independent European Greater Space are increasing.
3.6 Germany the heart of Europe
The European Great Space should be formed around the most continental of the European powers around Germany, and more precisely, around Mitteleuropa, i.e. Middle Europe. Germany's geopolitical interests have traditionally been opposed to the atlantic tendencies of the West. This concerned both the continental and the colonial aspects of geopolitics. Germany has always been an opponent of the Anglo-Saxon colonial conquests and sought to create a purely land, continental, autarkic civilization based on traditional, hierarchical and soil values. Mitteleuropa represented by the Austro-Hungarian Habsburg Empire was the last European trace of the Great Roman Empire, to which European civilization dates back to its state-social aspect. As a matter of fact, the Roman Empire was a Great Space,uniting Western and Central Europe into a single geopolitical organism. And today the idea of the European Empire is directly connected with Germany and the countries included in the zone of German influence.
From these theses, one important geopolitical conclusion can immediately be drawn. For all Western countries of the "near abroad" (both the Baltic republics, Ukraine and Moldova), an antimondialist geopolitical union is possible only when entering the Central Europe bloc (unless, of course, the situation in Russia itself does not change) with orientation to Germany . In this case, the western regions of the USSR will have a chance to become the eastern border regions of the European Greater Space and will be able to have some semblance of sovereignty (although much less than in Russia or in a possible new Eurasian Bloc centered in anti-mondialist Russia).
The European Empire will be able to guarantee certain cultural, linguistic and economic autonomy for these regions and save them from a leveling Mondialist System, which destroys even hints of distinction, autarchy and preservation of national identity in a liberal-market, plutocratic structure. However, there will be no talk of any political and state independence. Moreover, the European Empire with the German center will always be in danger of an outbreak of German nationalism, although this is fraught with its collapse, as was the case with the defeat of Hitler's “pan-Germanism”.
3.7 "Join Europe"
Most of all, this prospect is close to Western Ukraine and Estonia, since only these areas really belong historically and religiously to Western culture and consider their geopolitical interests identical to those of Central Europe. As for the other "countries of the near abroad," Belarus and the eastern and central regions of Ukraine belong politically and culturally to the Russia-Eurasia zone, and if there is a cultural difference in some ways, then it can be reduced to particular details, by no means which does not imply a change in the geopolitical bloc from the East to Central (Central Europe) and can be settled within the framework of ethno-cultural (but not state!) autonomy. Lithuania, for its part, has always played a special role in the geopolitics of Eastern Europe, performing a dual function in relation to Russia, she acted as a bearer of Western culture, in relation to Central Europe, on the contrary, she showed herself together with Poland as an Eastern force, defending the Baltic-West Slavic independence from German pressure. From a geopolitical point of view, in recent centuries Lithuania has become either German or Russian, and the only thing that it has not been for a long time (and cannot be) is Lithuanian, since it does not have sufficient geopolitical prerequisites to meet the conditions sovereignty advanced by modernity.
In part, the same can be said about Latvia, although unlike Lithuania, it never played any independent role in geopolitical history, being a periphery of extraneous influences in the Baltic.
As for Moldova, this territorial entity also never had its own statehood, and any independent political and state tradition among the Romanians, like the Moldovans, is completely absent. However, historically, Romania (including some lands of Moldova) was part of the geopolitical block of both Russia-Eurasia and Central Europe (represented by Austria-Hungary), therefore Romania had a definite precedent for an alliance with Central Europe. Although the Orthodoxy of the overwhelming majority of Moldovans and Romanians brings them closer to the East and Russia.
3.8 The Limits of “Freedom” and Lost Benefits
The prospect of the entry of Western countries of the "near abroad" into the European Empire and their adjoining to Central Europe is possible and historically justified, although in almost all cases (excluding Estonia as the colonial lands of the Teutonic Order, inhabited by descendants of silent and submissive autochthonous Ugro-Finnish workers, and Western Ukraine) The eastern bloc of Russia-Eurasia, from a purely geopolitical point of view, is much more preferable, since these regions are more culturally connected with the East than with Central Europe. Thus, the alliance of the Western “near abroad countries” with Central Europe can serve as an intermediate version of the antimondialist geopolitical orientation if Russia continues to abandon its integration mission.
It should be noted that, of course, these countries will not receive any political sovereignty if they become part of the hypothetical "European Empire", since the Great Space, providing geopolitical, economic and military patronage, requires its citizens, in turn, to renounce political -national independence, from the right to pursue one's own ideological or diplomatic policy, which runs counter to the interests of the Empire. No matter how it affects the representatives of "small nationalism", in our situation only superstates, continental Empires, taken as a whole, can be sovereign.
3.9 "Sanitary cordon"
The geopolitical problem of the Western “countries of the near abroad” has another aspect: the Atlantic factor , which acts directly and imposes political moves on these countries that are beneficial to mondialism and Americanism. There are several levels to this question. Let's start in order.
The USA has the prospect of real world domination only if there is no other Large Space on the planet. It follows that American geopolitics, as its main goal, is to destroy the potential geopolitical strong bloc and create obstacles to its formation. In history, we have a precedent for such a policy in the person of England, which has always sought to create a “sanitary cordon” or “sanitary cordons” on the continent. A “sanitary cordon” is a territory of states and peoples located between two large geopolitical entities, whose union or mutual entry into the Great Space could constitute a dangerous competition for the interested state (formerly England, today the United States). Countries "sanitary cordon"as a rule, they are simultaneously the cause of conflicts between the two continental powers, and their geopolitical independence is de facto impossible, and therefore they are forced to seek external, political, and military support. The essence of the policy of the third major geopolitical force in this situation is to make the “sanitary cordon” a zone of tension between two close Large Spaces, provoking an escalation of the conflict through diplomatic influence on the governments of the “intermediate” countries. The most radical version of the “sanitary cordon” is the situation in which the “intermediate” country strives for complete independence from both continental neighbors, which in practice means the transformation of a third “distant” power into a colony.
The most famous example of a “sanitary cordon” was at the beginning of the century the countries located between Russia and Germany and controlled by England. They defeated the Great Space of Central Europe and the Great Space of Russia-Eurasia, serving as direct agents and satraps of the countries of the European West. The same move was repeated repeatedly in other more local situations. Nowadays, because of the direct geopolitical necessity, the United States is forced to make the "sanitary cordon" the main instrument of its foreign policy. A report by the US Security Adviser Paul Wolfowitz to the US government (March 1992) explicitly stated "the need to prevent the emergence of a strategic force on the European and Asian continents that can counter the US," and in this sense it was stated that countries "the sanitary cordon "(in particular, the Baltic countries) are "the most important strategic territories, an attempt on which by the Russians should entail an armed rebuff from the NATO countries." This is an ideal example of the geopolitical logic of a third power in the zone of mutual interests of Germany and Russia.
3.10 Transformation from province to colony
The policy of the “sanitary cordon” can be expressed in the formula “independence from the neighbor and dependence on the far”. At the same time, one must clearly understand that there can be no talk of any genuine independence or sovereignty, although the shortsighted “petty nationalism” may at the level of the layman temporarily identify such “colonial dependence on a third power” with success as a national liberation fight. " It should also be recalled that in the case of small states in our well-governed world there can be not only victory, but also a full-fledged, unanimous struggle.
The countries of the "near abroad" that got out of control of Moscow by the will of various geopolitical circumstances, among which their internal struggle for independence played a negligible role (if any), have every chance of becoming the "sanitary cordon" of the US Mondialist policy on the continent, and it means losing the trust of its neighbors and incurring the curse of "double betrayal." Moreover, in this case they will turn from provinces to colonies. What will happen in this case with their national culture is generally scary to imagine, since mondialism will propose instead a universal colonial surrogate, a cultural “colonization”. As rulers, the "sanitary cordon" will have puppet warders. These countries will be completely deprived of political independence, and the security of their people will be constantly threatened by continental neighbors who will not fail to take revenge.
Thus, for the countries of the “near abroad” the prospect of becoming a “sanitary cordon” means the loss of any geopolitical independence, since for the possibility of a “sanitary pug” to tease the “continental elephant”, the pug itself will pay complete political, cultural and economic slavery to overseas chefs “new world order” (and plus the completely logical reaction of the “elephant” in the very near future).
The prospect of a "sanitary cordon" in relation to Western countries of the "near abroad" is obvious. Its formula is “neither Germany nor Russia” (ie, “neither Central Europe nor Eurasia”). Since Germany, as an independent geopolitical force, today is pure potentiality, it is fair to assume that the concept of "independence" ("sovereignty") of the Western countries of the "near abroad" should be seen as a transition to the service of mondialism and Americanism. At least, this is the current geopolitical picture. In other words, the Western countries of the "near abroad", really striving for "independence" (and not "doomed to independence" by the treacherous policy of Moscow), most likely, consciously choose the role of "sanitary cordon" in the service of the United States.This is especially characteristic of those "countries", which traditionally had rather hostile relations with Germany.
The countries of the “sanitary cordon” from the “near abroad” enter into an alliance with the West (with Western Europe), bypassing Central Europe, and this is the clearest sign of their Atlantic, mondialist orientation.
In principle, the same is true for the eastern countries of the "near abroad". However, in order to adequately understand their geopolitical prospects, it is necessary to dwell in more detail on the geopolitical forces of the East.
3.11 Asia before a choice
In the East, there are the following potential geopolitical forces that can claim to become Large Spaces: China, Iran, Turkey and the Arab World. Let us briefly analyze the specifics of each of these Large Spaces as applied to the eastern countries of the "near abroad".
I must say that China's geopolitics is a special topic that cannot be covered in several lines. Since the "near abroad" of the East is a region of the spread of Islam, the prospect of forming a single Greater Space with China fades into the background before the possibilities of Islamic geopolitical coalitions. At least, this is the case at the moment, which does not exclude, however, a sharp activation of the Chinese factor as an integrating factor in the near future.
Within the framework of the Islamic world itself, three geopolitical factors that have global prospects are relevant for the eastern countries of the “near abroad”, each of which has its own distinct ideological features. It is continental but Islamic, revolutionary Iran; secular, atlantist, professionally-nationalistic Turkey; and the Arab "Saudi" theocratic version of Islam. Of course, in the Arab world there are other geopolitical opportunities (Iraq, Syria, Libya), but none of them at the moment can claim the role of integrating Greater Space in relation to the countries of Central Asia. Generally speaking, an orientation toward Saudi Arabia can be conditionally and geopolitically equated with an orientation toward "Arab (non-socialist) Islam."
The eastern countries of the "near abroad" have the prospect of three possible geopolitical integrations within the Asian bloc.
3.12 Continental Perspectives of the "Islamic Revolution"
Iran is today a unique country that plays the role of Central Europe in the West in Asia. It is characteristic that the Iranians themselves sharply distinguish themselves both from the West and from the East, meaning by "West" the "profane mondial civilization of Europe", and by "East" are "India, China and ... Russia."
Iranian Islam is a dynamic and powerful force that has a vivid anti-Mondialist orientation and claims to the global World Islamic Revolution. In a geopolitical sense, Iran is a purely continental power, which has both strategic, economic and ideological opportunities to become the core of a large Eurasian bloc.
Orientation of the Central Asian republics to Iran (and, first of all, Azerbaijan with its oil and giant nuclear Kazakhstan) could well create the preconditions for genuine continental sovereignty. The pro-Iranian coalition would be a Central Asian analogue of Central Europe (compare: Central Asia Central Europe), since historical precedents, and ideological principles, and cultural and religious homogeneity of these continental regions provide a sufficient basis for the strength and effectiveness of such a union.
It is important to note that the pro-Iranian Large Space potentially includes Afghanistan and Pakistan, and this, in turn, opens up a strip of territorial continuity with Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. Iran has direct borders with Turkmenistan.
3.13 The Trap of "Pan-Turkism"
The orientation toward Turkey, often accompanied by "pan-Turkism", has a completely different character (since the Central Asian peoples of the "near abroad" are predominantly "Turkic").
Turkey as a state arose on the site of the Ottoman Empire not as a continuation of it, but as a parody of it. Instead of the polycentric imperial multinational Islamic structure, Kemal Atatürk created the eastern version of the French Etat-Nation, the State-Nation, with a secular, atheistic, profane and nationalist system. Turkey was the first state in the East to abruptly break with its spiritual, religious and geopolitical tradition. In fact, Turkey, today a member of NATO, is the eastern outpost of Atlanticism and Mondialism, the “sanitary cordon” between the Asian East and the Arab world. The geopolitical model that Turkey offers is integration into the Western world and atheistic, mondialist civilization. But since Turkey itself, striving to enter the "Europe", so far remains only "political and ideological "colony of the United States, and not a full member of the European Greater Space (which could theoretically imply Turkey’s participation in the block of Central Europe), then orientation to Turkey means for the countries of the" near abroad "integration into the mondialist project as a" sanitary cordon ", as a “colonial laying” between the eastern continental mass of Eurasia (with Iran, China and India) and the explosive Arab world, constantly striving to throw off the mondialist puppet leadership.
Turkey’s path is the path of serving the Atlantic superpower and adopting the mondialist model of a planetary Greater Space controlled by the “world government”. It may be objected that the card of "pan-Turkism" played out by Turkey has an outwardly traditionalist character. This is partially true, and the projects of "Greater Turkey from Yakutia to Sarajevo" are indeed actively developed by Turkish propaganda. It should be noted that seriousness of these projects could be given only by a radical change in the political, ideological and economic course of today's Turkey, and this implies nothing less than a revolution and a 180 degree turn of geopolitical interests. Not excluding this possibility, it should be noted that there is a low probability of such a course of events in the near future.But at the same time, such a perspective, propagated in the present, can lead to a very specific geopolitical result, to turn the eastern countries of the "near abroad" from Iran, to choose a secular, atheistic model of society, to gradually integrate into the pro-Atlantic "sanitary cordon". “Pan-Turkism” is as ambiguous as “Pan-Slavism” or “Pan-Germanism”, i.e. like all ideologies that place a national attribute above the geopolitical, spatial and religious interests of peoples and states.
3.14 Oil dollars and mondialism
Saudi Arabia, the stronghold of purely Arab Islam and Islamic theocracy, at the ideological level is a special “Wahhabi” model of authoritarian, moralistic and “purist” Muslims, typologically very close to Protestant forms of Christianity. East Asian contemplation, asceticism, and religious passionarity are replaced here by ritualism and the dominance of an almost secular ethics. According to the Islamic fundamentalist Heydar Jemal, Saudi Arabia in its current state is the exact opposite of the world of “ continental Islam.” Geopolitically, the interests of Wahhabi Saudi Arabia completely coincide with a specific version of the Mondialist project, since the economic and military well-being of this country is based on US support.which protect the dynastic interests of the Saudi kings in the military and economic fields. An example of military support is the war against Iraq. Economic "support" is as follows. The entire economy of Saudi Arabia is oil. All Arab oil traditionally enters the world market through Anglo-American hands. The development of Eurasian deposits and their development could theoretically compete with the Saudis, enrich the Eurasian states and make Europe and Japan independent of the United States. Thus, the United States, which control the European economy through control of Arab oil, and the Saudi kings, who base their economies on American petrodollars, have the same interests.
Saudi Wahhabi theocracy has repeatedly acted as an obstacle to the creation of the Arab wide space proper, since this is contrary to the interests of the dynasty and the interests of the Atlantists. The Saudis have even more reason to fear the Eurasian continental Islamic Greater Space. Revolutionary Iran is generally considered the ideological enemy of the number 1 Saudi. Thus, the geopolitical interests of Saudi Arabia in the eastern countries of the “near abroad” are directly opposite to the emergence of the Asian Islamic Large Space. So, the path to Arab-Islamic integration under the “Wahhabi” banner for the Asian republics will in fact also be included in the Mondialist project, but not in the secular-nationalist version of “Pan-Turkism,” but in the moral and theocratic version.In a sense, this path is also nothing more than inclusion in the “sanitary cordon”. Only in this case, the "temptation" is not nationalism, but the religious factor (and money).
Summing up all these considerations, we can say that the eastern countries of the "near abroad" have only one positive way to create a new Greater Space - this is the path of the "Islamic Revolution" with a focus on Tehran. At the same time, national conflicts can be resolved and the religious tradition and religious system restored. At the geopolitical level, this will mean the creation of a powerful continental bloc, quite capable of resisting the mondialist projects in these regions. Moreover, even the first steps taken in this direction will cause a chain reaction in the Arab world, which threatens the Mondialists with a loss of control in the entire Islamic Ummah. Besides,such a geopolitical alliance will inevitably awaken the antimondialist forces of Central Europe (the natural and main ally of Iran in the West) and Russia-Eurasia.
3.15 At least two poles or ... death
In the current geopolitical situation, the question is extremely acute: either the planetary "new world order" under the leadership of the United States, where all states and peoples will be impersonal and obedient "cogs" of the Mondialist technocratic, atheistically-trading "Disney Land" cosmopolitan model, or the immediate creation of a geopolitical opposition to Atlanticism and mondialism and the organization of potentially anti-Mondialist, traditional and soil peoples and states in an alternative bloc (or in several blocs). Today, the situation is so critical that it is almost unimportant how and under what sign an alternative Large Space can arise. If it arises, and if it really opposes mondialism, then this alone will be enough to expand, to diversify and multiply geopolitical alternatives in order to increase internal degrees of freedom within the framework of the antimondialist opposition. It should always be remembered that for the United States"the main task is to prevent the emergence of a geopolitical alternative " (any alternative). Therefore, it is completely fair for all antimondialist forces to put forward the exact opposite thesis: "the main task is to create a geopolitical alternative " (whatever it is).
The situation today is so serious that it is not necessary to choose between “good” and “best” in it. If Russia can restore its geopolitical independence and get rid of the Atlantic leadership perfectly. In this case, the countries of the "near abroad" will have a wonderful opportunity to re-enter Russian Eurasia, this time devoid of the ideological negativity of ambiguous Marxism. In addition, the voluntary and conscious return of the current “near abroad” will be the guarantor of the coming cultural, religious, linguistic, economic, and even, perhaps, political (but not state) autonomy. This would be the easiest and best option. Moreover, the exposure of the true colonial goals of the Mondialists in this catastrophic transition period will certainlya prerequisite for an even greater increase in the number of allies and satellites of Russia-Eurasia (both in the East and in the West).
If this does not happen, the detonator of the antimondialist geopolitical project may be a different Large Space, either Central Europe under the flag of Germany, or united Central Asia under the sign of the Islamic Revolution. In principle, there remains the prospect of an anti-Mondialist uprising in the Arab world and in Latin America, although militarily these potential Large Spaces are not equipped enough to compete with the Superpower.
For the countries of the "near abroad" the problem of the Great Space is central and vital. Today, the whole future of the nation, religion, culture, freedom, prosperity, security depends on the choice of geopolitical orientation. The question is as acute as possible. Today, all responsible people must understand that the adoption of the mondialist model means no more and less than the complete and final destruction of the identity, identity, historical face of their states and nations, the end of their national history.