Savinykh: There is a very tough conflict within Europe

A big conversation with the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives of the National Assembly of Belarus Andrei Savinykh was held in the studio of our channel.

The EU leadership turns out to be the perpetrator of the United States interests. We have already stopped using diplomatic language when we say that the European Union is not independent. They do not pursue policies in the interests of their own citizens, but are completely dependent on the supranational financial and corporate structures that represent Washington and London. And this is a big problem for the peoples of Western Europe.

The deployment of nuclear bombs and the escalation of the information confrontation between the United States and Russia, between the United States and China, are rather instruments of information warfare. There is tough psychological pressure on the opponents. If we go down to the level of the military, then we see a slightly different situation here: the military realize very well that there will be no winners in a nuclear war. And they know that the transition from words to deeds will mean the destruction of mankind. And the U.S. military, the Russian military, and the Chinese military will not allow that line to be crossed.

So I am convinced that the probability of a direct clash between Russia and the United States is still quite low. It is much less than it was during the Cuban Missile Crisis, which we often remember today. Why? Because the stakes have risen.

Psychological warfare will unfold according to its own laws. Ordinary people will be pressed by a huge amount of information that something is about to happen. Therefore, we must look at this situation and think, although it is difficult.

European civilization

We are used to talk about European civilization and European values. A lot of people really believe that there is only one civilization in Europe. It is as if they say: we all Europeans must think and act alike. However, when it comes to conflicts and real policy, we see a completely different picture. There is a very tough conflict within Europe. And this is an indirect confirmation or hint that there is actually more than one civilization in Europe. From my point of view, we can speak of at least three European civilizations. They are close externally, but they are very seriously different internally.

If we take the European civilizations, the Eastern European civilization, our civilization, comes immediately to mind. It comes from Constantinople. It has the Orthodox religion, which unites this civilization, and there is a certain historical path. The other civilization is the Western European civilization. And here, too, we see the same features. There religion is Catholicism, its historical path began with the formation of the Holy Roman Empire of Charlemagne. But here we already see differences.

For the Orthodox civilization, justice, salvation of the soul in the religious aspect, collectivism, community are the main elements inherent in the Eastern European civilization. If we go to the Western civilization, we already see the balance, compromise between the secular power and spiritual power, a certain duality of approaches, a certain rationality: the possibility to atone for the sin with money (which is absolutely impossible in the Eastern European civilization). That is, already a different way of thinking.

And the youngest is the third civilization, about which little is spoken even in our scientific circles. It appeared on the basis of Great Britain. We can call it the Anglo-Saxon civilization. It is associated with the emergence of Protestantism. Here the logic is even more different. It is said that if you are rich, it means you are sinless, because in this way God sends you the signal that you will go to the kingdom of God after death. Here we have pragmatism, the personality comes first, the cult of personality, the individual is above the collective, even above the interests of the country. Hence, there are organized elite social groups that rule the world, sometimes in an unobvious way.

And so these three civilizations have been fighting among themselves for centuries. From here, a great many phenomena emerge that are difficult to explain by any political disagreement.

In fact, it is really a serious conflict, because the relations between these civilizations have not yet been settled. And now, in an era of crisis, they are escalating.

Here, it is interesting to look from the perspective of several European civilizations on the issue of the use of sanctions. The Anglo-Saxon civilization was built on the use of the global financial system, the use of dollars as the world currency. And now it is failing financially. Keeping the world in subjection is no longer possible, and it will not work, because the collapse arose not because someone acted as an opponent and is trying to destroy it. This collapse is due to natural causes. It is impossible to keep the situation under control. And they understand this very well.

The elites of the Anglo-Saxon civilization are simply trying to collapse the global economy so as to save resources for themselves as much as possible, and to shift the costs of this collapse to other countries, especially Russia, China, and the developing world.

And this is expressed in various types of new local conflicts. By and large, the military events in Ukraine is a local battlefield of this global battle, breaking the global world and entering a multipolar world.

The next battlefield is the economy. I can say with confidence that the global world, the financial and corporate circles, they are losing the economic battle, if they have not already lost it. The problem is that Russia's economy has failed to collapse. China's economy has also failed so far, which means they have no future. Moreover, the state of their domestic economy is not the best, which is why they are diverting attention from it in every way they can. They try not to talk about the real state of affairs. Their internal economic situation can be described not just as pre-crisis, but as a state before the Great American Depression. And in this case, this "new great depression" will have a global nature and will affect almost all Western countries without exception.

In addition, the conflict between the two groups is still going on. Neo- or ultra-globalists are mainly represented by financial-corporate circles, clans that control global transnational corporations. These social clans are supranational in nature. They use nation-states as tools or locations where they plan to locate their production facilities or their headquarters in the future. It is important to see that they are failing. A multipolar world is emerging before their eyes, but it is still in the making.

Of course, the neo-globalists are not led by Klaus Schwab. Klaus Schwab is one of the frontmen, rather, a herald, not even an ideologue. I don't think he wrote the book "The Great Reset," he probably signed it. He was given that right and sort of an honor, conventionally speaking.

This ultra-globalist, unjust world is opposed by a large number of nation-states.

And I can say with confidence that even if most states are silent now, their sympathies and their position are on the side of those states that have openly opposed this world. And this is Russia in the first place, and behind it we already see China.

Look at the Middle East. Any command from Washington used to be executed instantly by them, now even major countries of the Middle East that earlier were considered satellites or allies of the United States prefer to have closer ties with China and Russia. But this process has only just begun. As the neo-globalists weaken, this position and the public demonstration of the transition to a multipolar world will increase. Although it already occupies at least two-thirds of the world's population.

Multipolarity is a reality, but it is not yet complete. This process is in its developmental stage. There is such a thing as a "point of no return". It means that the process has already reached a stage where you can't go back. For the time being we have not reached this point of no return for the construction of the multipolar world. We have a very clear understanding of where we are going and what stage we are at.

This point of no return can be a collapse of the global financial system and the entry of a large number of national currencies into the world trade that will be used for international payments and international contracts. And the emergence of another global payment system, maybe even more than one.

And here there is another important element. The multipolar world will take shape only when the main players, i.e. unions, large states, start to work very substantially and seriously on forming their internal markets.

China has such a domestic market (but it is too dependent on exports). Such a domestic market is being actively formed within the Eurasian Economic Space. But we are not yet at advanced stages of development either. And we can say this about almost all major geopolitical players. That is the process has begun, the process is advancing very rapidly, but it is not yet complete.

What place will Belarus take in the new world order?

I believe that the optimal and safest strategy for the Republic of Belarus is to create its own macro-region in the union with Russia and other CIS countries and, maybe, some more states, which will be naturally interested in creation of the big Eurasian economic space. I deliberately do not want to name these states, because the configuration of this space is still unclear and unknown. And I do not think that we need to talk about it much here. The main thing is to create. And Belarus, which has preserved human potential, scientific potential and industrial potential that was created in our republic back in the Soviet times has a chance to become a core of this macro-region. And the core is always a higher level of income and a more stable and steady development. This is our only way. Why? Because any other alternatives (we have carefully analyzed them) give much worse results, sometimes deplorable.

The IV International Conference of the Silk Road Support Group within the framework of the OSCE PA "Strengthening links for energy and food security in times of crisis" was held in Istanbul. There are a lot of impressions of this Group, and they are not optimistic enough. This Silk Road Group was created on the initiative of Azerbaijan and Turkey (countries of the Eurasian space, countries interested in stability and cooperation in our Eurasian region). But the last meeting was held with the participation of a number of delegations from Western European countries. And I realized that the states are now in a situation where they are not just unwilling, they are unable to negotiate. They are broadcasting the position of the Anglo-Saxon civilization, a group that is extremely afraid of any interaction between the continental countries of Western Europe and the countries of the Eurasian group, primarily Russia. And they are trying to deepen the contradictions and chasm between these countries as much as possible, to make them quarrel as much as possible.

And we can see how the activities of the Silk Road Group (seemingly completely neutral, devoid of any serious political context, focused primarily on economic interests) are slowing down. And I regret to suggest that before we reach some kind of constructive dialogue, we will have to clearly state our positions in terms of the power potentials between our associations.

The period for negotiations is now exhausted. Today there is a tough confrontation in which we need to consolidate our forces, stand up, prove that we can defend ourselves, and defend ourselves in all respects, both militarily and in the field of economic security and information security.

We need a picture of the world, of how we imagine the future that we would like to build not only for our peoples, but for all of humanity.

And only as time passes, when these balances of power become clear, when we have passed a period of conflict, clashes, confrontation, only then there will be a period of new agreement on a new world order. This is what we call Helsinki II. Once Alexander Lukashenko suggested that the leaders of all leading countries should get together and agree on the principles on which the world will function in the future. That will happen, I think, in 3-5 years, at the earliest. And the priorities of foreign policy or social development in general for us is the formation of our own macro-region, where we will ensure military security by defending our territory with the support of our allies. This is a macro-region that will represent a sufficient market for our enterprises in terms of scale and strength, capable of ensuring their sustainable development for decades.

It is also the shaping of our worldview. What kind of society we are building: a society for the elect or a society for all. A society which will take into account the interests of the individual or a society which will respect collective and common interests. And if we take a breakdown by countries, I see interaction with Russia, the CIS countries, Eurasia, and our cooperation with China. If we widen the scope, I see our cooperation with the SCO, ASEAN, and, ultimately, the consolidation and strengthening of Greater Eurasian security. It is also necessary to neutralize aggressive attempts by neo-globalist Western groups to interfere in our internal affairs.

And I want to emphasize that we have nothing to confront about with the peoples, with the ordinary people of Western Europe and even the United States, because they are just as much hostages of neo-globalist policies as the developing countries. It is with them that we have no conflicts. And it is our sincere wish that the nation-states won in these countries, and that they implemented policies in the interests of their own citizens. We will very quickly find a common language with them and work together.

There are many dissenters in the West, but very often their voices are not heard. The neo-globalist media space silences any expression of alternative views, and they try to give the impression that they dominate the world. But they don't anymore. The problem is that it has not yet become obvious to everyone. The West has lost its economic supremacy.

As the old system collapses, the global organizations, which are the institutions that support the system, are the first to collapse. And this can be said of the World Trade Organization. The West is still very strong, but then again, what kind of West? I am not talking about the nation-states of the West now, but the transnational corporate entities that own transnational corporations (TNCs). They still have a huge amount of resources, but if 10-20 years ago they, while making mistakes, could say that it is ok, we have enough resources, we will correct the situation over time, now we are living in the fast times. And fast times require fast decisions; mistakes are cannot be corrected. So they failed with the green agenda and created an unsustainable structure, because they did not do it for nature, but to enrich themselves and their own interests.

The climate agenda remains before humanity, but I suspect that we will be tackling it based on completely different principles and in the interests of all countries. It will have to be very seriously reformatted. So there are a lot of questions here, and the problem is that the West has lost its technological advantage. The West has lost its industrial advantage, and by and large they no longer have enough resources to maintain military and political dominance in the world. We are at this stage. Although I want to say once again that I have no illusions, the fight is going to be tough, and we must all be ready for it.

The core of the integration processes in the post-Soviet space in Eastern Europe is the Union State of Belarus and Russia. But I am convinced that as the situation complicates, as the economic crisis worsens and deepens, each of the countries will have to make a choice with whom they are going to ensure the long-term security of their state. And I am sure that in the coming years we will see changes in these processes, and we will see the CIS countries begin to take a more sensible position aimed at the consolidation of the entire region.

The government of any country is, first of all, representatives of very large systems. We are used to thinking in the categories of our personal physical time and our state, where everything is already built up beforehand, where everything was thought over five or even ten years ago in the context of energy security, military security, food security, and many other things. These issues were not given the attention they deserved in other countries. And it is not possible to turn around and deploy large social systems overnight. They need time to maneuver, to become aware of certain things, to change policy, because it's not enough to make a decision to change policy; you also have to carry out the appropriate procedures and prepare society. This takes time.

The West has created a unique two- contour governance model. The external contour, which everyone can see, is the contour of political parties, prime ministers. They discuss the agenda, they seem to make political decisions, they fight elections, but they do not make the momentous decisions that determine the course of the country. And they can only have a limited amount of financial resources allocated by governments for this purpose. And the real governance of these countries is carried out in an inner circuit that no one can see, which makes decisions in closed discussion boards. It consists of the owners of the multinational corporations, the people who control tens of trillions of dollars worth investment venture capital funds, and who fund all these parties, all these prime ministers. And it is they who really determine the content, direction, and behavior of the governments of these states.

About the Belarusian opposition abroad

You see, the problem is... This opposition does not defend the interests of the Belarusians as a nation state. It does not represent any serious social structures or social groups of the Republic of Belarus, and, by and large, they are fully supported and financed by Western centers of power. I am absolutely convinced that these Western centers of power are not interested in the existence of Belarus as a nation state. They are not interested at all in Belarusian culture or Belarusian identity. They need to control a certain territory, where their transnational corporations would feel secure and free. And that is why there is no point for us to talk to this opposition at all.

Time for Consolidation

Globally speaking, I believe we are in a state of ontological conflict. This means that either one or the other will win. Either the neo-globalists or a group of nation-states will win. We are of the second group. So this is not the time to talk, but the time to consolidate and strengthen our own camp.

U.S. propaganda about "City upon a Hill"

This is one of the myths that the U.S. has cultivated for decades, giving the impression that it is a prosperous "City upon a Hill" that all it takes is to go there, win the competition, and become a millionaire, maybe even a billionaire. This is a lie. It is a blatant lie, because the difference between the rich and the poor in the United States of America is enormous, and it is constantly widening. This country has more or less made ends meet for all past decades solely by robbing developing countries through the use of financial instruments.

But now, in the crisis, this has become noticeable. And if you look closely at the statistics, about this, by the way, cited by Thomas Piketty in his book "Capital in the XXI century". He gave the following statistics: 3-5% of the population owns 40-50% of all property in America, all the wealth. Another 30% own another 40%, and 70% of the population have only 10% of everything in the United States. What does that tell you? It tells us that the depth of the gap between the rich and the poor in the U.S. is greater now than it was in the 19th century.

The person who believes this myth either has a tourist effect or has been treated by certain American propaganda that has tried to give the impression that the U.S. is the Land of the Covenant. This is at the heart of their policy: once they find themselves in a bad situation, the one thing they have always done for decades is to dramatically create conflicts outside the United States in order to appear more prosperous than the rest of the world.

50% of Americans, according to sociological surveys by American social agencies, believe that a civil war in the United States will start in the next year or a year and a half.

Belarus is for peace, but at the same time we understand: if the aggressor comes on our territory, we will do everything to protect our world, our society and our future.