By Aleksandr Khaldey
Translated by Ollie Richardson and Angelina Siard
Source: https://regnum.ru/news/economy/2694061.html
As it became known, the adviser to the President on economic issues, the academician Sergey Glazyev, is leaving his post and will move to the position of Eurasian Economic Commission Minister for Integration and Macroeconomics. The approval of Glazyev’s candidature by all heads of state of the EAEU is planned for October 1st.
Such a change in the format of Vladimir Putin’s relations with Sergey Glazyev externally looks like a demonstration of the president’s position in relation to the problem of leaving the existing economic, and subsequent political, crisis. However, this is a misconception.
Despite the fact that, according to a number of Telegram channels, there have been recent complaints in the Presidential Administration about what Glazyev was doing, his transition to a position being one fold of magnitude lower than the one he had in the status of adviser does not mean the collapse of his political career.
The fact is that the current appointment of Glazyev, according to a number of sources, was lobbied by Mikhail Babich, and this completely changes things. In such a case, Glazyev’s new appointment looks like his withdrawal to the reserve with a concentration of forces for a work over the head of Russian systemic liberals on the EAEU field.
At the moment, for Putin it is not only pointless to be next to Glazyev. Even Glazyev’s formal status as Putin’s adviser has lost its political expediency, because the economic discourse is entirely owned by liberals. Putin does not need Glazyev as a symbolic counterbalance to liberals right now.
The presence of Glazyev next to him at a certain historical stage made sense as a sign of openness to the center-left forces during their period of popularity and a sign of readiness to come into contact with them; for coming into contact, but not for following their advice. Putin has always been faithful to the policy of containing and balances, and the fact that Glazyev is now removed from Putin’s circle suggests that this system is now being built differently.
This is being done in a situation where the authorities have a need to actively participate in the fight between two liberal currents in the elite: radical and moderate. Left-wing recipes are not foreseen in the future, and therefore all attention is now paid to the liberals who gather their forces.
The policy of dividing the forces involved in the fight for power and preventing their blocking is the need for the survival of the political center. The center has now shifted to the right. There is no more left-center.
This happened due to the full inability of the left wing to somehow influence the result of the current policies in the conditions of crisis and a sharp activisation of the right wing. The left wing completely “faded” from politics after the return of Crimea and their patriotic agenda failed. They are discredited not only by prolonged creative infertility and a loss of any influence in society, but also by full political impotence.
For the president, keeping Glazyev near to himself in such conditions is not only not necessary — it is harmful. There isn’t that force to which there would be need to broadcast something, keeping Glazyev near to himself.
But on the right flank there are such forces, and they gain strength on the eve of the transfer. And it is necessary to work with them, in some areas making a compromise and concessions, and in other areas not allowing their strengthening and consolidation. Relations with the IMF are still crucial for the Russian banking system. A departure from the criteria of the IMF when an alternative to it hasn’t yet been created will put the Russian financial system in full isolation, much exceeding sanctions. Even China considers that doing this for itself now is madness.
For Vladimir Putin there was never an opportunity to follow Glazyev’s advice. None of his recipes were taken seriously and realised. Not because they were disputable economically, but because they pushed Putin into a frontal conflict with the Russian and global elite – a conflict that Putin would not be able to win if he found himself in political loneliness.
It is precisely in the underestimation of the political impossibility of implementing his recommendations that Glazyev’s main disadvantage as an adviser lies. In fact, he constantly pushed Putin towards impossible decisions, forgetting that politics is not an academic dispute about what is true and false, but the art of the possible. In politics the choice is made not between truth and non-truth, but the lesser of all possible evils. There the criteria for rationality are absolutely different.
Glazyev’s proposals were political romanticism, without an assessment of their economic content. Political unrealisability turned them into utopia. After all, communism is also quite good in theory; the trouble was that society cannot exist on its principles. The presence of even the most truncated commodity-monetary relations in a socialist society constantly generates capitalism and kills communist goals and methods. Well, and of course, the quality of human material played a role back then and it plays its role also now – mankind is not yet ready for socialism.
Glazyev proposed to increase the budget deficit, to fix the ruble exchange rate, opt for a powerful monetary issue, stimulate demand, lower the interest rate, and bring the Central Bank under the control of the government, giving the latter the opportunity to replenish the budget at the expense of the emission. This seems attractive, but Glazyev failed to convince the supreme power that this would not be followed by the collapse of basic economic parameters, and, the most important, by the critical clash of interests of key elite groups that the existence of the country depends on.
And the matter here is not at all about the prejudices of Kudrin and Gref imposed on the authorities. Glazyev indeed did not give an exhaustive justification for his economic correctness. Putin, simply speaking, has not yet seen where the solution to the problems is, but has seen exactly where they arise in addition to the already existing ones, as well as the fact that Glazyev himself completely refuses to see this.
In his new role, Glazyev gets a chance to implement what he had no opportunity to implement in Russia. In the Union State of Russia and Belarus, which Mikhail Babich is engaged in along with integration with Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan, it is not necessary to break the established financial structure, as it was done in Russia, but to build a new one from scratch.
This makes the task much easier and creates opportunity to then change the Russian system in order to put it into the integrational system. This is another agenda where Glazyev’s economic platform, in connection with Babich’s political resource, already not only will provide an opportunity to implement the integration concept under the auspices of Russia, but also will create a certain platform for consolidating of the illiberal counterelite, the necessity of which has been discussed for so long by political scientists.
It is certainly impossible to overcome Lukashenko’s resistance to financial and economic integration on the terms of the EAEU common currency, the engine that will itself turn the CIS into a common economic and political space beneficial to all local elites, by the efforts of Babich and Glazyev alone. Without Putin, this process is guaranteed to shut down. Only Putin has the resource of connecting all Russian resources and institutions to stimulate integration trends among EAEU partners.
And while liberals are busy with Russia and the fight for the transfer, a niche, free from liberals, was formed in the direction of the EAEU, where forces rejected by liberal Russian elites began to concentrate. As long as no one takes them seriously, considering their cause hopeless, they have a real opportunity to significantly strengthen their position. This means that in Putin’s changed system of containing and balances, the counterbalance to Russian liberals is being built at the supranational level.
Operating on different floors of political space, liberals and their opponents have so far avoided a clash. If Russian conservatives will be able to build a common neoconservative system working in the EAEU space, it will absorb what liberals have built in Russia. The system can only be affected by another system, the creation of which Babich and Glazyev are involved now.
If the central government, represented by Vladimir Putin, with the participation of the Security Council and interested ministries and agencies will be able to support this policy, its success can be as unexpectedly phenomenal as the Crimean Spring. Or the Belarusian Strategic Offensive Operation “Bagration”, organised by Marshal Rokossovsky. The concentration and build-up of forces in those directions where they are not expected is the main element of any strategy of victory.
If this is done consistently and correctly, success will come as naturally as sunrise comes after the outgoing night. Formal positions in the official system make no difference – the fact that Glazyev will be a minister and Babich a deputy minister, is similar to the distribution of roles in the embassy-based residency, where the resident can be a chauffeur and his agent a second assistant ambassador. The most important is that the positions are in the informal system, in the contour of which general coordination is carried out.
In this context, the fact of the departure of academician Glazyev to the post of Minister for Integration and Macroeconomics in the EEC looks like an appointment to the post of Chief of the Operational Department of the Front Staff at the request of the Chief of Staff with the approval of the appointment of the Supreme Commander-in-Chief. The success of the operation will now depend on the ability of the new commandment to develop the initiative in its operational direction.
Thank you for the explanation! Good to know that Glazyev will have better chances to implement changes, albeit indirectly.
Very crucial analysis by Khaldey. This is not stuff in the news or forums.
As we move closer to 2024, understanding how Putin is making his chess moves domestically is imperative for those who value Russia and how a strong, resilient Russia is vital for world peace and the eventual end of unipolar hegemony.
So, our deepest thanks to Ollie and Angelina for this translation.
Babich, following his work in Belarus has moved to working with CIS nations and the EAEU. The power of Russia within these organizations is military and economic. There is no binding ideology. The promise of development and growth, spurred by attachment to Russia and integration with Eurasia is what matters.
The EAEU is firming entwined with China’s BRI, so the path is clear to those nations that the rest of the century they will benefit. However, the elites in Belarus and the Stans are like oligarchs anywhere. They want enrichment for themselves. So, tough Russian liaisons like Babich have their hands full. We saw this with his interaction in Belarus with Lukashenko’s obstinance.
Having Glaziev handle the economic machinery for the EAEU is not about theory. It’s about getting results.
As Khaldey tells us, there will be no fifth column, no liberals, no saboteurs to the programs.
And somewhere in the construction of the platform for this is a possible new “position” for Putin to continue as the power of a Greater Russia. His EAEU could be the dynamics for a new Russian system of development.
Khaldey lays this out very nicely. And from it we can conjecture that Putin has a plan and it goes far beyond 2024.
Thanks Larchmonter – very useful take. That was a pretty elegant translation from Ollie and Angelina.
I was struck by this phrase:
If even Russia has to go outside itself in order to change itself, then this is an important lesson to be learned over the years and decades to come. This is a thing to watch.
Larch,
Thanks for the Excellent and Brilliant interpretation.
It will be certainly useful if Glazyev and Babich can build and consolidate this platform for Putin,should it become necessary. That way,Putin and Xi can continue to be in lockstep for humanity’s benefit,beyond Putin’s tenure.
A ray of hope for the future, Thank you very much for your take, agreed and appreciated.
Totally agree with Larchmonter. Khaldey’s analysis is very perceptive!
It looks like Babich, the current ambassador to Belarus is quite influential…
Just a point of fact: Babich has left the post in Belarus. New man appointed. Dmitry Mezentsev
That’s interesting!
When was this article written then?
It says “the current appointment of Glazyev, was lobbied by Mikhail Babich”.
After reading your comment I did a quick search. Babich was dismissed from his post as ambassador and as special presidential envoy on trade and economic relations with Belarus back in April 2019.
Serbian Girl,
Think of Babich as another Surkov. He is sent in first to deal with the hard realities that have to “transformed”. He had to deal with Lukashenko, but also dealt with the elites, the Belarusian oligarch-types. He works directly under Putin on special assignments, like Surkov.
So, titles don’t matter. Anyone dealing with him knows, Putin sent him. And he reports straight to Vlad.
Larchmonter, thanks for these clarifications.
“As it became known, the adviser to the President on economic issues, the academician Sergey Glazyev, is leaving his post and will move to the position of Eurasian Economic Commission Minister for Integration and Macroeconomics.” My mature, well-reasoned response to this statement is YAYYYYY!!! Whatever the implications are for Glazyev in Russian politics, in this new post, many other countries will have increased access to his approach and his ideas. Something that is well-needed, in my opinion. Even China is overrun with Chicago School of Business ideologues. YAYYYY!!
The article constantly speaks about “left” and “right”, without saying what that means.
We have the proposals of Glazyev: “Glazyev proposed to increase the budget deficit, to fix the ruble exchange rate, opt for a powerful monetary issue, stimulate demand, lower the interest rate, and bring the Central Bank under the control of the government, giving the latter the opportunity to replenish the budget at the expense of the emission.”
We can take this as an approximation of the position of the “left”. But what is the position of “the right”?
And then we find “conservative”, “neoconservative”, and “liberal”.
I guess “liberal” here means what often is called “neoliberal”, that is, formally rule of the markets, informally rule of the corporations (assuming that there are no “true liberals” in Russia). But how are “(neo)conservatives” positioned, from the point of view of the article?
And how are the “liberals” and “(neo)conservatives” related to “the right”?
Very good questions Oliver.
I have also have found in many essays here and elsewhere that the broad use of key and important terms used are not being defined. This can generalise a relevant point which may be interrpreted differently in the many cultures tribes nations who visit here to read essays. Thus its intended meaning may become lost on its readership as the authors meaning can become fudged. The article above requires for myself to read it a few times as russian collective political culture is not within my world view or understanding yet. (Thats is why I am here like others to gain deeper insight )
The terms left and right mean different definitions in each political culture (political culture is a summary of that societies collective values – [and even that phrase requires closer and deeper analysis -another place])
Nonetheless a very good insight into the political manouverings of a world which we in europe and other places are so actively lied about or their trending events are ignored.
(and yes I am guilty too of introducing terms above which I have nor defined. Such is the challenge of essay writing for an “english” audience of very mixed background of education and cultures.)
another very good insight into Russian political culture.
Thank you
Oliver, some of us know precisely what the author is talking about. Russia still carries the burden of “old communist apparatus” which suddenly turned “liberal”. I will not go there. I for one always liked what Glaziev said in the past. I would also like to say, that I haven’t see any articles written by Glaziev. Because his opinions, which I liked did not go well with the murky waters under the Kremlin which always stood in his way to really redirect Russia towards recovery. The one where Russia really controls its finances and not Rothschild (Nabulina?). Unfortunately Putin always played the liberal card, and used Glaziev as advisor only to a point, as to guide him so that he would not make to many costly mistakes.
Liberals, neo-liberals, neo-conservatives, libertarians and the Right are just euphemisms for psychopaths, of various types, antecedents, tribal and group loyalties and personal pathopsychological features. All follow Adam Smith’s ‘Vile Maxim of the Rulers of Mankind’-‘Everything for me, and nothing for anybody else’. They are parasites and destroyers in semi-human form.
This list reads weird in translation. By “strong monetary issue” they def mean “sovereign emission” and by “increasing budget deficit” i guess they mean not being too anal about running some deficit if need be. But everything is relatively unimportant compared to “bringing the Central Bank under government control.” This alone is the be-all and end-all. Everything else would spring from it. Including an immediate nuclear war, perhaps. Imagine taking a big fat piece out of the mob boss’s mouth. That’s what the taking over of the central bank would be. Taking a big fat piece out of the FRS mouth.
Outstanding article. Wise, and therefore uncomfortable words by a clear-minded and fearless thinker.
The key sentence here is, “… the economic discourse is entirely owned by liberals.” Once you realize that ‘liberals’ is the politically correct term for Jewish Mafia, you get the picture. Surrounded by hyenas, one man show Glazyev was completely neutered despite his brilliance and prominent position.
Now the hope is, that as future Eurasian Economic Commission Minister Glazyev can work some magic for Russia and Eurasia from a tangent.
If this clever strategy will work out, only the future will tell. The Mafia, no doubt, is already working overtime to make sure it won’t. But then again, Glazyev just might rise to the challenge.
I don’t know if it was just me but I found the piece rather vague and opaque. There was an overall atmosphere of ‘all is for the best’and ‘everything is under control.’ What I did notice was that Glazyev’s advocated policies bore a similarity to Michael Hudson’s, namely: ”Glazyev proposed to increase the budget deficit, to fix the ruble exchange rate, opt for a powerful monetary issue, stimulate demand, lower the interest rate, and bring the Central Bank under the control of the government, giving the latter the opportunity to replenish the budget at the expense of the emission. This seems attractive …’ then the ‘yes, but …’ bit. I noticed Kudrin got a mention also.
In my humble opinion the policies put forward by both Glazyev and Hudson are precisely this type of long-term nation-building strategy which is imperative for Russia but which is being thwarted by the existence of a cosmopolitan oligarch class whose interests run counter to any to any such strategy and, moreover, who are perfectly content take profits from extractive exports and then invest them back into the centre of the capitalist system, usually in the shape of paper assets like US Treasury Bills and/or property. Cronyism, corruption, incompetence are endemic characteristics of this powerful group and they are unfortunately firmly ensconced in positions of influence and power in Russia. It would be reasonable to surmise that a political, parasitic system of Yeltsin-lite is now extant in Russia and that a domestic head of steam is, judging by its internal critics, building up in opposition. For every action there is a reaction.
Russia is in a transition, but which way it will go is a moot point. Whenever I read something like the present offering my antenna goes into reception mode. Never believe a rumour until it is denied.
Thank you for mentioning Michael Hudson. I sure don’t get any reluctance on Putin’s part (of course, political reasons) but Russia’s BIG partner now is China/BRI and China is the model of economic success at the moment. And how did they get there? Following Hudson recipes, which are in harmony with and/or the same as Ellen Brown’s.
These two recent articles by Ellen Brown about China say it all.
“The American Dream Is Alive and Well—in China”
“Neoliberalism Has Met Its Match in China”
https://www.truthdig.com/articles/the-american-dream-is-alive-and-well-in-china/
https://www.truthdig.com/articles/neoliberalism-has-met-its-match-in-china/
The oh-so-precious American Dream(tm) was always an American Lie to begin with.
Even during the heyday of this supposed American Dream like the 1950s, many US citizens like Black people did not benefit from it thanks to the America’s system of Jim Crow Apartheid.
As George Carlin once stated, they call it the American Dream because you have to be asleep to believe it!
What will happen in China and Eurasia in general won’t have anything to do some bullshit American Dream.
It will be more a Eurasian Dream than anything else.
‘The American Dream’ was a nightmare, not just for black and other poor Merkins, but for the rest of the world as well. Several million paid for it with their lives in Korea and Indochina, and indirectly millions more in Indonesia, Congo, South Africa, Angola, Mozambique, the Middle and Near East etc, and throughout Latin America for 200 years. As MLK said, the USA is the greatest purveyor of violence in human history.
Lyndon LaRouche and Janice Neuberger (wife) were also very influential in the economic strategy of the Chinese. She was given an award as the conceptual originator of the BRI.
No state with an ‘Independent Central Bank’ can call itself sovereign. The control of a State’s money and finances is the sine qua non of State power.
Sergey Glazyev stirred up the Russian liberal swamp with the Jewish question
May 11, 2019
Why did the adviser to the President reveal the role of the Jewish lobby in the civil war in the Donbass
The publication by Academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences adviser to the President Sergei
Glazyev on the blog of the newspaper Zavtra caused a mass hysteria of the liberal media. In addition to summing up the results of Russian non-interference in Ukrainian affairs, the academician highlighted the obvious but little-covered topic of the Jewish lobby and its struggle with the Russian world – and was predictably accused of “anti-Semitism”.
“Of course, there are nuances associated with the heterogeneous interests of Western“ puppeteers ”.
Perhaps the bet on Zelensky, made long before these elections, is connected with the general inclination
of the Trump administration towards the extreme right-wing forces in Israel. Probably, they will set new
tasks for the renewed Kiev regime. I do not exclude, for example, the possibility of a massive move to the lands of Southeast Ukraine that are “cleansed” from the Russian population and who are tired of the permanent war in the Middle East of the inhabitants of the Promised Land, just as Christians fleeing
Islamized Europe, ”wrote Sergey Yuryevich. And it started … The Echo of Moscow, Aleksey Navalny,
Mikhail Schneider, Mikhail Svetov were noted as a tantrum in relation to Glazyev. The “Ekhovsky”
political scientist Arkady Dubnov called Glazyev a “fabulous idiot.” Former Yekaterinburg mayor Yevgeny Roizman replied: “We have one fairytale. And Glazyev is ordinary.” The blogger Lev Berg called Glazyev “spoiled”. Further, the academic director of the Center for Modernization Studies at the European
University in St. Petersburg and the HSE lecturer Dmitry Travin joined in the bullying: “So, it turns out that
the Russophobic policy is carried out so that Jews can populate foreign lands. Well, for Glazyev this is
normal. He focuses on such a reader who needs to feed the most cynical nonsense. The more primitive
a lie, the more such a public believes in it … The status of the position makes the Kremlin responsible for
this “verbal diarrhea.” Putin will put him behind “Or did he give up everything? Or maybe the president considers that in conditions of growing conflict with the West, he can only rely on such an audience?”
Israeli hypersionist Avram Shmulevich: “Such type of anti-Semitic statements periodically sound from the Kremlin” higher echelons. The degree of anti-Semitism is maintained, not very high, but stable. ”
The horror of the global liberal-Jewish community that the adviser to the President of Russia dared to
publicly hint at possible Jewish gesheft and interest in the tragedy in Novorossia was quickly conveyed to
the Kremlin, forcing press secretary of All Russia Dmitry Peskov to justify himself: “Vladimir Putin has
nothing to do with this position This is an exclusively personal opinion, maybe an incorrect statement by adviser Glazyev, I don’t know the context in which this statement was made, so I can’t comment on it somehow. the topic is not discussed at all. Still, the blog is probably something personal. I, unfortunately,
am not familiar with the blogging component of the activities of adviser Glazyev, therefore I also have no opportunity to judge. But in any case, let’s say it more likely , a personal point of view, and this is by no
means discussed in the administration. ” Glazyev himself in a conversation with the radio station “Says Moscow” stressed that he did not intend to give up his words: “I wrote what I wrote, and everyone sees
what he wants to see. Let’s see what happens next.”
At the same time, in fact, what is anti-Semitism here, it is difficult to understand. The fact that Trump’s
son-in-law Kushner directs his father-in-law in the course of Israeli politics is no longer news. “According
to rumors, Kolomoisky discussed this issue with the most famous and influential Hasid of today – Jared Kushner, that is, with Trump’s son-in-law. The well-known anti-fascist, speaker of the short-lived
parliament of the New Russia Oleg Tsarev back in 2017, spoke about the same thing. “Since the 1940s,
the headquarters of the Chabad-Lubavitch movement has been located in New York, in Brooklyn. From
1950 to 1994, the organization was led by the Seventh, last, Lubavitcher Rebbe, Menachem Mendel Schneerson – the son-in-law of Yosef Yitzchak Schneerson, who took his surname and continued the
dynasty of the Lubavitcher Rebbe. During the reign of Menachem Mendel Schneerson, Chabad achieved unprecedented political and financial power. For reference, Trump Kushner’s son-in-law is a habadnik.
Trump’s daughter Ivanka went through giyur (a procedure by which a non-Jew can accept Judaism) and
now follows the rules of Chabad. It is along this line that Kolomoisky and Bogolyubov, who are one of the
main sponsors of the Dnepropetrovsk Chabad, built relations with the new American president, ”Oleg
Tsarev wrote in his time …
And legends already circulate about the influence of the Jewish lobby on US politics even in the Senate – Trump fulfills almost any of Israel’s dreams, especially since Zelensky didn’t really cost a dime for
Washington. The main election series was shot by Kolomoisky, and Poroshenko and the rest of the
politicians brought the country to white-hot so that they were ready to choose anyone, and not just the “Washington boy.”
After the victory of the Jewish Khabadnik Zelensky in the Ukrainian elections, more and more traces of
the “ears” of not only Igor Kolomoisky, but also other figures who can easily be attributed to the “Jewish
lobby” – from the mayor of Kharkov and partner of the head of Rostec appear in the media. Sergei
Chemezov Gennady Kernes to political scientist Stanislav Belkovsky and even forever bending under
himself the changing world of Andrei Makarevich, along with his friend Lauder Sr. Some patriotic media
even see this as a plus for Ukraine (according to the principle the worse the better, they say, if Ukraine is
ready to elect a Jewish clown Zelensky, then the national project “Ukrainian Nazi” can be put an end to).
However, it is one thing when Katyusha discusses all that, and quite another when the Presidential
Advisor declares the same. Apparently, given that not only the Jewish lobby, but also the pro-American
joined the tantrum – Glazyev got to the point. No, not with the resettlement to the Donbass — hardly any
of the inhabitants of the Promised Land will go there — Glazyev simply brought out what is being said on
the sidelines. The main message that was formulated by HSE professor Travin is important here – how
did Glazyev dare even mention the Jewish lobby and would Putin really rely on the audience of Glazyev,
who dares to say what he thinks and not what is needed? God grant …
(Google translation)
Source:
http://xn—-ctbsbazhbctieai.ru-an.info/%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8/%D1%81%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B3%D0%B5%D0%B9-%D0%B3%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B7%D1%8C%D0%B5%D0%B2-%D0%B2%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BB%D1%8B%D1%85%D0%BD%D1%83%D0%BB-%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%B9%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B5-%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%B1%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B5-%D0%B1%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%BE-%D0%B5%D0%B2%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B9%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%BC-%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BE%D0%BC/
‘Glazyev proposed to increase the budget deficit, to fix the ruble exchange rate, opt for a powerful monetary issue, stimulate demand, lower the interest rate, and bring the Central Bank under the control of the government, giving the latter the opportunity to replenish the budget at the expense of the emission. This seems attractive … ‘
It is. Russian growth is held back by restrictive policies of the Central Bank.
Game Theory
Humanity’s challenge on this planet is infinitely more complex than a chess game. However, this fascinating article stimulates, again, metaphors making use of that ancient board game:
Now, to complicate the metaphor right out of the gate:
Just one East vs West or White vs Black….or Right vs Left …..lol…chess match is absurdly limited in scope…and the actual multi-dimensionality of what is “at play” IMHO mandates that a more complex metaphor be employed here. Becausethe metaphor of just one game (with Putin coming in in 1999-2000 inheriting a seemingly hopeless position….) doesn’t work well at all, compared to the much more apt image of him, Xi and even some in the West (bear with me……I realize many of us westerners have written ourselves off entirely, in disgust and self-loathing, along with Jeffery Epstein, Jimmy Saville, the Bushes, the Clintons, the Vatican, AIPAC and other symptoms of our Imperial Depravity) playing many opponents at once……..in multiple simultaneous “matches” of resources and wits among varied allies and opponents.
Players from major nations (Putin, Xi…..and even Orange Man!!) may not be involved in every single major and minor match on every issue and board of contention occurring on earth…..but all of these three major players ARE involved in many boards of contention (that are all linked…in terms of the Ultimate Global Outcome for all of us and our posterities…) simultaneously.
Then you have minor players in Lukashenko…Duterte……Assad….Ergodan, etc,etc.
Additionally, you have a few billion pawns, which 99.99999% of us are, approximately.
Pawns are usually sacrificed, and same as all other pieces in actual chess, in the view of many players….aren’t supposed to think! ,/b>. However, human pawns CAN think…if they choose to, that is, and that’s waht makes all of this more interesting, by far than a chess game or even a great many of such two dimensional matches.
In the Game Theory Metaphor I’m playing with, numerous pawns (and a growing percentage of them!) in this “Global Game” have the now demonstrated, increasing capacity to grasp The Game, and THE IDEAS…strategies and exploitation of Enemy weak flanks………that can affect the outcome of the Global Game …..in our lifetimes…and beyond.
Some players and their major pieces (Google, Facebook, etc) wish to suppress this pawn cognitive, creative capacity at all costs……….others want to activate that Pawn Capacity to Participate…….much more!
Everyone, including Putin, Xi, Trump, Glaziev and all the rest of us are born as powerless pathetic pawns…………but depending on our capacities and opportunities to either
1) Perpetuate the power of certain Imperial Players (Windsors, Rothschilds, Rockefellers, etc) to squat on the planet and exploit it and everything and everyone on it for their Egos Run Amuck Satanic Identities (all too common among humans corrupted by an oligarchical “We ‘Elite’, ‘Better Than You’…. Few VS the Many Peons and Expendable- by the billions- Pawns”….. OR, Alternatively
2) Grasp an approximation of the reality of Good and Evil forces contending in the environment we were plopped into at birth…..and comprehend The Power of Reason available to us to participate in the exploitation of flanks against Institutional Evil wielding the Truth of Valid Ideas of Scientific Discovery……AND principles of Classical Artistic Composition….ie Creativity…….which belong in the same realm of ideas…as Grand Political and Cultural Strategy against the Age-Old Enemy….EMPIRE…… of the Mind and Spirit…not just the body, the booty…the material loot…..all at play….
….a powerless infant pawn…can either grow up into a Pathetic Pervert Prince Andrew….or a Vladimir Putin or other Cabal-Busting Person….or a major piece (hint: SG….) of some significant potential power to affect the outcome…for all humanity.
I don’t think Xi is a captive of the Cabal.
And there are STILL reasons to hold out hope that Trump is not either. Even London Paul, despairing of the unreigned in foreign policy messing up Trump Administration neocons…has not yet given up …and declared DJT…”a Cabal Member”….or powerless pawn of theirs.
However, as I will outline in the Cafe soon…I’m pretty much of the final opinion that Steve Bannon, consciously or unconscioulsy IS such a captive Cabal pawn…..and I won’t mourn his “sacrifice”….Quite Frankly!
But Back to The Greater Game, Putin and Glazev.
By virtue of the power of ideas Sergei has demonstrably grasped for all the years of his official position….thathe is a significant chess piece. He has been for some considerable time,but has been bottled up, hemmed in by liberals in Russia and by the overall position on the game board of strategy that constrain the Master of Patience and Restraint…….Vladimir Putin.
Putin the Master…inheriting a couple of decades ago a number of desperate to semi-desperate positions on numerous of the game boards of contention affecting the survival and well-being of Russia, its allies….. and Humanity more broadly …..has, from the beginning, been playing “The Long Game”. That game has very little to do, acutally, with the Right and Left ideological sides of the chessboard that many immobile pawns egoically identify with….since that’s where they sit, ideologically.
In his Long Game, Putin chose to pluck Glazyev out of the public and private pool of millions of pawns..and thousands of them more visible in academia…and promote him to major “policy piece” on the Russia Federation political chess board.
However the right time to play that major piece more actively has only recently arrived. Glazyev has been boxed in within Russia, within the congestion of Moscow too close to too many other major pieces of contrary intent…the Atlanticists, the Liberals, and the Short Game Players Playing Their Own, SMALLER Games…out for personal, not national and certainly not the planet-wide benefit and enrichment of humanity as a whole.
From this fine analysis by Aleksandr Khaldey, I have the image of the Patience of Putin…finally free enough to move this bishop out of that Moscow congestion, suddenly and diagonally, across the entire Grand Chessboard of Eurasia (at least….Brzezinski’s worst nightmare!) to the 7th or 8th row of the board…ready for subsequent moves that can ALSO, now, cover a lot of ground………..and potentially affecting numerous other more distant boards that are simultaneously in play…..in very positive ways.
Bro,
Long summation,but syncs perfectly with Larchmonter’s post earlier.
Glazyev’s ideas are easily found and are perhaps what can be called “on the left”, but it;s more exact to say he is pro-growth, is against the iron fist of central banks, and wants peoples control of money, coupled with massive technological growth and innovation. He is very deep and by today’s context, certainly radical.
Sergei Glazyev has his own website, https://glazev.ru/, https://glazev.ru/ and https://translate.yandex.com/ https://translate.yandex.com/ opens that Russian door.
Glazyev wrote a pretty good basic explanation in English, although I think it’s from 2007:
https://studylib.net/doc/8453271/the-policy-of-economic-growth-under-the-conditions-of-glo…
Be ready to understand the deep thinking here, such as Kontratieff Waves, Lyndon Larouche perspective, and lots more. It’s well worth the effort to understand Glazyev’s work.
“ After all, communism is also quite good in theory; the trouble was that society cannot exist on its principles.”
If the theory doesn’t work, how can it be good on any meaningful sense?
Thank you for your efforts at explaining the move but the only system that will make traitors stop betraying their country is the system of troikas. Glazyev’s only sin is that he is demanding the state look after its people and God only knows that long-suffering Russian people deserve best free health care, education, affordable housing, public transport and family services.
I cannot see why Putin has to tiptoe around these oligarchs that stole the people’s property through highly controversial privatisations that in many cases are criminal. Those that suspend laws or the Constitution cannot call upon the same laws or the Constitution to protect them when the time of legal reckoning arrives.
What’s wrong with the Chinese style dealing with corrupted officials and oligarchs? Those oligarchs bring misery to millions and hundreds of millions of their fellows. They need to be stopped. It looks like Russia is definitely not 100% sovereign yet. I pray and hope the day of complete liberation from the neo-liberal scourge comes as soon as possible.
‘Liberal’ is a silly euphemism. These are Market fundamentalist neo-liberal capitalists. Their very existence is a sign of human individual and group psychopathy, based on insatiable greed, contempt and hatred for others, massive egomania and racism and xenophobia etc, in action. Every state they dominate becomes more unequal, more marked by mass poverty, more socially atomised and savage, with ever increasingly vicious austerity inflicted on the poor, weak and defenceless, and more ecologically destructive. The ‘liberals’ in Russia are in essence no different from those in the USA, UK, Greece, Brazil etc. And they only have to wait Putin out, if a Colour Revolution is not successful, and they will be back, fully, in power and a New Yeltsin will rule, for the liberals and the West, and Russia will be vivisected and return to social conditions worse than those of the 90s.
Agree with you Mulga. If not stopped and eradicated soon, they will come back with vengeance.
Perhaps Skolkovo 2030 as a globalist cause may have something to do with this move. Who really runs the Russian Federation? Certainly not the Russian people. So who exactly?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOY4Ka-GBus
Glazyev’s appointment is a promotion to a position where he can actually make a difference. Presidential advisor is a low-rung, mainly nominal, honorable post. Advisors don’t even get to see the president, they talk to intermediaries.