CC BY
14
By some indications, it is possible to say that the technological modernization of the country has started already. It is evident that such campaign may not be realized for one or two years: the normal modernization is a permanent process, which resembles to some extent evolution. Therefore it is a naivety to intend to make 'the last and deciding" break-down in modernization process in 2010. The Russian modernization is still a kind of sphinx, waiting for its ideological interpretation and decoding. It depends not only on the president of Russia, whether it will become "glamour whimsy" or will transform into a real and efficient program of actions. Everybody with the urge towards great deeds not only for the name of the country but also for the benefit of every Russian should take part in this work. If it takes place, modernization of Russia will become the reality. Any other approach to the issue will reduce it to "political glamour". There is no other way out...
"Mir i politika ", M., 2010, N 2, p. 3-5.
Nikolay Shmelev,
academician, the director of the IE of the RAS
Valentin Fedorov,
professor, ex-governor of Sakhalin
RUSSIA - THE WEST: THE CONCEPTION OF LIMITED
REQUITAL (the opinion of economists)
It is beyond doubt that until today the central point of American strategy is encirclement and weakening of Russia
Egon Bahr (Die Zeit, 2008, N 47, s.5)
Lately, after the new USA Administration coming to power, a small hope for the probable essential amelioration of international
political climate started to grow. The talks on opposition and counter struggle diminished, while the discussions about mutual action and cooperation augmented. However, the mankind so many times was deceived by its hopes, that till present no country may (and should) give up strengthening its defense potential. The enormous risk exists of a probable catastrophe due to some reason (or as ill luck would have it).
The process of the review of military doctrine, of its adoption to new international and internal realities is going on in Russia. The probable significant changes seem to affect all possible types of conflicts: large-scale, regional and local wars, as well as limited international and internal armed conflicts. At present, we may allow ourselves to speak about the unthinkable formerly notions - about principal changes in approaches to an eventual probability (or improbability) of a large-scale war. It is worth discussing this issue first of all from the economists' point of view. In its time, the arms race between the West headed by the USA and the USSR, ended with the collapse of the latter. As soon as the military technique was relatively not complicated, the Soviet Union was able simultaneously to maintain civil industries. At that time this support was also not sufficient. But the situation deteriorated greatly after achievement of the strategic parity of armed forces. The growing military capacity with due account of radical quality renewal demanded colossal material and financial means. These unproductive removals from the gross product rendered lifeless economy and had a negative impact on the level of living of the population. The dissatisfaction in society was growing due to deficit of primary goods. The economic hardships were caused directly by the super armament of the country and by the forceful opposition to the West. The indexes of economic situation at that time are common knowledge. By profession, economists are the first people to see ruinousness of the military budget but according to the shaped tradition
are the last people to take part in military-political discussions. The members of the general staff, in their turn, not once slipped on "water melon peel" of economy.
The danger of illusions
Following collapse of the USSR some Russian circles shared illusions on further relations with the USA without any problems. They thought that owing to elimination of the main ideological factor of divergence and cessation of antagonism between socialism and capitalism there was no reason for confrontation of the USA with new Russia, which for the beginning carried out the complimentary policy relating to the transatlantic power. The pro-American national politicians were guided by the devise - what is good for the USA is good for Russia. Our country, as V. Putin said, made the concessions of the colonial type. For instance, it took obligation to inform the West about dislocation of Russian forces on its territory beforehand and unilaterally.
However, the illusions soon dispersed. The friendly position of Russia was considered as its weakness, its readiness to play the second part. Step by step, the USA increased its priority, including geopolitical priority. The USA possesses abroad over 800 military bases and spends on armaments 4% of its gross product, while the average index makes 2.5%. The "most successful military union in history, as they called NATO in the West, approached directly to Russian borders, and this process goes on, taking into account the intention to include into the alliance Ukraine, Georgia and other countries, in perspective. At the same time, the achieved agreements are violated, while American leaders and their European supporters are not embarrassed by logical failure of facts' connections and of explanations.
Analyzing activities of the USA, one can not help coming to the following conclusion. The USA has fixed the following long-term
objective: the liquidation of Russia as an adequate military rival, as an equal player, able to deliver a responsive mortal blow. The authors share the words, pronounced by Egon Bahr. Of course, the feelings in the USA are not uniform. However, there prevail the aspirations to ensure protection in all cases by making Russia unable to function in terms of military actions. This is the consensus of the American political elite, irrespective of party affiliation and the name of the president, irrespective of peaceful declarations on intentions to annihilate nuclear depots in the world. As it is considered, the present conditions create favorable chances for achievement of this objective due to internal and external difficulties of the post-Soviet Russia. Russia is being forced to start a new arms race, which it will not stand and which will be fraught with catastrophic consequences for it.
Some Russian experts consider the issue merely in military terms: "Russia in future war will confront the problem of its survival", "War is on the threshold!" "How can Russia withstand a probable large-scale war?" N. Kosolapov, a known Russian scientist, thinks that the war between the USA and Russia is possible at present in technical and political-psychological terms, that the two countries approach by degrees the threshold, when they risk being closer to such war than it was in times of confrontation between the USSR and the USA.
From the economic point of view the military-industrial complex represents a great burden for society and state. The proportional expenditure for new devices of the scientific-technical progress, later transferred to civil industries, is very big in comparison with civil production, in other words, in terms of goods' amount the military ruble is unable to compete with the outcome of civil sectors of national economy. Otherwise, the disproportional amount of armament in the Soviet Union ("Upper Volta with rockets", by the known definition) would have been made it the most advanced state in the world in terms
of science and technology. The lofty words about creative role of military expenses are not pertinent. As a classic political economist of the before last century mentioned, the military expenses represent the direct deduction from the national wealth, as if each sac of grain is thrown into water. The PR campaigns of the Defense Ministry do not and can not change anything in this respect.
The short variant of the present text was published in newspaper "Izvestia" (19 May 2008) and caused its discussion. One of the opponents, I.P. Korotchenko, presented the widely disseminated "convincing" argument for the benefit of military-industrial complex: "In 2007, the Russian military industrial complex earned in the external market at the expense of arms deliveries and services the sum of $ 8 billion. What "heavy burden for state and society" we speak about? Should we propose to kill the hen, laying golden eggs?" But it is not so simple. The mentioned $ 8 billion is not a trump card, this is not a profit but a general income of the sale. But what are the expenses and the profitability rate? The lobbyists keep silent.
The authors' approach to the ever-lasting discussion about pluses and minuses of militarization is as follows: should the military expenses of the state budget be used for the peaceful economy and technical-scientific research, the efficiency of economy will be raised. A participant of the mentioned discussion in "Izvestia" (08.07.2008) said: " In general, the defense industry is a need and not a locomotive. It may be a locomotive only in the determined for leap sectors (cosmos, nano-technologies, quanta computing), since in this case concentration of resources is allowed, which is impossible for producers of goods of mass consumption. But the mechanism of transfer of defense technologies to the mass production civil goods is a must. However, in this case we lack it". The author is right, when he stresses the need of military allocations. But as far as concentration of resources is
concerned, by means of the wise state-private partnership it is possible to create it at any rate in civil industries.
It is worth mentioning another aspect of the arms' export. The export of arms brings profits for one party and financial expenses for the other party. The leaders of such trade (the USA, Russia, Germany, France) first get payment for their deliveries and then become uneasy for different reasons - lack of stability in some or other region of military actions, poverty in the countries, which have bought arms. Exactly the most developed countries of the world are responsible for this. Not a single summit of "the Eight" ignored this problem but no further steps were taken.
The stake for militarization as a force of progress represents a grave economic mistake, which, unlike some other mistakes of specific government, is not liquidated by spontaneous market forces according to the scheme: unbalance-balance-unbalance; it forms a permanent burden for national economy. This "worm in the apple" may not be discovered by any mathematical methods.
The accumulated experience teaches various parties in a different way. The USA is sure in success of its scenario and may not be stopped by negotiations and proposals to reduce the level and speed of armament, may not be made change its mind by peacemaking policy; the Russian leadership does not want to participate in the large-scale competition, elaborates the plans of asymmetrical response.
One should not be a military expert and examine secret documents of the General Staff in order to see: a challenge has been accepted, and the total and global restoration of the military might of Russia goes on. All types of arms are taken into account, the patrolling is effected around the world. Military maneuvres are practiced with foreign participation, for example military sea training jointly with Venezuela in 2008. Many projects are projected to implement military
renovation. Such position might be supported, but there are constant questions: "What is the price? Will it keep within the framework of asymmetry? Will asymmetry itself be enough to frighten off a potential aggressor? Etc. The logic of forceful competition in case of life or death of countries and civilizations will change perceptions of proportionality of attack and defense. The asymmetrical response means omission of certain phases in the arms race, direct modernization of the arsenal. Asymmetry of the one party will inevitably cause asymmetry of the other party, and this process will transform in the same arms race we wanted to escape.
One should not expect another trend of developments as long as the conception of mutual guaranteed annihilation prevails - "the party, which strikes the first blow, will perish, being the second". It supposes a massive response by means of strokes directed against the most significant centers of the enemy on the whole territory of the country: many military, demographic, industrial, administrative, financial objects. Given the worst outcome, they should transform into a radioactive desert. The enemy is not worried, whether the country would be restored afterwards. The logic is clear: the more horrible is the perspective - the more chances exist for peaceful coexistence. However, keeping by rockets the constant aim at the USA territory, its foreign military bases, submarines, air planes and, probably, in future cosmic spirals is an excessive burden for the country, being backward in terms of all main economic indexes. At the same time, the expensive struggle for Arctic comes to the forefront. America has an advantage of the support, given to it by its allies, including 27 members of European Union. The countries of the Eastern Europe increase their military expenses (higher than average in the world) paying in this way for Atlantic solidarity. The gross product of "Seven" surpasses by 15 times
the Russian index (by parity of purchasing power), the share of Russia accounts for less than 7%.
It is impossible to expect any positive changes of principle for Russia in future with due account of consequences of the destructive financial-economic crisis. One should take into account the interpretation of the facts made by foreign experts, who negatively review modernization of armed forces in Russia. They accuse Russia of aggressive intentions. Simultaneously, these experts accept in a positive way the growth of military expenses in the USA, which surpass the corresponding Russian expenses by 15 times (according to western sources, in 2007: $ 546.80 billion and $ 35.37 billion). Such are the quantity data, keeping aside the quality issue, which is a special subject to review. Preservation of military parity not only with the USA but also with the West as a whole would mean the repetition of the past: economic deprivation of Russia (deficit of goods, lines, mobilization economy), as it was in the Soviet Union. The outcome will be the same. "The USSR produced rockets like sausages", as Khrushchev said, but weakened every year. Comparing with the former period of time, the demographic factor makes despondent, and the number of draftees in our country diminishes by 70-75 thousand people every year. The development of information technologies, being the core of the contemporary military affairs, leaves much to be desired.
It should be perceived that Russia is not powerful enough to be guided by the idea of comprehensive strokes. But there is no way to accept pacifism and to give up arms' modernization. Otherwise, the enemy will get the upper hand with his bare hands. It is necessary to watch other countries, gaining strength. China spends on its army much more than Russia. Let us not forget Japan with its great military expenditure. According to SIPRI, in 2007, the share of the world military expenses, possessed by different countries, was as follows: the
USA - 45%, Great Britain and China - 5% each, France and Japan -4% each, Germany and Russia - 3% each.
The coming multi-polar world will not be a dream-world of common happiness.
What kind of military doctrine Russia needs today
It is necessary to change the type of defense thinking. The defense doctrine of the Russian Federation, adopted by the Decree of the president of the RF on 21 April 2000, as it is noted in the preamble, is the document of the provisional period and its provisions may be defined more exactly and may be supplemented with due account of changes of the military-political situation etc. One should note the concern of some Russian military experts about our military science. They use rather explicit words: "it does not correspond to modern demands", "decline", "the military practice started to take the lead over military theory".
At the same time, it is necessary to greet the new Conception of foreign policy of the Russian Federation, approved by the president of the RF D. Medvedev on 12 July 2008, which says that "Russia will not let itself be involved in confrontation, which spares no expense, including new arms race, destructive for economy and pernicious for internal development of the country". The analogous provisions are contained in the strategy of national security of the Russian Federation up till 2020, signed by the president of the RF on 13 May 2009.
It seems that the number of the objects of a potential enemy, chosen for delivering strokes, should be reduced to minimum and should not be only military fortifications. It will sooner be not they. The roster will conclude the most important national centers, including the capital; and probable destruction of these centers with great demographic losses would be the deterrent factor for the country, which prepared some pernicious act. The big cities are the vital nerves of any
state, including banks, electric networks, computer networks, transport lines etc.
There is no secret in this matter. On the contrary, everybody should know beforehand the destiny of the objects-hostages in case of an eventual war between two powers. The sense of the strategy's review consists in the following: abstaining from participation in the costly arms race and having no chance to get the upper hand over the USA, Russia would concentrate all its efforts in a few geographic targets with the guarantee of their disappearance from the Earth. These targets may be reviewed - x, y, z. During the nuclear rockets' epoch, the total guaranteed protection does not exist, and hegemony is not yet monopoly. In other words, the party, which strikes first, will not rest safe. The USA will confront the marginal choice: on the one side, is it admissible to let these heavy losses, which will ruin the survived nation and will undermine its defense capacity to the benefit of other "rogue countries", since the latter will use this opportunity to square accounts with the transatlantic power. On the other side, the USA will have to understand the uselessness of attempts to overcome Russia without unleashing war. The inevitable repetition of 11 September 2001, enlarged by 10 000 times will be a too high price to start military aggression, forced by the great power ambitions and Messiah self-conceit, and will push the American White House to take a reasonable decision.
The legend about David and Goliath does not suit in this case. Another option is needed. Let us imagine a giant, preparing for the battle with a weaker enemy. The outcome is known beforehand --the giant will win but will lose an eye, a hand or a leg, and therefore it is quite logical, that the giant will ask himself: do I need it? Being wise, he will not begin this fight. And if he starts it, the normal wisdom will be lost. At present, there is no need in the general approach, when all
flesh and lifeless objects on the other side will be annihilated, since there are no forces to do it, but the selected target with coefficient of maximum efficiency is needed. It is worth mentioning the meaning, expressed in magazine "USA-Canada": in practice, the explosions on the USA territory of two-three Chinese nuclear bombs of mega-ton class would result in general panic and total disorganization of the state governance. Given diplomatic tone of the author, it is possible to add that the similar consequences would be the outcome of explosions of other national origin.
The analogy with "big brother" appears due to the fact that European countries are very vulnerable and are connected with the USA by article 5 of the Washington treaty of 1949. The NATO Europe with its hundreds of American nuclear bombs (from 200 to 350), by the way stored under inadequate conditions, should comprehend that, letting involved itself in a conflict, it would get from "the bear" (as Russia is called sometimes) the inevitable retribution, and therefore Europe is interested not in arms escalation (the American usual pastime) but in deterrent of armament and Americans.
The main problem in relations between Europe and Russia is caused by Europe's consent to submit to the USA, while Russia does not want to become someone's protectorate. Russia has global thinking, but Europe adopts servile attitude, irrespective of the good or bad consequences. The enlargement of the European Union does not change anything in this respect. Only the size of the territory, GNP and population augments, while dependence on the USA remains. The law of transition from quantity to quality fails in this case. The inequality between the Old world and the New world is not a pleasant fact for Europe, and they prefer to avoid discussion about it, like members of the high society do not intend to speak about their sickness and disability. Europe is such disable entity in the Western Alliance.
What is the actual military strength of Europe? The crux of the problem consists in military disablement of Europe. In this field it does not correspond to the challenges of the XXI century and therefore has to ask for protection of the USA. Protection from what? First of all, from Russia, which could not be cured from genetically predetermined aggressiveness, as it is considered on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean. Therefore they promote in all ways weakening of Russia, all actions directed against it. Consequently they give a hostile reception to actions of Russia itself, if it protects its own state interests. A kind of absurd occurs: any country may have its own state interests, while Russia should renounce them, if it wants to please somebody. The concessions, made by the Soviet Union and new Russia in this sphere are not comparable with anything else. What did it receive in exchange? The response is as follows: the stronger pressure on the part of NATO and European Union. Russia, as a complicated power, should not retreat but should demonstrate its actual force, instilling the rest of the world, mildly speaking, into respect. Otherwise, Russia will disappear.
Dependence of one continent on the other continent should not be regarded as an order in the spirit "up-down". There is no need for it, although the relations between them are rather complicated. Some difficulties come across. But the coincidence of civilization values is the pledge of organic union of the USA and Europe. The experts often value the differences between them for the benefit of Europe, noting its self-dependent and progressive role in settling one or other issue. Adequately taking into account the attempt "to whitewash Europe", it is necessary to mention that the question is some aspects of world politics, the details. Europe does not question the leadership of the USA. Europe only claims for an initiative of the confirmed retreat from the agreed position. One should disagree with D. David, Executive director of the French Institute of International Relations, who wrote that Europe was
placed between stupidity and Russia. Europe is an ally of the USA, and one may not refute this fact. In its time, the Soviet Union's policy tried to unearth Europe from the USA, playing on nuances of contradictions between them, but failed. Nevertheless, such intentions have not been outlived up till present: exactly to convince and to gain Europe to its side ("Russia needs to use contradictions between the USA and Europe..."). This approach has no perspectives and provokes suspicions relating to Russian intentions to bring in a split in the western world.
It does not mean that Europe does not deserve the attention to it as to the High Contracting Party, that it is more feasible to have a deal directly with the USA over the head of Europe. The exceptional military weakness makes Europe more sensitive in foreign policy, and, hence, it is more receptive to arguments and other points of view. It represents for Russia a specific channel of influence on the USA, of softening transatlantic positions in the difficult dialogue between Moscow and Washington. Europe will never take action against its protector, but it has the right to express his own view. It does not aggravate the USA situation, and more so, as Europe does not have a unanimous opinion on the existing realities, and the USA is able to select for itself the needed point of view.
Henry Kissinger's caustic remark is well known: what is the telephone number of Europe to call and to get its opinion on different matters? In this case, European Commission and its president, the parliament and other organs of EU are not taken into account. In response, the European politicians, acting according to the principle "A Roland for an Oliver", might ask, whether and to what extent the USA was a European country? In this case it would be insufficient to make references to the united civilization roots. The USA has acquired in its aggressiveness the new quality, which distinguishes it from European
Union to the detriment of the USA. Without striving for a paradox one may say that the USA, being not a European country, is at the head of the European continent and represents the telephone number to call in order to get some consultation. With good reason one may suppose that nothing will be changed in principle in the visible perspective after establishment in EU of two new posts.
The USA celebrates its triumph in relations with Europe, having broken it. On its historic way, the USA not once confronted strategic enemies, but Washington scored successes. First it was England, further Germany and Japan, which finally became allies, depended on the USA, later it was the Soviet Union. At present, its not easy counter-partner is Russia, which urges towards its restoration. China gradually becomes a principled rival of the USA, with an unclear outcome of this counterbalance. Perhaps, in future Europe may change its patron, acting according to the principle: He who is stronger, is the civilization friend or even civilization ancestor.
In terms of continents' categories, unlike Europe, Asia represents by itself a self-dependent sector of the world space, where there is no association like European Union, but where the USA does not enjoy the status of the highest instance, which is the unshakable rule for all European capitals. The appraisal of the conception of limited requital demands to keep silent about high moral against the background of universal danger to be subject to multiple annihilation in hour when X. Moloch does not profess vegetarian views. If one wishes, he may cover with shame any noble deed. For instance, in Norway they created the world depot in Spitsbergen Island, which guarantees preservation of agricultural seeds in all cataclysms, including nuclear war. Given some irreversible thinking, one may pronounce "the conviction": it is necessary not to prepare for the war but to fight for peace all over the world. At the same time, articles and books about potential assault
contain words about "guaranteed destruction". All discussions about war lack moral criteria. Otherwise, it should be necessary to forbid international arms trade, like narcotics trade, since it is unmoral to profit on death and fear.
In his time, State Secretary of the USA A. Haig said that there were things more important than peace. The question is that exactly the potential aggressor would consider what things were more important than peace: the humanitarian wars (NATO against Serbia because of Kosovo), the far-fetched pretexts (the attack of the USA against Iraq)? This list of arms brandishing may easily be enlarged, citing as an example the USA.
Is America changing military strategy?
It is worth paying interest to the reconsideration of military strategy in the USA itself. Up till present, it is considered to be feasible the maximum destruction of the Russian living space. However, in April 2009 the report was publicized under the title "From Counterforce to Minimal Deterrence: A new Nuclear Policy on the Path Toward Eliminating Nuclear Weapons". The authors (three persons) mention the excessive surplus of the accumulated nuclear weapons and the consequent danger for the USA itself, they appeal to the authorities to re-target nuclear rockets, having reduced their number, from former points to 12 most important economic objects, namely, the oil-refinery plants, the enterprises of ferrous and non-ferrous metallurgy, the energy stations (in Omsk, owned by Gasprom, in Angara, owned by Rosneft and others). Probably, to be more exact, this indication seems to be keeping these enterprises at point, as beforehand, since they had been already chosen for it by the military structures of the USA. The authors proceed from the following perspective: Russia would become a demolished country in economic terms with limited losses of the population. They cite the number of over a million of direct victims
(killed and wounded). Is it not a more "humanistic" approach in comparison with the former approach? Was destruction of headquarters of the mentioned concerns was planned, if they are located in Moscow? Further, following destruction of oil and gas enterprises and of other sensitive for the country targets, would a blow be delivered against the military forces, would the hostile party take into account a probable response by means of nuclear rockets? What will be the final number of victims? What about the notorious soldier's boot, which should go through the enemy's territory to consolidate the victory? This is not a complete list of questions. It should be mentioned that the joint ventures, partially owned by concerns of American allies, FRG as an example, are probable targets. Nevertheless, this is an evident option, which differs from the doctrine of total war up to the last soldier or citizen, to the last nuclear weapon.
In his time, Mao advised the Soviet leadership to be not afraid of war against the West: let million and millions of own citizens perish, but the socialist paradise would flourish on the capitalist site of fire. The mentioned conception of limited requital will create for the West a similar picture, and it would hardly choose the blasphemous bloody option, despite the pathologic hatred to Russia. In its time, the conception of limited punishment was known in Europe; the Soviet Union, according to it, was doomed to great losses. Thus, it is not quite a new idea in the international policy. It has not de-facto disappeared. Let us put a question: why France, withdrawn by Charles de Gaulle in 1966 from the military structure of NATO with the consequent evacuation of the Alliance headquarters from Paris and closing of its military bases in the country, still preserved its concentrated nuclear force? France needs it not to gain victory, not to die mutually with a potential enemy, but it needs it to demonstrate to the enemy its significant capability to get even with such enemy. On the initiative of
president Sarkozy, in 2009 France returned to the military structure of NATO, but it does not change anything in this respect. Many countries, if not most of them, maintain relations as the stronger partner to the weaker one, while the weaker partner, possessing no aggressive intentions, does not want to disarm.
Another example, being insignificant, shows, nevertheless, that this conception functions. For instance, Czechia was ready to meet the wishes of the USA and to locate the radio-location station of the antirocket defense. The local population of the territory, chosen for installation of the equipment, protested, since it did not want to be a victim of unforeseen circumstances. The same may be said about Poles, who live on the territory, where Americans want to install their antirockets. It is easy to imagine the appearance as a mighty factor for the benefit of peace of the anti-war movement in the transatlantic power,
particularly in the centers, doomed beforehand for a tragic destiny.
* * *
In all likelihood, it is high time for Russia to think about the practical feasibility of the conception of unequal requital. It is an uneasy decision, since it is difficult to coincide it with our usual thinking. The mentioned military doctrine of the RF in one provision almost coincides with our presented position. For instance, in point 8 it is said that in contemporary circumstances the Russian Federation proceeds from the need to ensure to cause the fixed damage to any aggressor (a state or a coalition of states) under any conditions. The question is, how to comprehend the fixed damage: the total annihilation of the aggressor or any other variant?
Savings in the arms race may successfully be coincided with the other direction - extension of the foreign oil and gas pipeline system, which brings great economic benefits but creates big concern of the West. The share of Russia in the gas import of 27 countries makes 42%,
while for some countries Russia is the only or almost unique supplier: Slovakia - 100%, Finland - 100%, Bulgaria - 100%, Lithuania -100%, Latvia - 100%, Estonia - 100%, Romania - 94%, Austria -82%, Greece - 81%. Evaluating the general course of the present Russian leadership, English magazine "Economist" considers that it intends to rewrite the end of the cold war. If the West perceives the Russian deliveries of oil and gas as a threat to itself and if it calls company "Gasprom" a new strategic weapon, it is up to the West to have this point of view. As it is known, Poland, referring to Russia, made the proposal to create a kind of "Energy NATO", capable to use forceful means. The creation of an international oil and gas infrastructure is an expensive affair, but in circumstances of the world unpredictability these investments may be regarded as specific defense expenses, while specification consists in the received real profits. Evidently, the extension of this sector of external economy should be limited by the reasonable framework. Creating a threat for the West (in western terms) plus getting payment for it is a rational policy, is it not so?
Probably, someone may ask: why the military inequality a priori is determined for Russia and why it is assumed that the West (the USA) is able to disband Russia, while Russia is not capable to disband the West? Then it will be necessary again to tell the same old story and to repeat the arguments from the beginning, stressing the core: Russia will fail in terms of economy in the process of high tech militarization and as a result of industrial weakness, depopulation, drop of the share of Russians and unsettled national question will sink into oblivion without war. The chance of preserving Russia consists in fulfillment of the principal aim - to avoid the unproductive economic surcharge, an unenviable fate of the country and to ensure its salvation.
"Sovremennaya Evropa", M., 2010, N1, p. 5-17.
