Will the Fate of the USSR Befall the US?*

*Editor’s note: On March 4, Russia enacted a law that criminalizes public opposition to, or independent news reporting about, the war in Ukraine. The law makes it a crime to call the war a “war” rather than a “special military operation” on social media or in a news article or broadcast. The law is understood to penalize any language that “discredits” Russia’s use of its military in Ukraine, calls for sanctions or protests Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. It punishes anyone found to spread “false information” about the invasion with up to 15 years in prison.

The secretary general of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, Jens Stoltenberg, stated that “As long as Russia continues to behave as it is now, especially with respect to Ukraine, there is no opportunity for a meaningful dialogue.” That means that not only Kyiv but also its real puppet masters don’t want to have any conversation with us, counting instead on a battlefield victory.

First of all, we would like to note that Russia started to behave “as it is now” back on Feb. 24. However, all our offers to hold a constructive dialogue have been turned down. Such a situation begs the question: How should have Russia behaved to interest NATO in a “meaningful dialogue” with it?

There are two possible versions. The first one is the total abandonment of our sovereignty, the option Ukraine chose, by the way. This is what the U.S. and NATO understand as a “meaningful dialogue.” In the Russian language, though, it is called “a dictate.” No, thank you. NATO, however, seems to be convinced that sooner or later Russia will submit and ask for peace on any terms. We should say a big “thank you” to Mikhail Gorbachev, who in the 1980s surrendered everything with no guarantees at all, and also to Boris Yeltsin, who, pursuing personal power, split the country, and in the span of mere years, corroded the military might of the USSR to such a degree that it took the suicidal march of Russian paratroopers on Pristina to force NATO to pay at least some attention to Russian wishes concerning the situation in Kosovo. And even then there were people wishing to see how Russia would respond if NATO simply butchered these paratroopers.

In short, NATO is confident in its own power and in our weakness, so it doesn’t want to talk.

The second version of what has to happen to really make the West take an interest in negotiations — a serious threat to NATO countries’ well-being, particularly the U.S. — it couldn’t care less about Europe. Not a nuclear threat since that’s a double-edged sword and Russia fully shares the overall sentiment that there are no winners in a nuclear war — you can only cause unacceptable damage to an opponent by bringing a mortal threat.

For now, the U.S. is out of danger, and it will comfortably watch the deindustrialization of Europe and Ukraine’s transformation into a permanent source of instability, as well as other such sources — Kosovo, for example.

In this context, we have a question: What threat to the well-being of the U.S. can Russia cause, excluding the unacceptable and impossible nuclear scenario? Especially considering the fact that the West couldn’t get rid of the Soviet Union — the finishing blow was delivered from within. NATO was just watching it all unfold with curiosity and then, meeting no resistance, absorbed our former allies and even parts of our country, to whom they explained that they, apparently, simply had been “occupied” by Russia.

It’s obvious that the U.S. in modern times really resembles the Soviet Union of the 1980s. Because of its gerontocracy (a much more serious case of gerontocracy: Leonid Brezhnev died at 75, while Joe Biden at 80 plans to run for a second term). Because of its harsh ideological “dictate,” the agents of which don’t believe in the ideology they preach themselves. Because various rallies in support of the Black Lives Matter movement and LGBT differ little from ritualistic Soviet rallies. Because it has a major budget imbalance toward helping other countries — how much has Washington already spent on Ukraine, even after adjusting for the corruption factor?

So, if not for some divine intervention, a large-scale inner crisis in the U.S. is only a matter of time.

Our task is, first, to aid all those who stand for the reduction of the hypertrophied international activity of Washington, and also all those who stand for the independence of Texas, California and other states — just like the British and then the U.S. supported our separatists.

Second, we need to be strong and influential enough at the moment when this crisis comes. The dissolution of the USSR very negatively affected our then-traditional trade partners. Considering the U.S. role in global trade, its troubles are capable of dragging not just Europe, Japan and Australia, but also many other countries into a deep crisis.

And then, when strong and calm Russia will stand amid the total chaos, we can talk about some “meaningful dialogue.”