Big Games with Small Players
Published in NEWS-ASIA
(Russia) on 6 August 2010
by (link to original)
(Russia) on 6 August 2010
by (link to original)
Translated from
by Ilgiz Kambarov.
Edited by Amy Wong.
Rustan Rakhmanaliev: "Americans and Russians prefer economic prosperity in southern Kyrgyzstan."
"When the international commission investigating the Osh events writes in its report the words 'ethnic cleansing,' it will signal not only the end of Kyrgyzstan but Central Asia as a whole. This process should be considered inevitable that can only be prevented by a miracle and certainly not by the mayor of Osh." The person who literally dumbfounded me with such assertion is the professor, academic of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, doctor of historical sciences, doctor of Philosophy, honorary doctor of military sciences and author of the fundamentally historical work "Empire of Turks: The Great Civilization," Rustan Rakhmanaliev. Our conversation was about the "self-regulating" decision of the Osh deputies and Mayor Melisbek Myrzakmatov forbidding the OSCE police from arriving in the "southern capital." Such a decision was implemented against the intentions of the central government. Our conversation, quite unexpectedly for ourselves, "transformed" into a full interview that went far beyond the "borders" of a small country.
“Once upon a time I participated in one of the "roundtables" with a report dedicated to Russian-Chinese relations,” starts Rustan Rakhmanaliev. “In the report, I expressed certain figures unflattering to the Chinese participants. For example, I mentioned that due to annual dust storms in China, which are the result of catastrophic levels of erosion, up to 50,000 tons of dust ascend into the air. It is carried by wind towards South Korea, Japan and even California. Therefore, China damages not only its own ecology but has also become one of the 'leaders' in polluting the world atmosphere. One of the Chinese professors had very painful reaction to my speech. The underlying reason of a negative message was very uncommon. 'What kind of countries are these? Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan?! For China, they are but temporary phenomenon, since in the near future they will go under someone's protectorate anyway. Yet they express complaints to a great power!'"
Under whose protectorate precisely?
This question is not that important. If we speak about Central Asian republics with their current semi-feudal structures, then they have been under someone's protectorate for hundreds of years anyway. What could the national leadership prove within the last 20 years of so-called independence? Only its incompetence in terms of long-term governing. The populations of these countries have been regressing in economic, intellectual and spiritual ways.
As for pseudo-democratic Kyrgyzstan in particular. No matter what form of government we may speak of, presidential or presidential-parliamentarian, there is only one dominant form, and it is based on families and clans. The Asian states cannot be different. How can we explain this? By absence of intellectual basis, political culture, absence of a particular philosophy of life that is completely different from that of democratic countries? Additionally by the fact that Central Asian leaders inherited the worst features of Soviet bureaucracy.
So, coming back to the tragic events in Kyrgyzstan, I can say that no matter how paradoxical it may sound, those events serve as initiators of beneficial deeds, which is the massive process of change of political elites. It is inevitable in post-Soviet Central Asian republics. Speaking figuratively, the political landscape of the region will be exposed to serious tectonic changes.
Are such political changes indeed taking place? The Osh tragedy, as some local experts claim, is a first step towards the border reforms between Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan...
Such "expert" assessments can be called backward, puppet and thus primitive. I am talking about global geopolitics. Those processes were described, for example, by Peter Hopkirk in the book "The Great Game: The Struggle for Empire in Central Asia." Anglo-Saxons have been at war for Central Asia for 250 years already. At the beginning of the 19th century the struggle for influence in the region between the Russian and British empires ended with a victory for the Russians. Let me remind you that Central Asia had been under the "wing" of the Russian empire for a long time. Then it became part of the USSR. The collapse of the Soviet Union instigated the beginning of new moves within the great game. Nowadays, the actors are the European Union, which does not do anything without consultations with the U.S., and the Russian Federation, although China is seen as a more active player than Russia today.
But U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Robert Blake stressed that the U.S. does not consider any country as possessing the exclusive rights of influence in Central Asia. Therefore, the U.S. does not compete with any other state in this term; however, it works with Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan and Russia on preventing the violence escalation in the Kyrgyz Republic.
What a naivety! Any assistants inasmuch as the press secretaries and the press services function in order to misinform the population. Don't you know about this? Mr. Blake speaks as though they are not pushing anybody with their elbows, that they are not competing, that they are cooperating. He is right to a certain extent. Yes, they are not competing but for a simple reason. They have nobody to compete with. Ironically, Russia found "consensus" with America in this case. The two great powers "cooperate" to constrain the growing power of China. Experts predict that after five years, China will become the world's largest industrial producer. This will automatically lead to a shift of geopolitical power. China will reach and then replace the U.S. on the pedestal of global leadership. Americans understand this perfectly and will do everything possible to prevent this. The Taliban is an example. In reality, the "Taliban" is absolutely a controllable movement. If Americans really wanted to, they could have destroyed it within two weeks. But they do not need this, since the Taliban holds the region under pressure, thus preventing China from accessing Persian oil and gas. Russians, in their case, also understand that they are incapable and are therefore not undertaking any essential or serious steps.
So the primary objective of U.S. policy toward Central Asian countries is their pro-Western orientation. But what kind of actions are our politicians undertaking in this context? "Backward" experts, as you call them, stress that the forthcoming parliamentary elections are some kind of exam on pro-Russian orientation.
I can assure you that our political elite is closely connected with Western secret services. Local politicians can confess to love Russia and swear to eternal friendship with it as much as is necessary, but it is indeed a political bluff. There are not sincere relations and there will not be any. Though this situation is unique, the electorate wants a friendship with Russia. Many naively dream of reunification with it. However, politicians do not want it. Meanwhile, others accuse Russia of imperialistic ambitions. I have one argument regarding all claims coming from leaders of various states against Russia. Today, there are about 11.5 million foreign workers in Russia. And these are unofficial figures; official figures are much lower. Out of them, seven million are Uzbeks and 1.5 million are Kyrgyz. There are also Tajiks, Turks and so on. Let us imagine that for the last 10 years, each of them had sent about $2,000 back every single year. That is, Central Asian states received over $200 billion. Certainly, Russia needs the inflow of cheap labour, but if foreign workers did not have any place to go for work, then those countries would have revolutions every single year.
Concerning the secret services, Oleg Platonov cites Benjamin Disraeli in one of his works, that "the world is governed by very different personages from what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes."* Thus the idea of a government behind the scenes is understood as a certain union of agents influenced by the West who work for the global government consisting of several hundred individuals possessing huge authority on global decision-making in issues of international politics, economics and culture. So, he stresses that Rose Otunbaeva was a member of this council under chairmanship of the World Forum during her tenure as the ambassador of Kyrgyzstan to United States.
I read all of the works by Oleg Platonov, and I respect this person. He is very competent and a highly educated expert. However, his books and articles have Russian chauvinism as well. So one should not trust everything that he writes. Rosa Otunbaeva is certainly a very interesting person, but small on a global scale. She does not possess extensive political influence to be included in any globally governing institutions.
If we take generally, could such a global government be a myth?
Well, if there wasn't one, then it should be created.
What for? For regulating population growth?
Not at all. For creating the mechanism of global planning and long-term distribution of resources.
OK, let's get back to Kyrgyzstan. You mentioned that Russia withdraws from the region or, at least, reduces its influence to a minimum due to its incapability. What kind of role do the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, the Collective Security Treaty Organization and the Eurasian Economic Community play in the life of Kyrgyzstan and Central Asia as whole?
Are they playing any significant role now? Are they able to stop the inter-ethnic conflict in its member countries, to provide a peaceful settlement to the situation or to have an impact on it somehow? All these organizations are absolutely pointless, exaggerated and bureaucratized. Except for the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, and that is only because it has China as a member. The Collective Security Treaty Organization is just a collection of generals. These organizations consume an immense amount of money. They should be dismissed…
Why then, in such circumstances, did Russia "delegate" its special representative here?
If speaking particularly about the senator from the Arkhangelsk province, Vladimir Rushailo, then I don't have any idea. The media in Moscow is also curious about this issue. Why Rushailo, a person who is not an expert on Kyrgyzstan or Central Asia? It is known that once upon time he studied together with Felix Kulov but so what? There is one retired colonel in the Russian State Duma named Semyon Bagdasarov. He worked as the head of the Department on Cooperation with Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Turkmenistan in the Ministry on CIS affairs within the Ministry of Cooperation in the Russian Federation. He has good relations with a number of political and religious leaders in the Middle East and Central Asia. He is the author of more than 100 publications on the issues of Islam and the Central Asian region, and he speaks Dari, the official language of Afghanistan, and Uzbek. He is an outstanding candidate to be special representative, isn't he? Yet they are nominating Rushailo.
Certainly, various speculations are being circulated in governmental rooms. For example, they say that Boris Berezovsky has pumped in a lot of money into the Kyrgyz economy through Maxim Bakiev, Eugenie Gurevich and Valery Belokonya, which he has lost "thanks to" the revolution. So here comes Vladimir Rushailo, who was friends with Boris Berezovski, in order to pull out at least some money out of what is left. Other than that, being a pro-Russian person myself, I am surprised with the infantilism and indifference of the Russian government in relation to Central Asian states. Especially if we consider how much effort and means have been invested here by Moscow. By withdrawing its positions from the region, Russia pushes Central Asian republics to "drift" toward the United States. For the region, such a leaning might be beneficial. But is it good for Russia?
Beneficial for the republics? People are protesting against OSCE police and the international investigation into the causes of the recent tragic events in the south. It suggests to us the possibility of a Kosovo scenario, when the decision of the U.N. international court approved the legitimacy of the unilateral separation of the region [Kosovo]. To which extent are such prognoses real in our case?
Nothing occurs twice in history. All failures with Kosovo will be considered. The situation will be completely different. The United States is interested in economic development in southern Kyrgyzstan. How much did the West promise to invest here? Billions of dollars? They will invest $10 and $20 billion. In a few years, we will not recognize the city of Osh, for it will become something like Singapore or Malaysia.
Where is such generosity coming from?
Because it will allow United States to control such states as Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, India and Mongolia, in addition to Central Asia. As for Mongolia, by the way, many forget that it has huge strategic value in terms of geopolitics. Besides, from an economic point of view, Central Asia has a favorable climate that can provide, with a smart approach, good harvests of the most valuable cultures — plus enormous oil fields and gas, uranium and rare and precious metals, including gold. This region is ripe for these kinds of investments.
Okay, the south will become like Singapore. How about the north then?
The north will get something too. It will not be worse then what it is now. When I hear the phrase "human rights in Central Asia," it sounds ridiculous to me. What rights? What are you talking about? We are not humans for our political elite; humans are not supposed to be treated as they were within the last 20 years. We are just working power, manure and stuff. What are the leaders of the states busy with? With the systematic destruction of their own people. Once in power, they start to rewrite the national constitution like 300 times, and why? There are elementary principles for governors, among which the main one is not to steal. But what do we have?
Let's talk about “Singapore” prospects. You drew such a fantastic picture. Why, for example, is the mayor of Osh — Melis Myrzakmatov, who considers himself a patriot, by the way, and a nationalist at the same time — so vigorously against the arrival of external forces? Doesn't he wish any good for his own nation? Or does he simply not know what a magical future the south will have?
First of all, the protectorate of any country for representatives of our rotten political elite is equal to economic death. They will be dragged away from a feeding trough. Secondly, who is Myrzakmatov? The destiny of Kyrgyzstan is not decided in the Osh city counsel and not even in Bishkek, but much more above. Whether Myrzakmatov wants it or not, OSCE police will enter Osh.
As you know, Kyrgyzstan created its own national commission to investigate the June 2010 events, which is headed by Abdygany Erkebaev. What do you think will happen if the results of the national commission differ from the results of the international commission?
I know Erkebaev personally. He is a low official in every sense. I doubt that he will have enough guts to forge any facts. Besides, Russian secret services have 1,600 photos, a 400-minute-long documentary film and more than 3,000 files at their disposal that can reveal the real picture of those events. If the national commission conceals anything, those files will be demonstrate it.
Our experts are warning that parliamentary elections can bring new conflicts. To what extent are such forecasts true?
I believe that, under these conditions, there is nothing to worry about for the people. Political parties will "smash" each other verbally but no more than that. No matter what the results of the elections will be, the international community will accept them. All players are only interested in the United States, Europe and Russia. The inflow of investments will help to stabilize conditions and thus decide other long-term issues that could be initiated only through electing a new parliament. Speaking in general, whatever happens, happens for the better. Whether it is Americans or Europeans who will enter, it will not be that bad. Things will be more terrible if nobody will enter at all, especially today, during the complete degradation of the population.
"When the international commission investigating the Osh events writes in its report the words 'ethnic cleansing,' it will signal not only the end of Kyrgyzstan but Central Asia as a whole. This process should be considered inevitable that can only be prevented by a miracle and certainly not by the mayor of Osh." The person who literally dumbfounded me with such assertion is the professor, academic of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, doctor of historical sciences, doctor of Philosophy, honorary doctor of military sciences and author of the fundamentally historical work "Empire of Turks: The Great Civilization," Rustan Rakhmanaliev. Our conversation was about the "self-regulating" decision of the Osh deputies and Mayor Melisbek Myrzakmatov forbidding the OSCE police from arriving in the "southern capital." Such a decision was implemented against the intentions of the central government. Our conversation, quite unexpectedly for ourselves, "transformed" into a full interview that went far beyond the "borders" of a small country.
“Once upon a time I participated in one of the "roundtables" with a report dedicated to Russian-Chinese relations,” starts Rustan Rakhmanaliev. “In the report, I expressed certain figures unflattering to the Chinese participants. For example, I mentioned that due to annual dust storms in China, which are the result of catastrophic levels of erosion, up to 50,000 tons of dust ascend into the air. It is carried by wind towards South Korea, Japan and even California. Therefore, China damages not only its own ecology but has also become one of the 'leaders' in polluting the world atmosphere. One of the Chinese professors had very painful reaction to my speech. The underlying reason of a negative message was very uncommon. 'What kind of countries are these? Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan?! For China, they are but temporary phenomenon, since in the near future they will go under someone's protectorate anyway. Yet they express complaints to a great power!'"
Under whose protectorate precisely?
This question is not that important. If we speak about Central Asian republics with their current semi-feudal structures, then they have been under someone's protectorate for hundreds of years anyway. What could the national leadership prove within the last 20 years of so-called independence? Only its incompetence in terms of long-term governing. The populations of these countries have been regressing in economic, intellectual and spiritual ways.
As for pseudo-democratic Kyrgyzstan in particular. No matter what form of government we may speak of, presidential or presidential-parliamentarian, there is only one dominant form, and it is based on families and clans. The Asian states cannot be different. How can we explain this? By absence of intellectual basis, political culture, absence of a particular philosophy of life that is completely different from that of democratic countries? Additionally by the fact that Central Asian leaders inherited the worst features of Soviet bureaucracy.
So, coming back to the tragic events in Kyrgyzstan, I can say that no matter how paradoxical it may sound, those events serve as initiators of beneficial deeds, which is the massive process of change of political elites. It is inevitable in post-Soviet Central Asian republics. Speaking figuratively, the political landscape of the region will be exposed to serious tectonic changes.
Are such political changes indeed taking place? The Osh tragedy, as some local experts claim, is a first step towards the border reforms between Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan...
Such "expert" assessments can be called backward, puppet and thus primitive. I am talking about global geopolitics. Those processes were described, for example, by Peter Hopkirk in the book "The Great Game: The Struggle for Empire in Central Asia." Anglo-Saxons have been at war for Central Asia for 250 years already. At the beginning of the 19th century the struggle for influence in the region between the Russian and British empires ended with a victory for the Russians. Let me remind you that Central Asia had been under the "wing" of the Russian empire for a long time. Then it became part of the USSR. The collapse of the Soviet Union instigated the beginning of new moves within the great game. Nowadays, the actors are the European Union, which does not do anything without consultations with the U.S., and the Russian Federation, although China is seen as a more active player than Russia today.
But U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Robert Blake stressed that the U.S. does not consider any country as possessing the exclusive rights of influence in Central Asia. Therefore, the U.S. does not compete with any other state in this term; however, it works with Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan and Russia on preventing the violence escalation in the Kyrgyz Republic.
What a naivety! Any assistants inasmuch as the press secretaries and the press services function in order to misinform the population. Don't you know about this? Mr. Blake speaks as though they are not pushing anybody with their elbows, that they are not competing, that they are cooperating. He is right to a certain extent. Yes, they are not competing but for a simple reason. They have nobody to compete with. Ironically, Russia found "consensus" with America in this case. The two great powers "cooperate" to constrain the growing power of China. Experts predict that after five years, China will become the world's largest industrial producer. This will automatically lead to a shift of geopolitical power. China will reach and then replace the U.S. on the pedestal of global leadership. Americans understand this perfectly and will do everything possible to prevent this. The Taliban is an example. In reality, the "Taliban" is absolutely a controllable movement. If Americans really wanted to, they could have destroyed it within two weeks. But they do not need this, since the Taliban holds the region under pressure, thus preventing China from accessing Persian oil and gas. Russians, in their case, also understand that they are incapable and are therefore not undertaking any essential or serious steps.
So the primary objective of U.S. policy toward Central Asian countries is their pro-Western orientation. But what kind of actions are our politicians undertaking in this context? "Backward" experts, as you call them, stress that the forthcoming parliamentary elections are some kind of exam on pro-Russian orientation.
I can assure you that our political elite is closely connected with Western secret services. Local politicians can confess to love Russia and swear to eternal friendship with it as much as is necessary, but it is indeed a political bluff. There are not sincere relations and there will not be any. Though this situation is unique, the electorate wants a friendship with Russia. Many naively dream of reunification with it. However, politicians do not want it. Meanwhile, others accuse Russia of imperialistic ambitions. I have one argument regarding all claims coming from leaders of various states against Russia. Today, there are about 11.5 million foreign workers in Russia. And these are unofficial figures; official figures are much lower. Out of them, seven million are Uzbeks and 1.5 million are Kyrgyz. There are also Tajiks, Turks and so on. Let us imagine that for the last 10 years, each of them had sent about $2,000 back every single year. That is, Central Asian states received over $200 billion. Certainly, Russia needs the inflow of cheap labour, but if foreign workers did not have any place to go for work, then those countries would have revolutions every single year.
Concerning the secret services, Oleg Platonov cites Benjamin Disraeli in one of his works, that "the world is governed by very different personages from what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes."* Thus the idea of a government behind the scenes is understood as a certain union of agents influenced by the West who work for the global government consisting of several hundred individuals possessing huge authority on global decision-making in issues of international politics, economics and culture. So, he stresses that Rose Otunbaeva was a member of this council under chairmanship of the World Forum during her tenure as the ambassador of Kyrgyzstan to United States.
I read all of the works by Oleg Platonov, and I respect this person. He is very competent and a highly educated expert. However, his books and articles have Russian chauvinism as well. So one should not trust everything that he writes. Rosa Otunbaeva is certainly a very interesting person, but small on a global scale. She does not possess extensive political influence to be included in any globally governing institutions.
If we take generally, could such a global government be a myth?
Well, if there wasn't one, then it should be created.
What for? For regulating population growth?
Not at all. For creating the mechanism of global planning and long-term distribution of resources.
OK, let's get back to Kyrgyzstan. You mentioned that Russia withdraws from the region or, at least, reduces its influence to a minimum due to its incapability. What kind of role do the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, the Collective Security Treaty Organization and the Eurasian Economic Community play in the life of Kyrgyzstan and Central Asia as whole?
Are they playing any significant role now? Are they able to stop the inter-ethnic conflict in its member countries, to provide a peaceful settlement to the situation or to have an impact on it somehow? All these organizations are absolutely pointless, exaggerated and bureaucratized. Except for the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, and that is only because it has China as a member. The Collective Security Treaty Organization is just a collection of generals. These organizations consume an immense amount of money. They should be dismissed…
Why then, in such circumstances, did Russia "delegate" its special representative here?
If speaking particularly about the senator from the Arkhangelsk province, Vladimir Rushailo, then I don't have any idea. The media in Moscow is also curious about this issue. Why Rushailo, a person who is not an expert on Kyrgyzstan or Central Asia? It is known that once upon time he studied together with Felix Kulov but so what? There is one retired colonel in the Russian State Duma named Semyon Bagdasarov. He worked as the head of the Department on Cooperation with Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Turkmenistan in the Ministry on CIS affairs within the Ministry of Cooperation in the Russian Federation. He has good relations with a number of political and religious leaders in the Middle East and Central Asia. He is the author of more than 100 publications on the issues of Islam and the Central Asian region, and he speaks Dari, the official language of Afghanistan, and Uzbek. He is an outstanding candidate to be special representative, isn't he? Yet they are nominating Rushailo.
Certainly, various speculations are being circulated in governmental rooms. For example, they say that Boris Berezovsky has pumped in a lot of money into the Kyrgyz economy through Maxim Bakiev, Eugenie Gurevich and Valery Belokonya, which he has lost "thanks to" the revolution. So here comes Vladimir Rushailo, who was friends with Boris Berezovski, in order to pull out at least some money out of what is left. Other than that, being a pro-Russian person myself, I am surprised with the infantilism and indifference of the Russian government in relation to Central Asian states. Especially if we consider how much effort and means have been invested here by Moscow. By withdrawing its positions from the region, Russia pushes Central Asian republics to "drift" toward the United States. For the region, such a leaning might be beneficial. But is it good for Russia?
Beneficial for the republics? People are protesting against OSCE police and the international investigation into the causes of the recent tragic events in the south. It suggests to us the possibility of a Kosovo scenario, when the decision of the U.N. international court approved the legitimacy of the unilateral separation of the region [Kosovo]. To which extent are such prognoses real in our case?
Nothing occurs twice in history. All failures with Kosovo will be considered. The situation will be completely different. The United States is interested in economic development in southern Kyrgyzstan. How much did the West promise to invest here? Billions of dollars? They will invest $10 and $20 billion. In a few years, we will not recognize the city of Osh, for it will become something like Singapore or Malaysia.
Where is such generosity coming from?
Because it will allow United States to control such states as Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, India and Mongolia, in addition to Central Asia. As for Mongolia, by the way, many forget that it has huge strategic value in terms of geopolitics. Besides, from an economic point of view, Central Asia has a favorable climate that can provide, with a smart approach, good harvests of the most valuable cultures — plus enormous oil fields and gas, uranium and rare and precious metals, including gold. This region is ripe for these kinds of investments.
Okay, the south will become like Singapore. How about the north then?
The north will get something too. It will not be worse then what it is now. When I hear the phrase "human rights in Central Asia," it sounds ridiculous to me. What rights? What are you talking about? We are not humans for our political elite; humans are not supposed to be treated as they were within the last 20 years. We are just working power, manure and stuff. What are the leaders of the states busy with? With the systematic destruction of their own people. Once in power, they start to rewrite the national constitution like 300 times, and why? There are elementary principles for governors, among which the main one is not to steal. But what do we have?
Let's talk about “Singapore” prospects. You drew such a fantastic picture. Why, for example, is the mayor of Osh — Melis Myrzakmatov, who considers himself a patriot, by the way, and a nationalist at the same time — so vigorously against the arrival of external forces? Doesn't he wish any good for his own nation? Or does he simply not know what a magical future the south will have?
First of all, the protectorate of any country for representatives of our rotten political elite is equal to economic death. They will be dragged away from a feeding trough. Secondly, who is Myrzakmatov? The destiny of Kyrgyzstan is not decided in the Osh city counsel and not even in Bishkek, but much more above. Whether Myrzakmatov wants it or not, OSCE police will enter Osh.
As you know, Kyrgyzstan created its own national commission to investigate the June 2010 events, which is headed by Abdygany Erkebaev. What do you think will happen if the results of the national commission differ from the results of the international commission?
I know Erkebaev personally. He is a low official in every sense. I doubt that he will have enough guts to forge any facts. Besides, Russian secret services have 1,600 photos, a 400-minute-long documentary film and more than 3,000 files at their disposal that can reveal the real picture of those events. If the national commission conceals anything, those files will be demonstrate it.
Our experts are warning that parliamentary elections can bring new conflicts. To what extent are such forecasts true?
I believe that, under these conditions, there is nothing to worry about for the people. Political parties will "smash" each other verbally but no more than that. No matter what the results of the elections will be, the international community will accept them. All players are only interested in the United States, Europe and Russia. The inflow of investments will help to stabilize conditions and thus decide other long-term issues that could be initiated only through electing a new parliament. Speaking in general, whatever happens, happens for the better. Whether it is Americans or Europeans who will enter, it will not be that bad. Things will be more terrible if nobody will enter at all, especially today, during the complete degradation of the population.
Previous article![]( "One Man’s Virtual Fight against Deportation")
