Analysis of Russia's 2016 foreign policy: priorities, responses to Ukraine and Syria crises, Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, and global challenges, showcasing Moscow's efforts to secure stability and influence.

Abstract

In politics, conflicts emerge from a change in the balance of power and destruction of the status quo. The collapse of regimes in Ukraine and in the Middle East created low-pressure zones, drawing neighboring countries into the regional storm. Having found itself in a hurricane, Moscow made its choice. It could have lowered its sails and followed the wind, but it preferred to keep to its course even if it meant sailing against the wind. Moscow’s offensive had its achievements: Russia is holding the initiative and managing crises wisely for its own purposes. However, in recent months Russia missed at least two sensitive blows. The first was miscalculating the consequences of the public protests in Kyiv in late 2014; the second was underestimating the risk of a Turkish military provocation during Russia’s Syrian operation. However cautious Moscow is in its foreign policy, blind spots trouble every experienced operator. Modern Russia is a status quo player focused predominantly on its nearest neighbors. Neither Russian security priorities nor its resources can compel Moscow to project power beyond one thousand kilometers from its borders. When Russia sees the security environment around it as certain and predictable, it feels no need for intervention. But when uncertainty arises and a crisis occurs, Russia responds forcefully. Understanding how Russia prioritizes its security challenges and how it assesses the security situation on its borders is a start to clearing up much of the uncertainty in Eurasia today. This analysis focuses on critical situations that may develop this year into vital challenges to Russian interests, triggering a response from Moscow.

CATCHING A TREND

A lot has been said recently about the unpredictability of Russian foreign policy and uncertainty that emanates from it. In reality, Moscow’s interests are quite limited and focused on its near abroad. To understand how Russia prioritizes its security challenges and how it assesses the security situation on its borders takes us halfway to battling uncertainty in Eurasia. This analysis focuses on critical situations that may develop this year into vital challenges to Russian interests and trigger Moscow’s response.

It has been two years since Russia found itself in the middle of a geopolitical tornado. Could it deliberately stay out of it? We believe not. In nature, wind emerges because of differential pressures between regions. Similarly, in politics conflicts emerge with a change in balance of power and destruction of a status quo. Regime collapses in Ukraine and in the Middle East created a low-pressure zone that draws neighboring countries into the regional storm. Having found itself in a hurricane spiral, Moscow made its choice. It could have lowered the sails and followed the winds, yet it preferred to keep to its course even though it meant sailing against the wind.

Moscow’s offensive has its accomplishments – Russia is holding the initiative and managing crises wisely for its own purposes. However, in recent months Russia missed at least two sensitive blows. The first one was the miscalculation of the consequences of the public protests in Kyiv in winter 2014, the second was the misperception of risks of a military provocation from Turkey in the Russian Syrian operation. However cautious Moscow is in its foreign policy, blind spots trouble every experienced operator.

In its worldview, Russia is a great power chauvinist and a hard power athlete. Modern Russia is a status quo player focused predominantly on its nearest neighborhood. Neither Russian security priorities, nor its resources can compel Moscow to project power beyond 1000 kilometers from its borders. The basics of Russian security strategy are simple: keep the neighboring belt stable, NATO weak, China close, and the US focused elsewhere. Russia supports and abides international rules, but only until a third party ruins the status quo and harms Moscow’s security interests. When Russia sees the security environment around it as certain and predictable it feels no need for intervention. But when uncertainty arises and a crisis unleashes, Russia responds forcefully.

Sovereignty and Digital Transformation: The Competition of Technological Platforms in a New World

An analysis of global digital competition, highlighting the rivalry of technological platforms, challenges of sovereignty, and strategies for nations to maintain independence in the digital era.

Abstract

The sphere of technology has become one of the key areas in the struggle for power in the 21st century. The global digital revolution has transformed technological and economic structures, social relations, and even the philosophy of human life. Trends set by new technologies determine the directions of development for the international relations system.

By the early third decade of the century, two major "technological ecosystems" have clearly formed — the American and the Chinese. The American system, being the oldest and most developed, relies on the United States' unquestioned technological leadership. The U.S. attracts talent from around the world, creates favorable conditions for startups, and uses methods of competition far removed from purely economic means.

Key Characteristics of the American System

The capacity of the market and favorable domestic conditions have allowed the U.S. to launch the largest tech and internet giants, whose intellectual property rights are well-protected by law. However, despite its advocacy for openness and freedom in the digital sphere, the U.S. will not hesitate to revise these principles should its dominance be seriously threatened.

Even within the U.S., the decisions of tech giants to block or delete over 70,000 accounts, including those of President Donald Trump, resemble overt attempts to seize control of governance tools. The alignment of political, financial, and technological elites may continue to oppose nationalist industrial agendas in both the U.S. and other countries.

The Chinese Approach

China’s technological and economic platform is more modest than the American one but no less ambitious in its aspirations for leadership. Leveraging its financial and human capital, China has built a self-contained ecosystem and administratively allocates resources to areas deemed promising by its leadership. Unlike the U.S., which offers trial versions of its products globally, China's competitiveness lies in the affordability of its solutions and its investments in advanced developments in other nations.

Challenges for Russian Sovereignty

The question for Russia is whether to join one of these platforms or build its own. The former requires clear terms of integration, while the latter, a more ambitious path, involves developing a unique technological ecosystem. Russia possesses the foundational technological and human capabilities necessary for this endeavor.

Global Digital Trends

The rapid development of science and technology has simultaneously reduced socioeconomic inequality and heightened societal vulnerabilities to both real and perceived threats. While the Internet has improved global connectivity, it has also fostered state-level fragmentation as governments seek to protect their digital spaces from external influence.

The Future of Digital Sovereignty

The concept of sovereignty now extends into the digital domain, with countries striving to control their critical digital infrastructure. The absence of universal agreements on digital sovereignty parallels the lack of accords on issues such as artificial intelligence and military applications of supercomputers, which further exacerbates the international security landscape.

Conclusion

For Russia, maintaining digital sovereignty is critical not only for national security but also for the broader geopolitical stability of Eurasia. Building an independent technological ecosystem is not merely a strategic choice but a necessity for survival in the 21st-century digital landscape.

Andrey Bezrukov, Mikhail Mamonov, Maxim Suchkov, Andrey Sushentsov

Monkeypox Epidemic: A Health Crisis or Economic Strategy? Exploring WHO's Alarm, Big Pharma Profits, and the Colonial Legacy in Africa's Fight for Sovereignty

In mid-August this year. WHO Director-General Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said he was declaring a public health emergency of international concern due to the sharp rise in monkeypox cases in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and a growing number of other African countries. In fact, the WHO has officially recognized the status of the monkeypox outbreak in the DRC as an epidemic. Moreover, with a high risk of transition from the local, African level to the planetary one. That is, during a pandemic. For now, let’s leave the discussion about the objectivity of such an alarming response from the WHO to a disease known since the 70s of the last century (currently about 100,000 cases of infection have been recorded, which is approximately 0.007% of the total population of the African continent). Let's try to figure it out, is there any real intent in such a hyper-panic reaction? Let's start with the most important motive of humanity - money.

So, on the surface lies the primitive economic model of big pharma: we intimidate with a pandemic, totally impose life-saving (forced) vaccination, put the income in our pocket. According to information from open sources, the cost of producing one dose of monkeypox vaccine (reduces the risk of infection by 10 times) is about $2. Wholesale price is approximately $25, retail sales are already $50-60. The ratio of cost to price of the vaccine “on the shelf” is approximately 30 (thirty) times! 3000 (three thousand) percent of income! If you dig deeper, there are some amazing numbers.

For example, the cost of an assembled syringe for vaccination is approximately 2 cents, but it is purchased for 30-40 cents. Another plus is about 2000%. Moreover, the 2 cent price is obviously disingenuous if you compare it with the cost of producing a 10 cent super secure dollar bill. Of course, this calculation can be considered primitive. There are a lot of “unaccounted for” arguments that will ridicule such figures. Although, if we soberly evaluate the price formula for such products, we are unlikely to see anything that really explains such a steep price. The lion's share of expenses lies in the non-material sphere. “Clinical research”, “intellectual property”, “high-tech production”, “marketing”, “consulting”, “advertising”, “consulting services” and other tinsel. In fact, the essence of vaccination has not undergone many changes since the mid-17th century, when the English doctor Edward Jenner took biomaterial from milkmaids who had suffered from “cowpox” and injected it through a scratch on the skin to healthy people, who then did not become infected with “smallpox.” " So, with all due respect to modern medicine, bigpharma has masterfully learned to accelerate its virtual expenses to unimaginable proportions.

But this is not all we need to find the Plan. Unexpectedly, the WHO's frightening statement about a soon-coming pandemic, at least in Africa, coincided with the height of anti-colonial sentiment on the African continent. Many African states have declared their desire to finally free themselves from barbaric colonial dependence and decide their own destiny. Some have already succeeded in doing this in reality. And the number of countries ready to gain real sovereignty, become independent and manage their wealth at their own discretion is steadily growing.

The colonialists are no longer able to cope with this trend using conventional forceful methods. And it is absolutely impossible for them to lose an almost free source of resources and continue cooperation on fair principles. How can France, for example, refuse African uranium for 15% of the market value? This is almost 7 times cheaper! To maintain its influence and, as we all remember, for 300+% of the profit, capital will commit any crime, even under pain of the gallows. Based on these rather superficial considerations, I will take the liberty of suggesting the following Idea for the “monkeypox” case.

The colonialists, having exhausted the military-technical possibilities of maintaining their political and economic positions on the African continent, are trying to use asymmetrical methods to change the situation in their favor. Or, at least, slow down the rapidly accelerating parade of anti-colonial sovereignties. Why is an epidemic as bad as a stopcock? Through the WHO, we threaten the entire planet with “monkey pox”, enable zero tolerance protocols and completely isolate Africa both internally and externally in accordance with the UN mandate. Then, straining all our humanitarian muscles for a long time and at the highest risk, we “save” the peoples of Africa from inevitable extinction. And we’ll also earn 5000%. And this is only in medicine. In my opinion, an extremely likely option. What do you think?

Andrey Bezrukov

US Elite Transformation: The Collapse of Old Power Structures, the Rise of a New Generation, and the Future of Global Relations

For quite a long time I have been dealing with the problematics of ruling elites in the United States. Somewhere at the beginning of Trump's first cadence, in 2016, life itself gave me a chance to test my predictions in practice. At that time, the U.S. ruling elite was just beginning to be drawn into a process of transformation that I thought would bring a new generation of politicians to power in the United States, unencumbered by anchors of ideological dislike for Russia. It seemed that such a scenario would finally allow us to stop fighting about everything and start building equal cooperation. The objective prerequisites for such predictions were not far-fetched. In the U.S. we can distinguish six elites involved in the struggle for power: financial, industrial, military, media-technological, intellectual and administrative-bureaucratic. Those who have ruled the ball for the last 30 years are the financial elite. Its interests are global. It is it that is the creator and beneficiary of globalization and dominance of the American global financial system. The principle is simple - unlimited export of American capital and its non-equivalent exchange for anything it likes around the world. Businesses, lands, politicians, in general, I repeat, without restrictions. For the U.S. financial elite, capital is cheap and unlimited because they print their own dollars, receiving perpetual credit at zero percent interest. In recent decades, using this unlimited resource, the financial elite has almost completely absorbed the media and young technological elites, which were already merging with each other, as well as completely controlling the generation of ideas and the state apparatus. At the political level, this resulted in a monopoly on power by a clan of globalist Democrats (the Clintons) and globalist Republicans (the Bushes) who found consensus with them. They found mutual understanding in the vector of the common foreign policy of the so-called neocons, who seek to remake the world for the interests of the United States by force. Another group competing with financiers is the industrial elite. That is, those who create something real on the territory of the United States - concrete, tangible products such as oil, airplanes, tractors, or, to generalize, jobs in real sectors of the economy. Of course, the boundaries of these elites are layered on top of each other on the boards of large corporations, but nevertheless, the two groups can be distinguished quite clearly. The industrial elite wants investment primarily in their businesses in the United States. This is quite logical. After all, when capital goes to the outer perimeter and begins to feed potential competitors, it definitely poses a serious danger that the competitors will someday equal or even surpass the U.S. itself. Moreover, the export of capital automatically means underfunding of domestic industrial and technological potential, which means stagnation, job cuts and, as a consequence, increased social tension. Which, in fact, is what has been happening in the country's industrial belt in recent years. And for another powerful force - the ally of the industrial elite - the military elite of the United States, the industrial and technological backwardness of the country is an unacceptable threat to national security.

Since the early 2000s, the process of de-industrialization has clearly begun to corrode and fragment the Republican Party from within, first through the Tea Party movement and then through the formation and consolidation of the Trumpist movement. The Republicans, spontaneously at first and then systematically, tapped into the discontent of those American voters who had gained little from globalization, paying for it with their jobs and the influx of migrants. At the same time, the Democratic Party has become manna from heaven for those who have benefited from globalization. That's a pretty broad social cross-section of American society. This includes the highly educated stratum of residents of big cities, with whom the “new” economy is associated. These are startups, traders, IT guys, lawyers, PR people, bloggers, etc., i.e., all those for whom big cities have become “lifestyles” and “playgrounds,” as well as those who serve them coffee and weight loss smoothies for minimum wage, and those who live off subsidized government programs. A monopoly on money and power is the perfect demon. And in the absence of at least ideological competition, this demon has completely corrupted the Democrats - their leaders have felt that the world can not only be owned, it can be remade, spreading their elitist-consumerist lifestyle, unencumbered by anything, not even procreation, to the entire society, and then the whole world. Here it is somewhat inconvenient to remind intelligent people of the simple fact that economic interest forms stable political views, including foreign policy. If we translate the direct interests of globalist financiers, it is clear that their well-being and even survival depends entirely on the state of the “golden triangle”: US military power - the dollar - global institutions and alliances. In this logic, Russia, by its existence as a resurgent center of power, poses a threat to their “golden triangle”, successfully forming a real alternative. China, in principle, is quite thoroughly integrated into the US global system as the largest buyer of capital and supplier of products - a dependent partner and a manageable competitor, at least as long as America dictates the rules of the game. However, for the capitalists of the real sector of the US economy, especially those who see in Trump a chance to restore their wealth and regain their former influence, the picture of the world is quite different. In this picture, China is not a “labor colony” but a full-fledged player that is already trying to take over American markets with persistence and success. Against the backdrop of the degradation of American education and the U.S. international position in general, China may well become the sole leader in the foreseeable future. And this is absolutely unacceptable from the point of view of national security. Russia, not being an economic competitor in the medium term, is a distant country, relatively (for the U.S.) small and, moreover, immersed in its current problems, both in terms of demography and its geopolitical environment. What's the point of provoking a nuclear power if it is easier to negotiate with it, which is already the case. The anti-Russian bias in America's Democrat-controlled bureaucratic elites is also explained by the fact that there are still a large number of people there who ideologically or ethnically perceive Russia as an existential adversary. This is often determined by the fact that they come from countries with which Russia has historically had highly controversial relations, such as the Baltics, Poland, and Ukraine. For them, Russia is a personal problem and fighting it is the goal of life. Finally, of no small importance is the concept of the primordial exceptionalism of the United States, in which they have grown up since childhood, and which justifies Washington's unilateral actions in the international arena and disregard for the interests of other countries. What everyone there is united in is the opinion that they are God's chosen country. A long preface before asking the big question: what happened to the elites if the entire deep state of Democrats persecuted Trump back into power, and what happens to the American elites next? First of all, what has happened is the collapse of the Democrats, and above all the Clintonist group. They, having been in manic stubbornness for a long time not to give the slightest share of power to anyone else, have completely degenerated. Having spit on them, the young Democrats, who brought the Clintonites to the streets and snatched a Pyrrhic victory for themselves in 2020, simply stayed at home this time. Meanwhile, the young “elephant” Republicans have managed to remove the old globalists from their ranks and convince enough non-whites that their economic interests will not be ignored under Trump. However, if we extrapolate the current elite dynamics for another four, much less eight, years, we get a stalemate of permanent conflict. The future economic policies of the new U.S. administration may breathe life into America's industrialized economy, but all of this is already happening as a consequence of the systemic formation of the anti-Chinese Anglo-Saxon bloc and the savage robbery of Europe. Moreover, the avant-garde high-tech sector - the domain of young “donkeys” - will also boost a substantial inflow of funds into the U.S. economy. The Republican Party, due to its principled denial of the active role of the “big” state (which with the blessing of the 47th elected boss of all America is going to cut Ilon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy), is not able and will not solve the three main problems. And without solving them, the U.S. will not be able to remain competitive in the emerging new technological cycle. Note, the first war of the new technological cycle is already underway. So what are these challenges? There is no secret, and if we look closely at the current United States from at least an arm's length away, we can see them with our own eyes:

- A dramatic reduction in social inequality that is already tearing the country apart;

- a restructuring of education, which is no longer capable of producing professionals of sufficient quantity and quality for the new economy;

- a radical overhaul of a health care system that, despite the incredible costs imposed by a sweeping 20% tax on all American businesses, lags behind the competition in terms of efficiency.

Another of the most important reasons for the impasse is in the realm of sociology. It is the overdue conflict between “fathers” and “children”. Only in our particular case, it is not even a conflict between “grandfathers” and “grandchildren,” but between all three generations. It is the rarest case in the history of civilization, when both grandchildren have already reached a capable state, and grandfathers are not only not dead, but even not completely out of their minds and want to continue to rule until their deathbed. This is a global social dissonance. After all, throughout the history of mankind it has been assumed that “children” are more progressive than “fathers”, that “fathers” are stuck in the past epoch and are unable to comprehend the new time. Such a conflict is a completely natural and really social phenomenon - life is changing, especially rapidly in our time, and each new generation is formed in completely different conditions than the previous one. “Fathers” poorly understand the thinking of ‘children’, and what to speak of mutual understanding between ‘grandfathers’ and ‘grandchildren’. In former times, numerous wars and diseases “cleared” the space for the next generations. And in the last 80 years, antibiotics and relatively peaceful coexistence of the world community, excluded these, excuse me, stabilizing factors from the natural state of affairs. Conceptually, what we have today is not the second coming of Trump, but another representative of the “grandfathers,” only from the industrial wing. Under Trump, the United States will cling to its positions with the same “grandfatherly” methods as the globalists. Although, Trump, as well as the decrepit Clintonistas, are the “last of the Mohicans.” However, we who grew up as “dialectical materialists” understand perfectly well that the declared deadlock will not happen. Life will take its course. First, the Mohicans will be gone. As early as 2028, new leaders will emerge in both parties, two generations younger than today's leaders, who will be ready to take power by 2032. Second, America will go through an economic and financial crisis over the next few years that will provoke a profound reassessment of its real position in the world, its forgotten values, and its future. The remnants of the old elites clinging to ideas of global dominance will be swept away by the crisis. They will be followed by a completely different, younger generation that sees the world, America, and its friends and enemies in a completely different way. We have every chance to fight for this generation of “grandchildren”-Americans ready to deny the “grandfathers”-globalists who split the world and the country. Who will these new people be? The U.S. two-party system, made primarily to mobilize for elections, is flexible enough to survive and adjust even to radical changes in course and personalities. In all likelihood, one of its poles will be the young Democrats, inspired by the ideas of Roosevelt, whose reign is just about to turn 100 years old. Their course is to make large public investments to build the infrastructure of the next generation and to recreate the American middle class on this basis, and with it, a profound overhaul of education and health care. On the Republican side, we are likely to see followers of Ilon Musk, business people who are eager to write off past problems as “Washington swamp” and build a new generation of Great America. Their ideas for an early break with the past will resonate broadly with Americans. Despite the ideological contradictions between the new Rooseveltians and the businessmen, both groups came into politics to “save America”. The practical side of their programs is quite similar - the creation of new infrastructure and investment in science and education - could become the basis for a new political consensus aimed at bringing the U.S. out of the existential crisis that had been going on for almost two decades. It is very likely that by that time America, having significantly reduced its global presence and much more deeply immersed in domestic problems, will be able and willing to negotiate with Russia and other actors a new balance of power and new principles of international security based on justice, respect, and mutual understanding. Let us hope that this will be their CONCEPT. In conclusion about our CONCEPT. I am sure, no matter how banal it may sound, we simply have no other option. Make way for the young! This is our VISION.

Andrey Bezrukov

The Arrest of Pavel Durov: Unveiling the Plan Behind Telegram's Global Impact and the Rise of Cognitive Warfare

As strange as it may seem, over the entire past week the detention of Pavel Durov could not become the No. 1 favorite in the domestic information field. When you type the word “arrested” into a search engine, the first line that pops up is a hint - anyone has been arrested, but not Durov. It appears at the very bottom of the top ten prisoners. What does this mean? Basically, a lot.

As much as we would like to, we will have to recall the main points of this truly extraordinary event:

- Durov has a passport of a citizen of four countries. Russia, Saint Kitts and Nevis, France and UAE;

- A request to search for Durov was made, attention, by the Department for Combating Crimes Against Minors;

- In France, Durov is suspected of ten administrative and criminal offenses, including complicity in the administration of an online platform for the purpose of committing illegal transactions by an organized group;

- No official charges have been brought.

News of the incident with the owner of Telegram, an instant messaging application with a billion users, instantly produced a thermonuclear effect. All the world’s information resources, social networks, etc. are full of relevant headlines - “Arrested in France!”, “Aiding terrorists!”, “Child porn!” and other variations on topics that are extremely sensitive to all segments of the population.

A couple of days later, advanced experts formulated a more specific version. They say that the entire preliminary pantheon of accusations against Durov is a “cover operation,” and the real intention is to exert pressure and encourage the transfer of decryption tools (keys) to users’ correspondence to the special services. Translated into understandable language, Durov must give global control over the Telegram messenger. We have instructed our IT specialists to provide their professional explanations on this issue. Below is a summary of them. I urge you to read this case carefully. It will not be easy for a non-advanced user to immediately grasp this most important information. Although I tried to convert the rather specific IT language into understandable formulations. I hope this was at least partly successful.

Telegram uses 2 types of encryption.

Type A: Client – ​​Server technology (a type of network architecture in which the data exchange process is distributed between the Client and the Server). Moreover, it should be especially noted that the Client does not mean a Person, but the Telegram application itself installed on the user’s device. In such a scenario, Servers perform the role of courier-delivery (forwarding server) and archivist (backup storage). A postman, in very simple terms. That is, the user data reaches the Server in clear text and is forwarded unchanged to the recipient’s device. Only the Device-Server-Device data transmission channel is protected. This means that the correspondence can be read in at least two cases. If the Server or data transmission channel is unauthorized compromised (hacked by hackers) or physical access to it is voluntarily opened by third parties. In fact, there is nothing wrong with this. Telegram, and not only it, does not even hide the presence of such an opportunity. This is done for the convenience of users, for example, so that all devices at the user's disposal can be synchronized if he needs it.

Type B. End to End encryption. In Telegram terminology – “Secret chat”. When the “secret chat” option is launched, end-to-end encryption technology is activated. Before sending, data is encrypted directly on the sender’s device, passes through the Server (switch function) and is decrypted exclusively on the recipient’s device. Encryption keys are created and stored directly on the devices of users participating in the exchange session.

At the same time, the keys are absolutely inaccessible along the entire route and even on other devices owned by the users themselves. Moreover, new keys are generated every time each subsequent message is sent. Important note. The frequency of generating new keys depends on the type of user’s device and Telegram has nothing to do with this. In other words, it is almost impossible to hack such technology remotely. Physical access directly to the user's devices is required. There are also some interesting factors that are usually not paid due attention. A wide range of metadata cannot be encrypted. For example, the date/time of sending and PUSH notification services, which contain a fairly extensive array of information. For a final understanding, I will give a figurative example.

When using End to End encryption, the letter is sent not in an envelope, as in the case of Client - Server technology, but in a locked safe, the PIN code (key, cipher, etc.) from which only the sender and recipient have. Obviously, it is physically impossible for anyone other than those who have the “keys” to the safe to read the letter. Even the “postman” cannot familiarize himself with it. To date, this is the most advanced encryption scenario in terms of data transmission security. However, such methods of protection, in essence, have existed since ancient times. It is known for certain that Gaius Julius Caesar used the letter shift cipher in written orders to his legates.

Conclusion: the claims of the French authorities to encourage Pavel Durov to cooperate in the transfer of “keys to Telegrams” are absolutely meaningless and futile. You can't ask someone for something if they don't have it. Moreover, it does not exist in nature! It seems that we are no closer to revealing the “Plan”, but we have excluded one of the erroneous factors that led away from the true plans of the real beneficiaries who had not yet emerged, who initiated the persecution of Pavel Durov.

Let's continue our "investigation". Let's return a little higher, to the public claims of the French:

“complicity in the administration of an online platform for the purpose of committing illegal transactions by an organized group” It seems to me that behind this claim, barely noticeable against the backdrop of all the ringing bells of “aiding terrorism,” lies something more than just “illegal transactions.” To continue the chain of reasoning, it is necessary to rely on some initial basis, preferably global and not far-fetched. I will take the liberty of suggesting that UBI – Unconditional Basic Income – can be taken as such a basis.

Quote from Wikipedia: “UBI is a social concept that involves the regular payment of a certain amount of money to each member of a certain community by the state. Payments are made to all community members, regardless of income level and are not conditional on the performance of any work.”

There have been extensive discussions in the world for quite some time on an unconditional basic income, as one of the effective strategies that will help alleviate the inevitably increasing social tension in the world community due to the potential reduction in available jobs in the foreseeable future. In other words, robotization and the rapid development and application of artificial intelligence technologies could put billions of people out of work. Indeed, we need to think about this seriously. The following problem arises. Where to get funds for such a helicopter “charity”? Classical capital is inclined to close the question in a simple way. Let's give the idlers free Wi-Fi, freedom, democracy and acceptable rations so that they don't go hungry and don't climb the barricades. And the new, rapidly gaining strength, digital capital sees the solution in a different, one might say, revolutionary plane. For example, leading AI guru and network baron Sam Altman has already publicly voiced his decision on UBI, proposing to pay a basic income from the profits from the computing resources of advanced AI models. An interesting proposal, I must admit. Let's return to Pavel Durov. What happened to him that the global hierarchs took extreme measures by authorizing his arrest? From this perspective, the reason is as simple as it is not obvious. He started handing out money. He did not waste precious time discussing and testing the waters in public space. In his typical manner, he immediately got down to business. Durov was able to create and launch an almost ideal mechanism for distributing money to everyone who is interested and without any restrictions on citizenship, gender, race, religion, age and social status. In its design, the amount of UBI is not limited by anything except one single factor - the time spent in the computer game "Hamster Kombat". This is the world’s first business stimulator game of this kind within the Telegram ecosystem, executed on its own TON blockchain (Pavel Durov’s cryptocurrency). Durov declared himself the new messiah. “Don't waste your time working for bread crumbs.

Waste your time on Telegram, and I will give you money for it, my real money. And you don’t have to worry about who invests them, I’ll take care of that.” This is what he said at one of his presentations, describing this project. If we analyze globally, then Durov has already prepared for the launch of a whole deck of new digital currencies with a well-developed mechanism for linking their rates with the main reserve ones (dollar/euro). This is a practical alternative! This is an actual revolution! It is difficult to imagine what the global hierarchs, who control the world community through a monopoly on the global financial system, experienced when some extra-systemic network baron, and even of Russian origin, brazenly encroaches on their diocese exclusively. Such a rebellion cannot be ignored! Under no circumstances! The objective prospect of losing radical control over huge masses of people, obtained by rivers of their own blood, loomed. The audience of active users at the peak of Hamster Kombat's popularity was approximately 300 million people. Hamster attacks! And “using a bad example,” the number of such game projects began to grow exponentially, rapidly turning into a new reality. It is likely that the detention of network baron Pavel Durov is only the beginning of a chain of countermeasures initiated by global hierarchs to counter the growing strength of network barons, the true scale of which we will see in the near future.

In this part of our analysis, we were able to identify the Plan and its beneficiaries. But this is not enough. In my opinion, the question is much deeper. So, let's proceed to the final part of the search for the global Plan.

Cognitive warfare.

This term has long gone beyond the confines of a conspiracy cliche, and directly appears in the official military doctrines of many states. In particular, its essence is revealed in detail in NATO doctrinal documents. “Cognitive warfare” is a method of action available to the state or influence groups seeking to manipulate the mechanisms of cognition of the enemy or citizens of a hostile state, to weaken, penetrate, influence, subjugate them to your will in order to cause maximum damage. This hypnotic formulation contains all existing and promising methods and technologies that will be used in this method of warfare.

Currently, “Soft power”, “information warfare”, “psychological operations” in combination with a host of other components are seriously considered as a superweapon with unlimited possibilities of application. And the latest communication tools, as a means of delivering “changed reality” to satisfy the own interests of global hierarchs, play a decisive role.

By competently manipulating the consciousness of people through the Network, you can achieve completely unimaginable results, without firing a single shot, figuratively speaking. The victim, obeying the will imposed from the outside, may not even realize until the last moment that he has been attacked. For the successful implementation of such ambitious plans, a monopoly on the means of disseminating information is necessary. This is the most important factor. All the prerequisites for the development of this direction have long been materialized and are available in direct access. The basis of modern cognitive warfare is the personal smartphone, a universal tool for communication and social networks. Today's global network is the natural habitat of many billions of people. By the way, they are voluntarily immersed in it 24/7 for their own money. If a person is subscribed to a dozen other information channels, then he lives one hundred percent in a mode of excessive information consumption and under the total influence of professional news editing. Persons with the appropriate skills to distinguish controversial truth from professional manipulation are an absolute minority and have little influence. The widespread use of social media and technology can make ordinary people especially vulnerable to well-orchestrated cognitive warfare attacks. Moreover, the social component of cognitive influence has moved to a more subtle level than primitive lies. Achieving the goals of cognitive warfare no longer requires deliberately false information or fake news. Now a different scenario is in vogue. Often, in order to cause a surge of public indignation and provoke the population to take practical action, including barricades, it is enough to publish a compromising government document or messages from the personal email correspondence of a government official. Passions are then inflamed through a system of mass distribution of social media messages that go viral with the help of online influencers, fake social media profiles, and automated messaging “bots.” Groups and communities on social media can be easily motivated to organize demonstrations and take to the streets. The natural reaction of the authorities to such initiatives will be artificially presented as inadequate, which will further aggravate the radicalization of society. It's done! The enemy sets fire to his own house! Isn't this the dream of every hegemon? Let's look into the future. Nearby. About twenty years, that is.

In the plans of the global hierarchs, trends towards the transformation of modern Man into some kind of easily manageable, highly specialized creature through the technical “improvement” of his mental and physical functions beyond the limits of natural ones are increasingly visible. Replacement of sensory connections with computer interfaces, verbal communication with computer telepathy or external downloading of digital data in a non-contact manner, mutual physical influence or contact - by remote robots or drones controlled by operators or AI. We are talking about the fusion of human biology created by nature and the mechanical drive created by them with the help of AI. However, this is still the future. Let's return to the present, to Pavel Durov. I have no doubt that the previous paragraph speaks for itself.

Therefore, there is no need to summarize at length. The idea exists. The global hierarchs would rather die than allow anyone to have any means in their hands that could effectively counter them in cognitive warfare. And Telegram is a large-caliber weapon.

Andrey Bezrukov