08-05-2020, 09:28 PM
Disaster management as a new reality of the impending redivison of the world
Sergey Pereslegin is considering the concept of "controlled demolition" of the current world order system.
War as a social institution performs several functions: rejecting non-viable communities, redistributing assets, burning passionarity, initiating the work of “social elevators”, “primary simplification” of management, and so on. It may be more correct to say in the past tense - once the war performed these functions. From the bankruptcy of revalued Internet companies (dotcom bubble), from the fall of the "twin towers" on September 11 of the same 2001, a general crisis of the global world order is being diagnosed. In 2008, this crisis acquired an economic component, in 2013–2014 - a military component, since the “policy of sanctions” is a form of economic blockade, that is, an instrument of the “Athena war”.
The third world has already died
Between 2008 and 2013, Jeremy Rifkin formulated the ideology of overcoming the crisis through the transition to a new technological structure and building a post-industrial trans-industrial society.
The general features of this structure were outlined in autumn 2014:
a manufacturing economy instead of a consumer economy;
post-global structure of the world;
deserted production and the dominance of artificial intelligence in industry;
additive technology;
closed production cycles, efficient nature management instead of nature protection;
new management formats - semantic, ontological, etc.
digital economy, that is, total control of government structures over any transactions.
Building a trans-industrial society involves solving a number of technical problems, creating new ones and destroying old social institutions, redistributing assets in favor of the industries and organizations of the emerging technological structure, changing the balance of forces between countries and military-political blocs.
Similar tasks have always been accomplished through war.
The First World War marked the transition from the century of steam and electricity to the century of aviation and internal combustion engines. It led to the collapse of the Ottoman Empire and Austria-Hungary, the degradation of France and Germany, the loss of civilizational leadership by Great Britain and its capture by the United States of America. Russia emerged from this war through a revolution, which allowed it to avoid the fate of the vanquished, not to take on the sins of the victors and, although with territorial losses, to preserve the empire.
The Second World War, on the one hand, was an attempt (with unsuitable means) to “replay” the First, on the other, a transition to the century of atomic energy, all-weather jet aviation and space. In the process, the “German project” was finally liquidated, the Japanese Empire was destroyed, Italy lost its acquisitions as a result of the previous war, England lost its political independence and became a US satellite. America strengthened its world leadership, created a new type of global organization based on the principles of logistics, and ended the war with a power - the sole possessor of nuclear weapons.
But the global organization of a new type - on the basis of Marxist ontology and communist ideology - was also created by the Soviet Union. The confrontation of superpowers began.
Since both opponents possessed nuclear, and since the beginning of the 50s, thermonuclear weapons, the third world war was designed from the very beginning as a global nuclear one. It should be borne in mind that in this potential conflict the United States had the advantage from the very beginning to the end: complete parity was not achieved at all, relative parity developed only towards the end of the 70s. Prior to this, the strategic situation was as follows: the USSR could completely destroy the European allies of the United States, the United States could completely destroy the Soviet Union and survive, but at the same time they would suffer unacceptable losses.
There were plenty of reasons for a real nuclear missile war, but its risks were perceived by the parties as unacceptable. In the early 80s, Karl Sagan and Nikita Moiseyev creatively reacted to the current military-political situation and developed the concept of a “nuclear winter”: a total climatic catastrophe generated by the global war.
The “nuclear winter” model was absolutely hermetic - it could be proved or refuted only by organizing such a global war. But the reasoning seemed convincing enough for the world elites to finally accept the long-held fact: the third world war turned out to be cold. This is a blockade war, not involving a clash of the main forces of the main opponents. Of course, on the little things, the passionarity of the parties was burned in local conflicts. Of course, these conflicts slightly shifted the balance between the superpowers, but the content of the Cold War was not a shootout in Vietnam, Angola or Afghanistan, but the struggle of Soviet geopolitics with American geoeconomics. The blockade and the blockade.
The Cold War unmounted the USSR, the socialist community, the world "leftist project." The result of it was the 5th technological structure: globalization, the economy of consumption, the economy of services. And the indisputable military-political, economic, cultural leadership of the United States of America.
Thus, the third world war solved the problem of changing the technological structure and redistributing assets between old and new centers of power. The conflict of superpowers was global in nature, but at the same time, from the generally accepted point of view, war did not occur as such. There was a slow confrontation, a suffocating blockade, informational impact in the background of the global theater scene - local clashes on the far periphery of the world in the form of familiar wars: with shooting, bombing, destroyed cities and corpses of people.
The war has become different.
The battle for the trans-industrial order: the global civil
Collapse of the USSR gave rise to the concept of "sustainable development" and "end of history", implemented in the format of globalization. From the very beginning it was clear that this was not for long and that a new stage of the struggle for the redivision of the world was waiting for us.
The first subtlety is that globalization destroyed the traditional cycles of economic ups and downs described by Nikolai Kondratyev a century ago, which made it impossible for the competing world economies to coexist (or, on the contrary, war). Consequently, a new global conflict should form around technology worlds. This identifies it, on the one hand, as a transition between technological structures, and on the other, as the dismantling of a consumer society and the construction of a new producing economy.
The second subtlety is connected with the cyclical nature of American history: twenty-year instability, four to five years of conflict in the form of a civil or external war, 15 years of reconstruction and 40 years of sustainable development. Since the summer of 2001, the United States has entered a new cycle. In 2020, he should come to the crisis phase, which provokes a civil war in the hegemonic state, that is, a global civil war. Alternatively, the conflict can be broadcast outside, as was done in the early 40s, but this requires the creation of a strong external adversary. This could be done by destroying the globalization system. The Americans took appropriate steps, but “world terrorism” did not pull at all to threaten the American way of life, despite all the PR provided to it.
Finally, the third subtlety lies in the characteristics of the economy of the 5th way with its dominance of financial technology over production and management over management and common sense. As a result of many years of practice of moving dirty enterprises abroad, the Americans have strengthened their main competitor, China, along the way giving it the status of a “workshop of the world” and, in addition, overloading its financial system with credit obligations and the economic system with derivatives.
As a result, a macroregional polycentric structure has somehow developed in the world by itself. The United States of America remained the undisputed military and economic leader, but could not use its advantages under the globalization regime. China, on the contrary, blended perfectly with the existing world order, eliminated the age-old backwardness and concentrated in its hands almost everything necessary for a new leap, excluding several critical technologies that the States held to fail, and the PRC could not reproduce. Russia "rose" in the hydrocarbon trade and began to claim its own design, and Europe for the first time in its many thousand-year history managed to create, if not genuine unity, then at least a political union and "five freedom of movement": people, goods, money, information, services.
With all this, the military alliance of China and Russia, concluded in the past, if not the year before last, was not dissolved, which in the future created a confrontation between the first military power in the world and the coalition of the second and third powers. The world war acquired quite understandable and familiar outlines, and in these conditions the importance of the armed forces of the EU sharply increased. Within the framework of NATO structures, of course, they were supposed to support the United States, but NATO more and more looked like a paper bureaucratic organization, and not a real military alliance.
The 2014–2016 “Sanctions Policy” and its subsequent transition to a “blockade policy” did not solve the US problems even if this blockade was ideally completed - say, with the change of the political regime in Russia and the return of Crimea to Ukraine. It was necessary to include China in the orbit of the blockade, and the PRC stubbornly continued to act “within the rules” and did not give the necessary reason.
The local wars of 2011–2019 in Libya, Syria and several other countries demonstrated the technological advantage of NATO and the USA, but from an economic and political point of view, they turned out to be disastrous actions. It became clear that just as the Third World War did not become like the Second, the new war would not be a combination of an “ice blockade” with local conflicts on the periphery.
In general, between 2013 and 2020, a decision is ripening slowly and painfully in the world elites. Its essence is that local wars have become economically unprofitable, that is, they have ceased to be an adequate tool for redistributing resources. A global war is not even important - a saturating nuclear missile, according to the early ideas of the Third World War, or a large war with limited use of WMD, built rather in the logic of the Second, contains unacceptable risks. And even worse, a major war partly made it possible to resolve the dispute between the powers for world leadership, but in the new fundamentally created conditions it did not overcome economic problems with either debt, derivatives, or even with the economy tilting towards consumption.
A “problem of scale” arose and was reflected: a limited war could not act as a “high-tech economic destructor” according to Alexander Nekless, but a global war turned out to be too good a destructor - “there will be no stone unturned”. In the same way, a war, even of the scale of World War II, will have no effect on the labor market under conditions of progressive robotization: billions of hands are released, and military losses are projected within the first tens of millions - a difference of two orders of magnitude. The global exchange of nuclear strikes will probably solve the problem of excess workers, but too radically even for the modern world elites, who, by the way, could also suffer from such an exchange.
As a result, the opinion that the war ceased to be an adequate, albeit radical solution, gradually crystallized. It is either insufficient or excessive.
The contours of the global battle.
So, there will be no war? Of course it will! But completely different.
Not the first - with infantry attacks against machine guns. Not the second - with tank attacks and strategic bombing. Not the third - with political and economic confrontation, blockade and subversive operations. All this, however, is also used - but as a background, not content.
At the state level, the United States of America is the actor - and moreover, the only one. The main challenge facing the United States is reformatting the national economy. It is at least a leading position in the 6th technological order, and ideally, a transition to post-technological development. In this case, America needs to improve its financial system, redistribute assets in favor of industrial capital and withdraw from the game, at least temporarily, imagining China, Russia and the European Union.
“Redistribution of assets” means a sharp weakening of the 5th technological structure, that is, the confiscation of financial capital, primarily banking. This cannot be done without violent measures, therefore we are talking about a “right” or “substantial” civil war. Civil war in a hegemonic state, and even in conditions of global peace, will certainly become global. The Americans tried a “hot” civil war in the second cycle of their history (1861–1865); they have no special desire to repeat this bloody experiment. Therefore, firstly, the civil war should be exported from the “city on the hill” to the world periphery, and secondly, the war itself should be as cold as possible.
We have a global cold civil war. And this, alas, is not the future of the world, it is its sad present. About five years ago, I read the report “Global catastrophe as an optimal solution.” A certain part of the above considerations was formulated there and it was concluded that it is now more convenient to deal with global economic destruction not with war, but with global catastrophe. Or in other words, global catastrophe is a modern form of war.
And the coronavirus epidemic begins first. At first, with the help of the media, she was given all the features not even of the XIV century plague, but of some almost otherworldly zombie apocalypse. And then an all-terrestrial catastrophe really happens. The paralysis of world trade routes, the total closure of borders, universal quarantine, the fantastic “self-isolation regime” - all this destroys the world economy much faster and more efficiently than strategic bombing, underwater blockade or atomic confrontation of superpowers in the previous great wars. Moreover, globalization has done its job and the economy of almost all states is excessively open.
And right before our eyes, economic ties are breaking. The length of technological chains is sharply reduced. In connection with the breakdown of the sowing season, the ghost of hunger hangs over the world. The universal gross product, the fall of which by a few percent was perceived by each country as a national tragedy, falls immediately by 15 percent, the forecast reaches 50 percent or more. Let me remind you that the marginal indicator of the Great Depression of 1929 was only about 30 percent of the fall in GDP.
Since people are deprived of the opportunity to earn money (this applies to small businesses, self-employed and many others), their savings are burnt in the flame of quarantine. Almost all loans issued by banks to private individuals become non-repayable. So much for the reorganization of the economy, the elimination of “financial bubbles”, and most importantly, the flow of assets from banks to financial funds and from them partially to the industry of a new technological structure. The United States, of course, is also suffering, but they have a plan of action, they have an understanding of what is going on, there is light at the end of the tunnel. They will pay for everything, only they will use the fruits. Actually the perfect strategy!
And where is the civil war? It will begin a little later, when the level of the devastating country that has befallen is finally realized. And not so much by the masses of the people as by the petty bourgeoisie, which the war without a knife put under the knife. And note, the American financial elites, whose interests are expressed by the Clinton clan. Of course, they will start a war for lost property, burned money - for existence.
Spaces of fierce struggle
The task of those elites who win by disaster will be to keep the war within the framework of the cold. That is, to conduct it in the legal space, in semantics, in virtual and augmented realities. But the real world cannot be completely ignored, therefore again, as in the third world war, there will be a political opera, where the protagonist and antagonist sing their arias in the foreground, and Troy burns in the background and the dead bury their dead.
To summarize. Previously, war was a social disaster. Today, social disaster has become a war. Before civil war sought to present as a world war. Now the world war will be instituted as a civil war. But this war itself, in the format of popular riots and anti-terrorist operations, will only be a cover for the struggle in completely different spaces.
We list them.
First of all, this is a legal space. The experience of the coronavirus has shown that all constitutional guarantees of citizens, and therefore all articles of laws based on these guarantees, are not worth the paper on which they were once printed. This applies to international law and national laws. On the one hand, this means that the elites are going to rule, relying on brute force, that is, we are threatened by information fascism, medical fascism, or even ordinary fascism. On the other hand, power as the only instrument of power is short-lived. Sooner or later, the “law of the savannah” will be replaced by some form of legitimization. “New Law” will determine the winners and losers in the global civil war.
Let us single out a separate line information law, media law, law, acting in a variety of virtual worlds. Protection of information. Information management. Transformation of information. The main thing is control over networks, network protocols, software shells and work programs. Physical control over servers, data centers, network nodes, and intermodal portals linking virtuality with realities.
Next, we call the conceptual space and the semantic and ontological spaces associated with it. And of course, linguistic space. In my opinion, the coronavirus media epidemic hit not so much the Chinese economy, although its long-term losses are projected to be greater than those of the other participants in the game, but rather the Chinese language, which gradually began to be perceived in the world as a competitor to English. So if the United States achieves its goals in this war, only one conceptual language will remain on Earth - English.
Finally, only last but not least “war without war” will cover the technological space, above all, critical and closing technologies.
Armed forces in the ordinary sense of the word, that is, operating in an ordinary geographical space, of course, will also be used, but only for one purpose - to discourage the losing side from the desire to unauthorized turn a cold war into a hot one.
A war for which Russia, as usual, is not ready, is not a problem of an uncertain future. She has been walking for two months. And in my opinion, in this war the enemy uses blitzkrieg tactics better than Hitler generals did in 1941.
Sergey Pereslegin
https://vpk.name/news/399177_pandemiya_blickrig_nachalsya.html
.
Sergey Pereslegin is considering the concept of "controlled demolition" of the current world order system.
War as a social institution performs several functions: rejecting non-viable communities, redistributing assets, burning passionarity, initiating the work of “social elevators”, “primary simplification” of management, and so on. It may be more correct to say in the past tense - once the war performed these functions. From the bankruptcy of revalued Internet companies (dotcom bubble), from the fall of the "twin towers" on September 11 of the same 2001, a general crisis of the global world order is being diagnosed. In 2008, this crisis acquired an economic component, in 2013–2014 - a military component, since the “policy of sanctions” is a form of economic blockade, that is, an instrument of the “Athena war”.
The third world has already died
Between 2008 and 2013, Jeremy Rifkin formulated the ideology of overcoming the crisis through the transition to a new technological structure and building a post-industrial trans-industrial society.
The general features of this structure were outlined in autumn 2014:
a manufacturing economy instead of a consumer economy;
post-global structure of the world;
deserted production and the dominance of artificial intelligence in industry;
additive technology;
closed production cycles, efficient nature management instead of nature protection;
new management formats - semantic, ontological, etc.
digital economy, that is, total control of government structures over any transactions.
Building a trans-industrial society involves solving a number of technical problems, creating new ones and destroying old social institutions, redistributing assets in favor of the industries and organizations of the emerging technological structure, changing the balance of forces between countries and military-political blocs.
Similar tasks have always been accomplished through war.
The First World War marked the transition from the century of steam and electricity to the century of aviation and internal combustion engines. It led to the collapse of the Ottoman Empire and Austria-Hungary, the degradation of France and Germany, the loss of civilizational leadership by Great Britain and its capture by the United States of America. Russia emerged from this war through a revolution, which allowed it to avoid the fate of the vanquished, not to take on the sins of the victors and, although with territorial losses, to preserve the empire.
The Second World War, on the one hand, was an attempt (with unsuitable means) to “replay” the First, on the other, a transition to the century of atomic energy, all-weather jet aviation and space. In the process, the “German project” was finally liquidated, the Japanese Empire was destroyed, Italy lost its acquisitions as a result of the previous war, England lost its political independence and became a US satellite. America strengthened its world leadership, created a new type of global organization based on the principles of logistics, and ended the war with a power - the sole possessor of nuclear weapons.
But the global organization of a new type - on the basis of Marxist ontology and communist ideology - was also created by the Soviet Union. The confrontation of superpowers began.
Since both opponents possessed nuclear, and since the beginning of the 50s, thermonuclear weapons, the third world war was designed from the very beginning as a global nuclear one. It should be borne in mind that in this potential conflict the United States had the advantage from the very beginning to the end: complete parity was not achieved at all, relative parity developed only towards the end of the 70s. Prior to this, the strategic situation was as follows: the USSR could completely destroy the European allies of the United States, the United States could completely destroy the Soviet Union and survive, but at the same time they would suffer unacceptable losses.
There were plenty of reasons for a real nuclear missile war, but its risks were perceived by the parties as unacceptable. In the early 80s, Karl Sagan and Nikita Moiseyev creatively reacted to the current military-political situation and developed the concept of a “nuclear winter”: a total climatic catastrophe generated by the global war.
The “nuclear winter” model was absolutely hermetic - it could be proved or refuted only by organizing such a global war. But the reasoning seemed convincing enough for the world elites to finally accept the long-held fact: the third world war turned out to be cold. This is a blockade war, not involving a clash of the main forces of the main opponents. Of course, on the little things, the passionarity of the parties was burned in local conflicts. Of course, these conflicts slightly shifted the balance between the superpowers, but the content of the Cold War was not a shootout in Vietnam, Angola or Afghanistan, but the struggle of Soviet geopolitics with American geoeconomics. The blockade and the blockade.
The Cold War unmounted the USSR, the socialist community, the world "leftist project." The result of it was the 5th technological structure: globalization, the economy of consumption, the economy of services. And the indisputable military-political, economic, cultural leadership of the United States of America.
Thus, the third world war solved the problem of changing the technological structure and redistributing assets between old and new centers of power. The conflict of superpowers was global in nature, but at the same time, from the generally accepted point of view, war did not occur as such. There was a slow confrontation, a suffocating blockade, informational impact in the background of the global theater scene - local clashes on the far periphery of the world in the form of familiar wars: with shooting, bombing, destroyed cities and corpses of people.
The war has become different.
The battle for the trans-industrial order: the global civil
Collapse of the USSR gave rise to the concept of "sustainable development" and "end of history", implemented in the format of globalization. From the very beginning it was clear that this was not for long and that a new stage of the struggle for the redivision of the world was waiting for us.
The first subtlety is that globalization destroyed the traditional cycles of economic ups and downs described by Nikolai Kondratyev a century ago, which made it impossible for the competing world economies to coexist (or, on the contrary, war). Consequently, a new global conflict should form around technology worlds. This identifies it, on the one hand, as a transition between technological structures, and on the other, as the dismantling of a consumer society and the construction of a new producing economy.
The second subtlety is connected with the cyclical nature of American history: twenty-year instability, four to five years of conflict in the form of a civil or external war, 15 years of reconstruction and 40 years of sustainable development. Since the summer of 2001, the United States has entered a new cycle. In 2020, he should come to the crisis phase, which provokes a civil war in the hegemonic state, that is, a global civil war. Alternatively, the conflict can be broadcast outside, as was done in the early 40s, but this requires the creation of a strong external adversary. This could be done by destroying the globalization system. The Americans took appropriate steps, but “world terrorism” did not pull at all to threaten the American way of life, despite all the PR provided to it.
Finally, the third subtlety lies in the characteristics of the economy of the 5th way with its dominance of financial technology over production and management over management and common sense. As a result of many years of practice of moving dirty enterprises abroad, the Americans have strengthened their main competitor, China, along the way giving it the status of a “workshop of the world” and, in addition, overloading its financial system with credit obligations and the economic system with derivatives.
As a result, a macroregional polycentric structure has somehow developed in the world by itself. The United States of America remained the undisputed military and economic leader, but could not use its advantages under the globalization regime. China, on the contrary, blended perfectly with the existing world order, eliminated the age-old backwardness and concentrated in its hands almost everything necessary for a new leap, excluding several critical technologies that the States held to fail, and the PRC could not reproduce. Russia "rose" in the hydrocarbon trade and began to claim its own design, and Europe for the first time in its many thousand-year history managed to create, if not genuine unity, then at least a political union and "five freedom of movement": people, goods, money, information, services.
With all this, the military alliance of China and Russia, concluded in the past, if not the year before last, was not dissolved, which in the future created a confrontation between the first military power in the world and the coalition of the second and third powers. The world war acquired quite understandable and familiar outlines, and in these conditions the importance of the armed forces of the EU sharply increased. Within the framework of NATO structures, of course, they were supposed to support the United States, but NATO more and more looked like a paper bureaucratic organization, and not a real military alliance.
The 2014–2016 “Sanctions Policy” and its subsequent transition to a “blockade policy” did not solve the US problems even if this blockade was ideally completed - say, with the change of the political regime in Russia and the return of Crimea to Ukraine. It was necessary to include China in the orbit of the blockade, and the PRC stubbornly continued to act “within the rules” and did not give the necessary reason.
The local wars of 2011–2019 in Libya, Syria and several other countries demonstrated the technological advantage of NATO and the USA, but from an economic and political point of view, they turned out to be disastrous actions. It became clear that just as the Third World War did not become like the Second, the new war would not be a combination of an “ice blockade” with local conflicts on the periphery.
In general, between 2013 and 2020, a decision is ripening slowly and painfully in the world elites. Its essence is that local wars have become economically unprofitable, that is, they have ceased to be an adequate tool for redistributing resources. A global war is not even important - a saturating nuclear missile, according to the early ideas of the Third World War, or a large war with limited use of WMD, built rather in the logic of the Second, contains unacceptable risks. And even worse, a major war partly made it possible to resolve the dispute between the powers for world leadership, but in the new fundamentally created conditions it did not overcome economic problems with either debt, derivatives, or even with the economy tilting towards consumption.
A “problem of scale” arose and was reflected: a limited war could not act as a “high-tech economic destructor” according to Alexander Nekless, but a global war turned out to be too good a destructor - “there will be no stone unturned”. In the same way, a war, even of the scale of World War II, will have no effect on the labor market under conditions of progressive robotization: billions of hands are released, and military losses are projected within the first tens of millions - a difference of two orders of magnitude. The global exchange of nuclear strikes will probably solve the problem of excess workers, but too radically even for the modern world elites, who, by the way, could also suffer from such an exchange.
As a result, the opinion that the war ceased to be an adequate, albeit radical solution, gradually crystallized. It is either insufficient or excessive.
The contours of the global battle.
So, there will be no war? Of course it will! But completely different.
Not the first - with infantry attacks against machine guns. Not the second - with tank attacks and strategic bombing. Not the third - with political and economic confrontation, blockade and subversive operations. All this, however, is also used - but as a background, not content.
At the state level, the United States of America is the actor - and moreover, the only one. The main challenge facing the United States is reformatting the national economy. It is at least a leading position in the 6th technological order, and ideally, a transition to post-technological development. In this case, America needs to improve its financial system, redistribute assets in favor of industrial capital and withdraw from the game, at least temporarily, imagining China, Russia and the European Union.
“Redistribution of assets” means a sharp weakening of the 5th technological structure, that is, the confiscation of financial capital, primarily banking. This cannot be done without violent measures, therefore we are talking about a “right” or “substantial” civil war. Civil war in a hegemonic state, and even in conditions of global peace, will certainly become global. The Americans tried a “hot” civil war in the second cycle of their history (1861–1865); they have no special desire to repeat this bloody experiment. Therefore, firstly, the civil war should be exported from the “city on the hill” to the world periphery, and secondly, the war itself should be as cold as possible.
We have a global cold civil war. And this, alas, is not the future of the world, it is its sad present. About five years ago, I read the report “Global catastrophe as an optimal solution.” A certain part of the above considerations was formulated there and it was concluded that it is now more convenient to deal with global economic destruction not with war, but with global catastrophe. Or in other words, global catastrophe is a modern form of war.
And the coronavirus epidemic begins first. At first, with the help of the media, she was given all the features not even of the XIV century plague, but of some almost otherworldly zombie apocalypse. And then an all-terrestrial catastrophe really happens. The paralysis of world trade routes, the total closure of borders, universal quarantine, the fantastic “self-isolation regime” - all this destroys the world economy much faster and more efficiently than strategic bombing, underwater blockade or atomic confrontation of superpowers in the previous great wars. Moreover, globalization has done its job and the economy of almost all states is excessively open.
And right before our eyes, economic ties are breaking. The length of technological chains is sharply reduced. In connection with the breakdown of the sowing season, the ghost of hunger hangs over the world. The universal gross product, the fall of which by a few percent was perceived by each country as a national tragedy, falls immediately by 15 percent, the forecast reaches 50 percent or more. Let me remind you that the marginal indicator of the Great Depression of 1929 was only about 30 percent of the fall in GDP.
Since people are deprived of the opportunity to earn money (this applies to small businesses, self-employed and many others), their savings are burnt in the flame of quarantine. Almost all loans issued by banks to private individuals become non-repayable. So much for the reorganization of the economy, the elimination of “financial bubbles”, and most importantly, the flow of assets from banks to financial funds and from them partially to the industry of a new technological structure. The United States, of course, is also suffering, but they have a plan of action, they have an understanding of what is going on, there is light at the end of the tunnel. They will pay for everything, only they will use the fruits. Actually the perfect strategy!
And where is the civil war? It will begin a little later, when the level of the devastating country that has befallen is finally realized. And not so much by the masses of the people as by the petty bourgeoisie, which the war without a knife put under the knife. And note, the American financial elites, whose interests are expressed by the Clinton clan. Of course, they will start a war for lost property, burned money - for existence.
Spaces of fierce struggle
The task of those elites who win by disaster will be to keep the war within the framework of the cold. That is, to conduct it in the legal space, in semantics, in virtual and augmented realities. But the real world cannot be completely ignored, therefore again, as in the third world war, there will be a political opera, where the protagonist and antagonist sing their arias in the foreground, and Troy burns in the background and the dead bury their dead.
To summarize. Previously, war was a social disaster. Today, social disaster has become a war. Before civil war sought to present as a world war. Now the world war will be instituted as a civil war. But this war itself, in the format of popular riots and anti-terrorist operations, will only be a cover for the struggle in completely different spaces.
We list them.
First of all, this is a legal space. The experience of the coronavirus has shown that all constitutional guarantees of citizens, and therefore all articles of laws based on these guarantees, are not worth the paper on which they were once printed. This applies to international law and national laws. On the one hand, this means that the elites are going to rule, relying on brute force, that is, we are threatened by information fascism, medical fascism, or even ordinary fascism. On the other hand, power as the only instrument of power is short-lived. Sooner or later, the “law of the savannah” will be replaced by some form of legitimization. “New Law” will determine the winners and losers in the global civil war.
Let us single out a separate line information law, media law, law, acting in a variety of virtual worlds. Protection of information. Information management. Transformation of information. The main thing is control over networks, network protocols, software shells and work programs. Physical control over servers, data centers, network nodes, and intermodal portals linking virtuality with realities.
Next, we call the conceptual space and the semantic and ontological spaces associated with it. And of course, linguistic space. In my opinion, the coronavirus media epidemic hit not so much the Chinese economy, although its long-term losses are projected to be greater than those of the other participants in the game, but rather the Chinese language, which gradually began to be perceived in the world as a competitor to English. So if the United States achieves its goals in this war, only one conceptual language will remain on Earth - English.
Finally, only last but not least “war without war” will cover the technological space, above all, critical and closing technologies.
Armed forces in the ordinary sense of the word, that is, operating in an ordinary geographical space, of course, will also be used, but only for one purpose - to discourage the losing side from the desire to unauthorized turn a cold war into a hot one.
A war for which Russia, as usual, is not ready, is not a problem of an uncertain future. She has been walking for two months. And in my opinion, in this war the enemy uses blitzkrieg tactics better than Hitler generals did in 1941.
Sergey Pereslegin
https://vpk.name/news/399177_pandemiya_blickrig_nachalsya.html
.
"There are three sorts of conspiracy: by the people who complain, by the people who write, by the people who take action. There is nothing to fear from the first group, the two others are more dangerous; but the police have to be part of all three,"
Joseph Fouche
Joseph Fouche