Igor Nikolaevich Panarin— graduate high school KGB. He worked at the Soviet embassy in London. A few years ago, Panarin was invited to work in a closed state structure, and for some time he disappeared from the information field.
Position: the political scientist believes that the main puppeteers on the planet are not the States, but their ancestors - the British.
hybrid war(eng. hybrid warfare) - a term that appeared at the end of the 20th century. in the US to understand military strategy that combines conventional warfare and information warfare as a whole. It should be emphasized that there is no single and generally accepted definition in the world yet.
The very word "hybrid" means the use of several types of pressure at once (informational-ideological, financial-economic, etc.) on the enemy. At the same time, the actions of the armed forces constitute, although important, but only a part. The term “hybrid warfare” is interpreted quite broadly in the editorial introduction of the Military Balance 2015 as “the use of military and non-military tools in an integrated campaign aimed at achieving surprise, seizing the initiative and obtaining psychological advantages using diplomatic opportunities; large-scale and rapid information, electronic and cyber operations; cover and concealment of military and reconnaissance activities; coupled with economic pressure."
From our point of view, the hybrid war methodology began to be developed in late XIX v. in the British Empire. She hoped to maintain her world power with the help of a complex of various, including secret, methods of warfare. To implement the idea of creating a British World Empire with a global imperial parliament in 1891, Cecil Rhodes, with the participation of Lords Balfour, Rothschild, Milner and Escher (friend and confidant of Queen Victoria, and later the closest adviser to Edward VII and George V), as well as William Thomas Stead (the most famous and sensational journalist of the time) founded the Round Table Society.
This society then participated in the creation of the "Council on Foreign Relations" in New York and the Royal Institute international studies in London. The history of the Round Table was well described by an American historian Carroll Quigley(1910–1977) in The Anglo-American Establishment, written in 1949 but not published until 1981.
One of the goals of the Round Table was to return the United States of America to the British Empire.. The main means of realizing this goal was creation of the Federal Reserve System (FRS). At the same time, the task was to weaken the Russian Empire (so that it could not help the United States), which in 1861-1864. provided assistance to the United States during civil war, sending two squadrons to New York and San Francisco to protect the northerners from the British fleet.
The FRS was created in 1913 after the financial crisis organized in 1907 by British intelligence through controlled American bankers. Then, in the United States, through the introduction of a system of appropriate comments, public opinion was formed in support of the idea of the need to create new financial structures to prevent such financial crises. Part of the strategic operation to create the Fed was the organization of victory in the presidential election. Woodrow Wilson. The Bank of England (a private bank established in 1694) secretly financed the election campaign of future US President Woodrow Wilson. The delicate assignments for the financing of Wilson's election campaign were carried out by Edward House, who was closely associated with British intelligence. The creation of the US Federal Reserve System (FRS) can be safely attributed to one of the first operations of a hybrid war in the financial and economic sphere. As a result of its implementation, the economic and financial systems of the United States gradually came under the complete control of a group of London bankers and politicians bought by them. The FRS was created on December 23, 1913, in accordance with the Federal Reserve Act passed by the US Congress. This was made possible by the coming to power of Woodrow Wilson, whose election was generously financed by British banking circles. US President Wilson's price for success was the passage of the Federal Reserve Act.
The February coup d'état of 1917, which led to the overthrow of the autocracy and the collapse of Russian Empire, can also be considered a successful operation of a hybrid war against Russia, carried out by the forces of Western Freemasonry and British intelligence MI6. It is no secret that the main perpetrators of the February coup d'état (Freemasons, Liberals and conspiring generals) were supported by the British and controlled from London. The modern Western hybrid war strategy began to develop within the framework of the so-called Cold War (1946-1991), unleashed against the USSR on the initiative of Winston Churchill. The Cold War was actually a hybrid war waged by the West against the USSR. During this war, large-scale subversive ideological and economic actions were carried out, “agents of influence” of the West were being formed in the Soviet elite, the USSR was purposefully drawn into an exhausting arms race, into the war in Afghanistan, etc.
The challenges and threats of subversive activities in the form of a hybrid war were not adequately assessed by the leadership of the USSR, which stubbornly prepared for a classic war and considered military force and nuclear deterrence as the basis for preserving state sovereignty. Some approaches to the methodology of hybrid warfare in the 1920s are described by our domestic military thinkers. Major General Alexander Svechin- "Russian Clausewitz" believed that the future war would unfold on numerous "fronts" - political, diplomatic, economic, etc. The idea of the complexity of the future war was defended in his works by Lieutenant General Andrey Snesarev, who emphasized that the periods free from armed struggle must be filled with "non-military operations". In them, “strategy works not with a sword, but with other means, even if they are strangers: agitation, crushing the enemy economy, overtaking in recreating one’s own forces, etc.” The approach proposed by the colonel of the Russian General Staff is also interesting. Evgeny Messner, who, in exile after the Second World War, wrote that during the “mutiny war” they fight not only with regular troops, but also with irregular forces (aggressive diplomacy, oil-weapons, weapons-pornography, weapons-drugs, weapons-brainwashing, terror). However, these approaches were not developed in the USSR.
As part of the West's strategy of hybrid warfare, a system of economic sanctions directed against the USSR operated. For the purpose of export control over goods and technologies prohibited for import into the USSR and the Warsaw Pact states, NATO countries and Japan created the Coordinating Committee for Export Control (COCOM) in 1949. Its task was to ensure a controlled technological backwardness of the USSR. In fact, in 2014, after the reunification of Crimea with Russia, the West applied sanctions against Russia similar to those that had been in effect for many years against the USSR. Targeted manipulation of energy prices was also an important technology of the West's hybrid war against the USSR. In 2016, everything repeats itself, only hybrid war operations to purposefully reduce the price of oil are being carried out against Russia.
In the late 1980s, with powerful organizational, financial, informational support from abroad, bloody conflicts broke out on the territory of the USSR. The leadership of the USSR turned out to be unable to resist unarmed aggression against the country and prevent its destruction in 1991. The General Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee played an extremely negative role in the process of the destruction of the USSR Mikhail Gorbachev, who could not or did not want to counteract the hybrid war of the West.
Today, a powerful blow to the system of ensuring the national security of Russia and stability in Eurasia was dealt by the color revolutions in Ukraine and the Middle East, which bring chaos. The development of the geopolitical situation, negative for Russia, became possible as a result of the active and skillful use by the West of modern information technologies in order to reformat the consciousness and behavior of a significant part of the population of Ukraine and the countries of the Middle East. On the other hand, the imperfection of the Russian system of forecasting, assessing the situation in strategically important regions of the world and anti-crisis response resulted in the absence of any significant pre-emptive counteraction to Western activity in Ukraine.
The starting point for developing the concept of using terrorism as a special technology of hybrid war was a secret NATO project created after the Second World War by British intelligence MI6 and the CIA. In NATO member countries, in parallel with the regular armies of the alliance, secret NATO armies appeared (also called "stay-behind" or "Gladio" (Latin gladio - sword)). These secret NATO armies were directed and coordinated by a secret security committee at NATO Headquarters in Brussels. Representatives of the secret armies gathered together every year. MI6 and the CIA financed the creation and operation of these clandestine subversive groups, trained them and planted caches of weapons and explosives. For example, the Italian secret army of NATO waged a secret war against the Italian communists (PCI) and socialists (PSI), committing bloody acts of terrorism. So, shortly before Christmas 1969, four bombs exploded in the busy squares of Rome and Milan, killing 16 people. The communists were specifically blamed for this bloody atrocity. In 1972, a car bomb exploded near the Italian village of Peteano, killing three carabinieri. Two days later, the police received an anonymous tip that the perpetrators were members of the Red Brigades. In 1974, a bomb exploded in the middle of an anti-fascist demonstration, killing eight and wounding 102. In August 1974, another bomb exploded on the Italian Express train from Rome to Munich. 12 people were killed and 48 were injured. At the station in Bologna on August 2, 1980, there was a terrorist attack in which 85 people were killed and 200 were injured. The media and politicians announced the supporters of the "Red Brigades" as the organizers of the attack.
The development of the Gladio project took place in Afghanistan, where the main ideologist of the hybrid war of the West against the USSR Russophobe Zbigniew Brzezinski managed to "draw" the Soviet Army. MI6 and the CIA have established a focal point for the international Islamist terrorist movement to combat Soviet troops in Afghanistan. This is how Al-Qaeda appeared, uniting mercenaries from 43 countries. The ensuing ten-year war with the Mujahideen was one of the reasons for the defeat of the Soviet Union in the Cold War. It was with the organizational and financial support of Western intelligence that an organization arose that coordinated the transfer of veterans of the Afghan war who remained out of work around the world. Subsequently, al-Qaeda successfully sent Islamic fanatics with combat experience to the North Caucasus, Algeria, Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq and Syria (where ISIS was created based on the experience of al-Qaeda). What happened to them after the collapse of the USSR? All of them remained in service. As before, they carry out terrorist actions "under a false flag" in those countries that do not want to voluntarily accept the rules of globalization. The mechanism is simple: first, "terrorists" destabilize the situation in the country to the limit, and then US and NATO troops arrive there to assist in the fight against terrorists and conduct stabilization operations. Such a scenario was thwarted in Syria.
However, the Afghan war had another important outcome: the West gained invaluable experience in organizing and conducting irregular military operations against one of the strongest modern armies. The world was then entering the information age. Subsequent events showed that information wars are the core of hybrid warfare. As a result of studying the Afghan experience, Western analysts have built a simple and clear algorithm for conducting a hybrid war to implement the idea of complete Western dominance in the world:
If a country does not accept the Western rules of the game, then a revolution begins, for a start, a color one;
If the authorities capitulate, they are replaced by a pro-Western regime;
If the authorities resist, a military operation begins; various anti-government organizations and rebel movements are activated in the country, which either overthrow the government themselves, or the United States and NATO come to them.
figuratively said Russian President Vladimir Putin speaking at a meeting of the Russian Security Council on July 22, 2014: “Unwanted regimes, countries that pursue an independent policy or simply stand in the way of someone's interests, are destabilized. To do this, the so-called color revolutions are used, and if you call a spade a spade - just coup d'état, provoked and financed from outside. Of course, the emphasis is on problems within countries.”
It should be recalled that the first stage of the war in Syria was just the "color revolution" a few years ago. But the people of Syria rallied around their president. And it was then that the second stage began - the armed aggression of ISIS terrorists. The strengthening of the Russian military presence in Syria is a forced response in connection with the large-scale terrorist aggression of ISIS against the people of Syria with the covert support of Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Western states. It must be clearly understood that the ISIS project is aimed against Russia, created by Western intelligence agencies - MI6, the CIA and is an integral part of the plan for conducting a hybrid war against our country. These circumstances require the Russian Federation to carry out skillful information and psychological support for the military presence in Syria, as well as to take active and effective measures to counteract the hybrid war being waged by the West against Russia.
Hybrid war is a set of methods of military-force, political-diplomatic, financial-economic, information-psychological and information-technical pressure, as well as technologies of color revolutions, terrorism and extremism, activities of special services, force formations special purpose, special operations forces and structures of public diplomacy, carried out according to a single plan by the governing bodies of the state, the military-political bloc or TNCs.
The goals of a hybrid war are the complete or partial disintegration of the state, a qualitative change in its domestic or foreign policy, the replacement of the state leadership with loyal regimes, the establishment of external ideological and financial and economic control over the country, its chaos and subordination to dictate by other states or TNCs.
feature modern stage development of international relations is a powerful political, informational and economic pressure from the West against Russia, which is an integral part of the Western strategy of hybrid war aimed at the disintegration of the Eurasian space, creating chaos and instability in Eurasia.
The hybrid war strategy has been developed by the US and NATO for many years. As a new element of war, an increase in influence on the preparation, course and outcome of global war combinations of elements of the military and irregular components. In the 21st century in international relations there was a transformation of the concept of "power". NATO's hybrid war strategy assumes the dominance of "soft power" tools and is aimed at the disintegration of the Eurasian space, creating chaos and instability in the states neighboring Russia using the technologies of color revolutions, information war, terrorism and extremism, financial and economic pressure, military coercion. In the final declaration of the NATO summit held in Scotland in September 2014, for the first time at the official level, it was stated that the alliance needed to be prepared to participate in a new type of war - hybrid wars. And in December 2015, at the summit of NATO foreign ministers, a new hybrid war strategy was adopted.
The military-political potential of Russia should fit into the combination of "soft power" and "hard power": it is necessary to be able to interact with public diplomacy structures, non-governmental organizations, international institutions, which use the levers of political, economic and informational influence, including special operations forces.
Part of the military-political elite of Russia understands the degree of danger of the threats of a hybrid war against Russia. This is evidenced by the speech at the annual meeting of the Academy of Military Sciences on February 27, 2016 by the Chief of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, General of the Army Valeria Gerasimova about the features of modern wars, which are of a hybrid nature, their integral part is color revolutions and events in the format of soft power. He drew attention to the fact that "indirect and asymmetric actions and methods of conducting hybrid wars make it possible to deprive the opposing side of actual sovereignty without seizing the territory of the state." At the same time, attention should be paid to the fact that no systemic conclusions have yet been drawn from the tragic lessons of the collapse of the Russian Empire in February 1917 and the USSR in 1991.
Thus, as part of the implementation of Russia's national security strategy of December 31, 2015, it is important to take into account the tendency to blur the distinction between the state of war and peace. Non-military information and ideological methods of influence using the protest potential of the population are increasingly being used. These means of struggle are complemented by covert military measures, including information warfare and the actions of special operations forces.
Important tools in the practice of conducting hybrid wars are:
information operations, carried out with the aim of influencing the state and military control bodies of the enemy in order to mislead him, disrupt the exchange of data and provoke him to make decisions that are beneficial to him;
psychological operations aimed at suppressing the moral and psychological state of the population and the fighting spirit of the personnel of the enemy's Armed Forces, creating an atmosphere of distrust in society and shaping motivation for destructive actions;
cyber attacks on state and commercial infrastructure in order to disable or hinder the operation of critical enemy facilities, as well as gain unauthorized access to "sensitive" information;
economic sanctions, termination of investment;
ethnic weapons;
Organizational, financial and informational support for opposition movements, destructive actions of "agents of influence" embedded in the power structures.
The main principles of hybrid warfare are strategic planning, coordination, interaction, timeliness, surprise and stealth.
Under these conditions, it is proposed to direct Russia's efforts in the following areas:
1.Creation of a new organizational structure (Bureau of Counter-Hybrid War), which has advanced points for carrying out measures to counter (Smolensk, Pskov, Rostov-on-Don, Vladikavkaz, Sevastopol, Yekaterinburg, Vladivostok).
2. Development Russian strategy counter-hybrid war.
3. Forming the foundations state system countering hybrid warfare operations against the leadership and population of Russia. Creation in the structure of special operations forces of the Armed Forces of Russia and special services of units for conducting information and psychological operations.
4. Creation of Russian national legislation aimed at counteracting hybrid warfare technologies, primarily color revolutions.
5. Revealing, diagnosing and blocking the activities of negative communicators seeking to undermine Russia's information sovereignty. Conduct ongoing monitoring of the blogosphere and social networks in order to block the dissemination in the Russian information space of negative information aimed at promoting extremism and terrorism, ethnic and religious hatred.
6. Preventive blocking of all channels(financial, informational, organizational) and structures of foreign and oligarchic assistance to the radical and extremist opposition in Russia.
7. Activation of information exchange and international cooperation with allies in the military, financial, economic, information and psychological spheres to take the necessary measures to identify and repel threats to Russia's security.
8. Systematic and targeted neutralization of hybrid warfare operations conducted against Russia.
Doctor of Political Sciences, Professor Igor Panarin
FederalPress together with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, the Public Chamber of the Russian Federation, federal agency for the CIS, compatriots living abroad, and for international humanitarian cooperation implements a unique project "Great masters of the state word".
Today we bring to the attention of our reader an interview with Professor, Doctor of Political Sciences Igor Panarin. Let's talk about hybrid wars.
Igor Nikolayevich, let's start with the history of this phenomenon. Who was their initiator and how did they originate?
- Hybrid wars have been known for a long time. Back in 1949, Western countries imposed economic sanctions against the USSR. For this, a special committee was created, which decided what could be delivered to Soviet Union, and what not.
Then it was not yet called a hybrid war, but the phrase "information war" appeared already in 1967. It was introduced by Allen Dulles. The term "information war" has been in common use since 1985 and was first defined in China.
The term "hybrid warfare" was coined by current US Secretary of Defense James Mattis and his subordinate Hoffman in 2005. Under it, they understood that in the future of military conflicts it is necessary to take into account this component. From the point of view of terminology, this term has not settled down. It is used in different countries under different epithets.
What do these wars include?
− Hybrid wars include disinformation (in the first place it was put by 80% of the experts surveyed), sanctions, information warfare, “color revolutions”, measures of information-psychological and information-technical pressure, cyber attacks, terrorism, and other tools, of which there are 12 Disinformation is very different.
In January of this year, a Russian air base in Syria was attacked by drones, and I coined the term “drone terrorism.” This will be discussed in my book "Trump, Russia and Hybrid War", which will be released in March. In it, I give an example of a hybrid war related to the US elections and the so-called "hacker scandal". I also include the actions of special units in hybrid warfare.
What mechanisms and stages are characteristic of hybrid wars?
In the book, I reveal a simple three-move. British intelligence MI6 is developing a plan. The former head of the “Russian department” of this special service prepares a disinformation dossier, then sells it to the Americans. Then a scandal unfolds, with blows inflicted on Russia and on Trump.
But the main blow is being dealt at the potential rapprochement between Russia and the United States. After Trump declared that he would like to normalize relations between the US and Russia, a classic disinformation stomp operation was carried out against him and Russia.
Only on February 2 of this year, when Trump first authorized the publication of a top secret document named after the head of the House Intelligence Committee, Republican Devin Nunez, under whose leadership it was drafted, the “Nunez Memorandum”, which reveals this kitchen - illegal surveillance The FBI and the implementation of this British intelligence dossier.
This scandal is now on the decline, although the “swotting” of Trump, Russia and Russian-American relations has been going on for a year and a half. As a result, Russian-American relations sank to the bottom.
So, the initiator of this scandal is Great Britain?
− Britain is a master at playing off other countries, in particular, historically pitting Russia against the United States, and it has its dividends in doing so. The hybrid war methodology was developed in the UK.
What is the subtlety of today?
Today, the specifics of a hybrid war is that they have added diversity to the concept of terrorism. "Telephone" and "drone" terrorism take the situation to another level. From September to December 2017, there was a wave of telephone terrorism in Russia.
It would seem that everything has faded away, but before our presidential elections it began again. February 25 - again a false call and four thousand people who came to celebrate the event near the Kremlin were evacuated. All this is part of the technology to destabilize the situation in Russia.
The specificity of a hybrid war is that those methods that were previously used chaotically, either as part of a cold or information war, are now becoming systemic. The challenge is to understand this phenomenon. A few years have passed since 2005, and Mattis and Hoffman, when introducing this term, had in mind its applicability to Iraq. They considered this an opportunity to strengthen the position of the United States.
Trump has also been targeted in this war. How is he protected?
- Fairly effective. His very coup is appointing Mattis as secretary of defense. He put at the head of this department not some kind of martinet, but a professional and intellectually developed person, able to think big.
If Mattis, as a divisional commander, thought in terms of hybrid warfare, it is clear that he is a key figure in the Trump administration after the dismissal of Michael Flynn, who could reform the US intelligence community.
For us, on the one hand, this is a plus, on the other, not a very positive picture, because at the suggestion of Mattis, NATO created a cyber operations center on November 8 last year, and this worries us very much in terms of political confrontation with the United States. They act quite systematically.
And they have tools that we don't?
Yes. To understand how we are lagging behind in this matter, I will mention another mechanism of hybrid warfare - public diplomacy. The term itself has not yet been established. It was first used in 1965 in the USA, then it was not in demand for a long time, but since the late 1990s it has been actively used. The Americans began to analyze the course of this diplomacy.
It is important to note two key points here. They adopted the doctrine of information operations in 1998. Its specificity is that they conduct information operations both in peacetime and in wartime. That is, even peacetime is an occasion and a field for information operations. The second important point is that they determined that the operations could be offensive and defensive. And under offensive operations fall not only opponents of the United States, but even their allies, in particular, Germany.
I was familiar with the authors of this doctrine and personally communicated with them. These are very smart professionals and strategic analysts of the US intelligence community. In 1999, the United States decides to introduce the post of Deputy Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy. The US State Department seems to be similar to our Foreign Ministry - we have a press secretary, they have a press secretary, Lavrov has deputies and Tillerson has deputies. But the fundamental difference is that we do not have a person responsible for public diplomacy.
What is the essence of this diplomacy?
- In 1953, the Americans created a special structure - the United States Information Agency (USIA) - the US Information Agency, that is, a new apparatus for foreign policy propaganda in the fight against the USSR. In 1991, the Soviet Union disappeared, but the USIA remained. They have since upgraded it. The fundamental difference is that earlier it was directly subordinate to the President of the United States, but in 1999 they included it in the State Department.
And this Deputy Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy began to oversee not only the former USIA, but this Voice of America radio, but also television and a host of other information resources. That is, there was a concentration of information resources under the auspices of the State Department.
This has led to the fact that in embassies in the territories of other countries, including Russia, the ambassadors are conducting an active information line and a line of public diplomacy using these resources.
Is this activity effective, and if so, to what extent?
Certainly effective. This can be assessed by the ratings of all media in the Russian information field, which are calculated by MediaAlogia. For us, this is an alarming indicator, if we evaluate social networks based on the results of the past year.
Young people are not only present on the Internet, but actually live, and they often prefer US information resources as sources of information. This is what the MediaLogia rating for 2017 shows.
Russian social media is dominated by US state radio stations in terms of citation index. In the first place is the media asset of the US CIA - Radio Liberty - 4 million 936 thousand hyperlinks.
On the second - Echo of Moscow, on the third - "Voice of America", subordinate to the US State Department - 794 thousand hyperlinks.
Our state radio - Vesti FM and Radio 1 - are in 7th and 8th place, gaining about 80 thousand together. That is, the citation index of two US radio stations in Russian social networks is approximately 71 times greater than that of two state radio stations in Russia.
None of them is distinguished by love for Russia ...
Yes. And this speaks of the effectiveness of the work of the State Department. Even Radio Liberty has a direct relationship with him. It is supervised by the Center for Global Engagement, a department of the State Department specially created in 2016, which integrates the capabilities of the Pentagon and the CIA, and all this closes to the Deputy Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy.
Within the framework of the State Department, interdepartmental coordination structures have been created that determine the foreign policy propaganda line. There is also USIA, which issues grants to teachers and students, organizes student exchanges and other events.
And how do we deal with this?
The Russian Foreign Ministry does not have its own information sources. We have RT, Sputnik radio. There used to be Voice of Russia, where I worked for five years. If the Voice of America broadcasts in 45 languages, then the Voice of Russia broadcast in 42 languages. Radio Sputnik has much fewer broadcast languages.
What is it connected with? Budget savings? Or underestimation of the enemy?
When the Voice of Russia was closed in 2014, it was on the rise, even a video studio was created. I hosted the program "World Politics" and at the same time there was an audio and video broadcast. In the last two years of work - in 2012-2014 - the Voice of Russia has made significant progress, creating, for example, sites in Germany and New York. By the way, Germany is very important for us, because 15 million of them know Russian.
Moreover, this is a legacy not only of the former GDR, but of emigrants from Russia, of whom there are two million. Broadcasting in Russian was also possible in New York, where there are also many Russian speakers. But the decision to close it was made, now there is a slightly different aspect in the information policy of broadcasting to other countries, and I don’t know how effective it is.
Let's get back to the State Department. What can we borrow from him in terms of public diplomacy?
The question is where can we create such a structure? Inside the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, subordinating some information resources to it? Maybe. Back in 2005, I proposed reassigning RIA Novosti and the Voice of Russia to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and pursuing a powerful and active information policy, forming an up-to-date agenda.
Today, the task is for us, in a certain sense, to learn from the Americans how to professionally communicate our agenda and our achievements, including in their information field, including social networks.
Who can decide on the creation of such a structure?
Obviously, this is not the level of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, but of the President of Russia. So far, this idea has fewer supporters than skeptics. Their main message is that so far, so good. Although it must be said directly that we are in the light recent events we often lose in the information field, and this does not meet the needs of information confrontation. We can also recall the Syrian crisis, where we were constantly on the information field as an acquitted party.
Do we have allies in hybrid wars?
Yes, there are allies. If we consider the spiritual bonds of Vladimir Putin as a kind of foreign policy course and message, then six years ago I came up with a certain ideological basis. Now Orthodoxy, due to the presence and authority of other religions among Russians, cannot be an effective and unique bond. I proposed a triad: "Spirituality - Sovereignty - Dignity."
Powerfulness is powerful centralization and powerful development of the economy, the army and social sphere. It is important that in Nizhny Novgorod - our ideological capital - Vladimir Putin announced his nomination as a candidate for the presidency of Russia. Then he went to the forum in Volgograd (Stalingrad). These were two significant moments for the ideological doctrine in terms of sovereignty. Putin's vertical is very important.
As for spirituality, we need the values of the family, the values of Orthodoxy, and the union of Orthodoxy and Islam is fundamentally important. That is, those moral and spiritual values that we have existed for a long time.
The third component is dignity, which we must demonstrate in all situations, of course, without bringing matters to war. But in a hybrid war, we must be at the right level.
Returning to the question of allies. We have allies in France - de Gaullists, we have supporters in Germany, Italy (Northern League and Berlusconi). Our allies are also other nationally oriented forces in European countries that are interested in strengthening contacts with Russia in economic, spiritual and moral terms. The same forces exist in the USA, where I have been dozens of times.
Let's go back to Trump.
- Trump is the best presidential option for Russia. Although it must be admitted that in geopolitical confrontation he is a master of information and hybrid warfare. Defeating opponents in a tough standoff inside America using twitter diplomacy is a clear indicator! As well as his selection of personnel and a thorough assessment of the situation.
Let's take a look at how Trump won. Here is an example: before the elections in american army conducted a closed survey. 5% was for Clinton, 90% for Trump. You can remember that 37% of the white population voted for Obama, about the same for Clinton.
What is the difference. During the Obama presidency, the so-called "tea movement" appeared, which demanded less taxes, which are collected in large numbers from the white population. Their other requirement is a family with children as a spiritual value.
As they said, “we have normal people from this plane human relations only New York and California drop out." Many tried to ride this movement - Sarah Palin, other political figures, but only Trump could. How much he did it situationally, what to win, or strategically - this will become clear with time.
It seems to me that he is quite sincere about this, because his first decision was to remove the section promoting sexual minorities from the White House website, which appeared under Obama. For the rest of his presidency, Trump demonstrates the same views on this issue. Here, Trump and I have common spiritual points, since we are also interested in a strong traditional family with children. Our potential ally in America is white Christians, who are still in the majority. Trump tries to express the intentions and aspirations of white Christians.
That is, there is a platform for our, if not rapprochement, then at least partnership with normal relations. You can recall from history that we saved the United States twice. The first case was when Empress Catherine refused to send an army at the request of the English king to suppress the first revolution of 1776. Then, in 1861, we sent two squadrons to the roadsteads of San Francisco and New York, defending against the British fleet, which initiated the civil war in the United States.
Stalin and Roosevelt are another plane of contact between our countries. I want to say that according to my research model, Roosevelt was poisoned. Let me explain why I hold this point of view. Stalin and Roosevelt - it was a brilliant pair of leaders who worked at all conferences. For example, in Tehran they acted together in the fight against Churchill.
Then there was Yalta, where the foundations of the post-war world were laid, and if not for the death of Roosevelt, then quite possibly there would not have been a Cold War. Then came Truman - a protege of other forces. The Cold War began with Churchill's Fulton speech. Truman was also there, but it was Churchill who prepared the speech, and British influence in that situation proved to be the key to starting the confrontation in Soviet-American relations.
The current operation of the British special services with the notorious “dossier” has also hit the platform uniting Russia and America, which Vladimir Putin prudently created when the Russian Orthodox Church and the Russian Church Abroad were united. There are about two million Orthodox Christians in the United States, who are represented in all states. The unification of the churches also strengthened the position of the Catholics in terms of the relationship between the Patriarch and the Pope.
- From my point of view, the British calculated all this and carried out a hybrid war operation. Moreover, they turned out to be “in all white”, as they seemed to be on the sidelines.
How do they influence America's elite?
- I believe that there is a serious British lobby within the American elite. The operation that was carried out fell on fertile ground. Bill, Hillary Clinton's husband, studied in England and was a Rhodes Scholar. Cecil Rhodes was an ardent supporter of British imperialism, he created the Round Table organization, which develops global plans for governing the whole world, and the American elite is being pulled there.
In his will, Rhodes predicted the spread of British supremacy in the world and the return of the United States to the rule of the English crown as "an integral part of the British Empire." Many recognize that Hillary is the key player in the Clinton tandem, and she is a British protege. Of course, Hillary wanted to be president.
But then Trump came along...
- Yes, according to many scenarios, the Republican candidate should be Jeb Bush - the son of the 41st US President George W. Bush and the younger brother of the 43rd US President. It seemed that the solid governor of Florida would win against the extravagant Trump. But Trump outplayed him.
So Trump was a distraction in the beginning?
- Yes, he was not considered seriously, but then they scared him when he went against Hillary and began to say in his televised debates that he would like to improve relations with Putin. His opponents tensed up, and the same operation was launched with a fake British dossier on Russian interference in the American elections.
From it, as they say, “ears stick out”, and this speaks of the haste in its fabrication. Britain is extremely interested that Russia and the United States are always in opposition. We still bear the heavy burden of this hybrid war, as we were not very prepared to respond. We have been watching the situation from the outside for a long time, although it was possible to effectively minimize these threats and risks.
What is the problem here?
- We do not have the necessary response tool for this. In addition to the Department of Public Diplomacy at the State Department, America has the National Intelligence Council, an influential think tank that was established in 1979. What is his strength.
It includes not only representatives of the US intelligence community, but also political scientists and analysts who are not members of the intelligence community. For example, professor and doctor of political science Angela Stent, who is the director of the Eurasia Center at Georgetown University.
And there are many such figures, and they have created a broad platform for analysis. The National Intelligence Council once every four years gives out trends in the development of the situation for 10-15 years ahead and forms a specific agenda. At the same time, the council issues classified materials for senior management.
Do we have something similar?
- We did not have such an instrument in the Soviet Union either. Then there was the International Department of the Central Committee of the CPSU, which supervised something. What was his strategic flaw can be seen in the example of the confrontation between the Warsaw Pact and NATO. In our country, issues of ideological and psychological warfare were resolved within the framework of the communist parties of the Warsaw Pact countries.
It was uncoordinated and inefficient. But in NATO this process was organized differently. Back in 1950, they created an information service and began to create tools for public diplomacy and strategic propaganda. That is, they had organizational and managerial tools in this area, but we did not have them.
And after the collapse of the Warsaw Pact, they only improved them. NATO has a committee on public diplomacy, a concept of strategic propaganda, and special plans for the next two years. And they take on new members and move on.
And what can be opposed to them?
- I propose to create in Russia an analogue of the National Intelligence Council. There are 19 councils under the President of Russia: on the fuel and energy complex, on innovations, etc., and a Coordinating Expert and Analytical Council could be created similarly. Since we are fundamentally behind in this area, we need to make three reports annually on hybrid wars against Russia.
The commission of the Federation Council is trying to do something in this direction, but this is clearly not enough. We are talking about systemic throwing into the information field of our agenda, but this requires a permanent body. The second option is to create such a structure under the Security Council of the Russian Federation, which, in a closed regime, should weekly acquaint the members of the Council with its research and recommendations and act very actively in the public sphere.
Don't we have something similar in the Foreign Intelligence Service?
− Good question. There is nothing in the SVR, although it was under Primakov. I believe that he, having read the reports of the US National Intelligence Council, initiated the creation of a similar structure, but within the SVR. They have released four public reports.
These documents were not conceptual and only one received wide publicity, as it analyzed the expansion of NATO to the East, while others raised issues of disarmament. That is, there was a narrow study of local problems. Not one of them was, relatively speaking, the "Peace Strategy for the Period 2010", that is, planning for fifteen years ahead. There was no conceptual approach, and when Primakov left for the post of Minister of Foreign Affairs, this topic was closed.
By the way, it was thanks to these reports that Primakov took this post. The Foreign Ministry of Kozyrev's time had its own pro-American line, while Primakov said that NATO was harming Russia. It would seem that having taken the post of minister, Primakov would have more opportunities to create an analytical structure, but for some reason this did not happen. Now this experience needs to be restored, but not within the framework of the SVR.
And it is necessary to use the achievements of the Americans in the formation of such a structure, that is, to gather representatives of the intelligence community and analysts from science into it.
What is the power of hybrid warfare?
- First of all, in the creation of a common agenda for the participants in the information field. The Americans officially have 16 intelligence agencies. Although few people know that the State Department also has its own external intelligence service.
There is a center at the State Department open information, where 500 people analyze open sources of information. They have a department of information and press, just like we do. They have a powerful think tank based at the US Library of Congress.
They also have such analytical structures as RAND Corporation and Stratford. The FBI has also recently created a Foundation that, under the slogan of combating terrorism, also publishes its reports and forms a profitable information agenda for itself.
In a hybrid war, do we also need long planning horizons?
- We are not up to planning horizons until 2035, as we are far behind. At least start developing a strategy and forecasts for five years ahead. I repeat that our country really needs such an analytical and coordinating mechanism.
What structures should be involved in it? Should the Ministry of Foreign Affairs set the tone? After all, we are talking about international relations.
- It's all about the specialization of our departments. If we talk about a hybrid war against Russia, then the FSB, the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Roskomnadzor should definitely set the tone. If, for example, the report “Prospects for the Formation of a Multipolar World” is prepared, then this, of course, is the prerogative of the Foreign Ministry.
And further work should go in the information field. And the Security Council, due to the fact that it is gaining more weight and making more decisions not only in the field of security, but also in other issues, having such an analytical structure could work more effectively. That is, we need a coordinating mechanism for issuing a unified information agenda. I will complete my thought about 16 US intelligence agencies. They have a joint report of the US intelligence communities.
That is, the report is prepared by one structure, but the rest get acquainted with the document and their leaders endorse it. In my memory, I don’t remember at least some single report by the GRU, SVR, FSB on any problem. That is, we do not have this practice. It is clear that each structure should give out its own information, but at the reference points, a consolidated position of the special services is needed.
Another important point is that since social networks quickly spread information and misinformation, such a mechanism should respond quickly to this. That is, there is a strategic level of agenda formation, it should be operational, as well as situational (anti-crisis).
America, apparently, is not standing still on the issue of hybrid wars?
− Of course. Here's the latest news - the State Department, as part of a new partnership with the Pentagon, is launching another campaign to combat foreign "propaganda and disinformation." The Pentagon gave him, under the terms of the partnership, $ 40 million from its own budget funds for the implementation of various "initiatives to counter propaganda and misinformation from foreign countries."
The State Department is ready to engage with private businesses and non-governmental organizations abroad, including Russian ones, and will accept applications from any entity or group of individuals that shares their “commitment to combat disinformation.”
Do we have a chance to fight in hybrid wars on an equal footing?
- The chance will appear when we create the Information and Analytical Special Forces. To do this, you will have to try very hard and you need to start, I repeat, with the creation of a single coordinating analytical structure.
Former KGB officer and well-known political scientist about who wants to take over the world and on whose side Natalya Poklonskaya plays
The hybrid war methodology was born in the British Empire, while Leon Trotsky and Adolf Hitler acted in the interests of London, according to writer and political scientist, former intelligence officer Igor Panarin. About how his new book, recently presented in Moscow, is designed to arm Russia against its eternal "Anglo-Saxon enemies", why Trump has "iron nerves" and what damage the last chairman of the KGB of the USSR inflicted on the country - in the material "BUSINESS Online".
Igor Panarin's book, presented in Moscow, is designed to arm Russia against its eternal "Anglo-Saxon enemies" Photo: Vladimir Astapkovich, RIA Novosti
“DAYS BEFORE VLADIMIR PUTIN’S BIRTHDAY, 120 THOUSAND PEOPLE WERE EVACUED IN MOSCOW”
“On November 8, the NATO alliance announced the creation of a cyber operations center. Thus, a new step has been taken in the development of the concept of hybrid war,” warns the political scientist and full member of the Academy of Military Sciences. He spoke about what the theory of covert operations and sabotage looks like today in the recently published book “Hybrid Warfare: Theory and Practice”. The presentation of this solid work took place in Moscow at the School of Common Sense. Among the listeners of the lecture, which lasted more than two and a half hours, was the correspondent of "BUSINESS Online".
According to Panarin, on March 9, 2014, 16 officers from the NATO cyber center arrived in Kiev to organize on the spot Information Support. “Of course, we must understand that this system will only develop against us,” the political scientist believes, adding that three years ago we suffered an ideological defeat in Ukraine, but reunification with Crimea is “a great success.”
“Despite our shortcomings in this information sphere, several important events have taken place,” Panarin believes, placing in this series not only the annexation of the peninsula, but also the “war of 08.08. 2008”, as well as the successful, from his point of view, Syrian campaign.
"Nest Daesh ( Arabic name for the ISIS group banned in the Russian Federation –approx. ed.), which was intended to then terroristically rip Russia apart from the Caucasus and Central Asia, was eliminated,” the speaker said. According to Panarin, the so-called ISIS is a weapon of the hybrid war of the Anglo-Saxon world against Eurasia.
The narrator also called telephone terrorism a component of the hybrid war, noting that Last year there has been an increase in terrorist activity in the world. For example, the day before your birthday Vladimir Putin, which was celebrated on October 7, 120 thousand people were evacuated in Moscow (from hospitals, universities and shopping centers). And on November 5, people from GUM, the Bolshoi Theater and the Metropol Hotel were evacuated. A total of 3.5 thousand people had to be withdrawn from the Bolshoi Theater. On November 5, 360 people were detained in the capital. “November 5 is Military Intelligence Day. I think that the choice of this date is not accidental,” concluded Panarin.
As for classical terror, Panarin cited figures on this score: in 2016, a total of 249 terrorist attacks took place in the world, and by the current moment in 2017 - already 380. Of these, in 2016, 55 terrorist attacks occurred in Afghanistan, and in this year already 165, that is, almost three times more. “This is despite the fact that there are NATO troops in Afghanistan, allegedly sent there to stabilize the situation. The fact that the situation in Afghanistan is getting worse does not bode well for us,” the scientist stated sadly.
The political scientist believes that not only the NATO military-political bloc, but also transnational corporations are involved in the hybrid war. As the goals of the hybrid war, the speaker singled out the disintegration of the state, a change in foreign policy, the replacement of leadership with loyal regimes and the establishment of control by other states or transnational corporations. By the way, Panarin conducted a study this summer, as a result of which he found out that 76 percent of people believe that the main weapon of a hybrid war is disinformation. “Information warfare is the core of hybrid warfare. But nevertheless, terrorism, and extremism, and many other components are included in the hybrid war,” said the doctor of political sciences.
“Hush, hush, hush,” the leader of the School of Common Sense tried to calm the audience. By the middle of the lecture, people had already begun to actively talk among themselves, apparently thinking what question to ask Panarin after his long monologue about the hybrid war.
Photo: Mark Wilson / Staff / gettyimages.com
“IN SUCH SCORES, TRUMP SHOULD HAVE IRON NERVES”
The political scientist believes that we are lagging behind the West in the theory and practice of hybrid warfare and, in particular, connects this with the fact that we, later than the Americans, drew up our information security doctrine ( new version approved by presidential decree of December 5, 2016 – approx. ed.). “Russia is different in that we had the first such doctrine in 2000,” explains Panarin. - I was directly involved in its development. The text was ready already in 1997, and only Putin signed it. This is his merit."
“1992 is their [Western] directive on this matter,” Panarin calculates the steps of competitors. - Then 1998 - the doctrine of information operations. They first introduced the concept of defensive and offensive information operations there. Offensive information operations can also be carried out in peacetime. Here is the main conclusion. In 2006, they already had an emphasis on the Internet.” According to the writer, the role of social networks is still underestimated in our country, although this item should have been included in the new version of the doctrine.
Currently, new technologies will be introduced into the system of US government structures, Panarin says and notes that the 45th US President Donald Trump won the election in a "tough information war using new technologies." Panarin generally expressed admiration for Trump's use of social media and the internet as tools to win the election. In his opinion, he did it all right, realizing that all the global media are against him. He also said that he was initially confident that Mr. Donald would win the election.
“I participated in various talk shows and argued with Michael Bohm ( American journalist and political commentator, known as the "Whipping Yankee" on Russian television – approx. ed. who will win the election. He told me, “You don't know America. Clinton will win. There's not even anything to say." The only thing I regret is that I did not argue with him for something material. I told him that Trump would win. And Bom later admitted his defeat, ”said Panarin.
“The assessment of Trump as a kind of voluntarist who accidentally took the presidency does not correspond to reality,” the political scientist is sure. – I will recall the moment of the inauguration of the President of the United States, when, within a day, CNN comes out officially with a “hypothesis” that Trump will be shot during the ceremony. In such scenarios, you need to have iron nerves in order to carry it all out. Second, Trump has allocated 5 times more financial resources to social media work. Despite the fact that his total financial budget was half that of Clinton. Trump, in fact, outplayed Clinton in her field and provided through Twitter access to the information field, bypassing the global media, which all supported Clinton.
According to Panarin, Trump's main idea was to quickly reform the intelligence community. But it could only be carried out by the former director of intelligence of the US Department of Defense. Michael Flynn. “Smart, tough and loyal to Russia,” the writer emphasizes. - Trump's mistake is that he removed it. Trump thought that if he fired Flynn, he would be left behind. Trump went along with them, but he did not break, from my point of view. Counterplay on the liberal field characterizes him as a fighter, as a person who will pursue his own line.
Photo: Olga Kuzischina, CC BY-SA 4.0, commons.wikimedia.org
HOW THE FORMER KGB CHAIRMAN OF THE USSR BETRAYED HIS COUNTRY
We created a media system similar to the American CNN only in 2005, says Panarin. Meanwhile, CNN was founded back in 1980. “Didn't the USSR have the money to create a similar media system? the political scientist asks rhetorically. - Our journalists, who receive a lot of money from state resources, while abroad, are not at all involved in building a state-information line, that is, no one controls them and does not line them up in single system».
However, according to Panarin, in the summer of 2016 we carried out a successful counter-hybrid war operation to thwart a military coup in Turkey. “The main objective of this coup was to stop the transit of our cargo through the strait. Then our Syrian campaign would have ended in complete failure. But we managed to prevent a coup, save Recep Erdogan, who continues to move from left to right. But the regime that could replace it would be absolutely anti-Russian, and for us it would be a threat,” the political scientist believes.
But we must understand that in our history there were both triumphs and negative moments, Panarin noted, talking about the scandalous act of the last KGB chairman Vadim Bakatin. In December 1991, Bakatin, who at that time served as head of the inter-republican security service ( structure created after the August coup as a result of the reform of the KGB – approx. ed.), handed over to the United States all the circuits of listening devices located in the American embassy in Moscow. Thus, according to Panarin, Bakatin inflicted enormous damage on the entire intelligence network of the country.
“Do we have many documents about the betrayal of Bakatin? the political scientist thinks. - Do we have an invoice that indicates that he betrayed us and handed over our entire intelligence and technical network? He hasn't even been convicted yet. Nevertheless, the damage that Bakatin inflicted on our entire technical intelligence and the intelligence network as a whole is, of course, disastrous for decades. By that time, our technical intelligence was ahead of the Americans. Comrade Bakatin came to the American embassy with technical documentation, and the Americans could not believe it and called a commission from the United States to still understand whether this was some kind of disinformation operation or reality, ”said Panarin.
In order to start catching up with the West in terms of hybrid warfare technology, Panarin proposed the creation of a coordinating and expert analytical council, similar to the US national intelligence council created in 1979. “It is of fundamental importance that this national council publishes public reports and sets the information agenda. In order to get ahead of us in this hybrid war of the adversary, we need to publish not once every four years, like they do, but annually three reports, thereby forming the information agenda. – calls Panarin. - The second is the formation of the Internet and television, at least with weekly releases of reviews of the current situation, as well as social networks. The third is the formation of a special non-profit organization in the form of a foundation. The American equivalent is Stratfor. This private intelligence company periodically throws in various materials - informational, disinformation."
Photo: Dan Kitwood / Staff / gettyimages.com
"RUSSIA'S MAIN ENEMY IN THE HYBRID WAR - LONDON"
After an hour-long lecture, Panarin answered all the questions of the audience. Among the questioners was a well-known political scientist Andrey Devyatov. “Igor Nikolaevich is already tense,” Panarin said about himself and smiled when Devyatov stood up. "Nebopolitik" asked Panarin which team, in his opinion, he plays Natalia Poklonskaya in this hybrid war - enemies or allies. “This is not a topic of discussion on which side Poklonskaya is on,” the speaker responded. - I think that she has her own perception, there are probably some advantages and disadvantages. But the contribution that she made at a decisive moment in the events of 2014 deserves respect. I think that over time, the information husk will disappear.”
During the lecture, Panarin talked a lot about London. In particular, he called the revolutionary Leon Trotsky MI6 agent, and Adolf Hitler- an agent and nominee of the British Empire, who implemented the tasks of Great Britain. “The methodology of hybrid warfare was born in the British Empire, but finally formed with the help of the British Round Table Society in 1891,” the political scientist said. - The February coup d'état, by the way, was carried out and successfully carried out by the forces of British intelligence, the Round Table Society and the forces of Western Freemasonry. The attack on the USSR in 1941 was also caused by London intrigues.
London Panarin considers "Russia's main enemy in a hybrid war." “There is a group of people who want to own the world,” Panarin believes. “And they have achieved a lot in this. If the territory of the USSR was 22 million kilometers, then the territory of the British Empire was 36 million kilometers. These people simply cannot finally take over the world as long as our civilization exists. Therefore, our enemies are in London. Over time, London began to accumulate the spirit of a civilization of profit. Our enemies are the London-based global oligarchy that is trying to take over the world and impose values that are alien to us.”
However, within the American community, as well as in Germany and France, Russia has allies in a hybrid war, says the writer, for whom Trump's victory is a victory for conservative values. “Our allies are those forces that stand for the family. I mean the relationship between people, kindness,” said Panarin.
Panarin was also asked what the image of victory in a hybrid war looks like in his mind. “For me, the image of victory is the fall of London on May 9, 2020,” the political scientist, true to himself, replied. - If our Russian special operations forces march through London on May 9, this will be an image of victory for me. It’s hard to imagine yet, but we need to strive for it.”
After the lecture, many listeners rushed to buy new book Panarin, but it (worth more than 500 rubles) was snapped up in a few minutes. Therefore, some had to purchase Panarin's previous book, Hybrid War Against Russia, instead. The author himself was signing autographs for 20 minutes after the end of the lecture.
(born October 30, 1958) - Russian political scientist, candidate psychological sciences, Doctor of Political Sciences, full member of the Academy of Military Sciences. Member of the Scientific and Methodological Council under the Central Election Commission Russian Federation, Member of the Expert Council of the CIS Affairs Committee of the Federation Council.
Graduated from Oryol military school communications of the KGB of the USSR (today the Academy of the Federal Security Service of Russia) and the Department of Psychology of the Military-Political Academy. Lenin (with a gold medal).
He began his career in the KGB in 1976. After 1991, he worked at FAPSI (field of activity - strategic analysis and integration of information flows of closed and open information, management of information flows in crisis situations, situational modeling of global processes).
From 1999 to 2003, he worked as the head of the analytical department of the Central Election Commission of the Russian Federation. From 2006 to 2007 he was the press secretary of the Federal Space Agency (Roscosmos).
In 1993 he defended PhD thesis in psychology on the topic "Psychological factors of the officer's activity in the conditions of innovations." The academic degree of Doctor of Political Science was awarded by the Dissertation Council Russian Academy public service under the President of the Russian Federation on May 7, 1997, the topic of the dissertation is “Information and psychological support for the national security of Russia”.
On September 9, 1998, at an international conference in Linz (Austria), he first came up with a hypothesis about the possibility of the United States breaking up into 6 parts in 2010, showing the conference participants a map of the collapse of the States.
In February 2005, he proposed a reform of the Russian foreign policy propaganda system, the first steps of which were the introduction of the post of adviser to the President of Russia on foreign policy propaganda and information confrontation and the creation of a Russian state commission (or council) on public diplomacy (in December 2008, he also proposed the creation of a Committee information security of Russia with the information counterintelligence service in addition to others within it). He proposed the subordination of the Russian Foreign Ministry to the radio station "Voice of Russia" and news agency RIA Novosti (later on the basis of the established structure, the formation of a foreign policy media holding within the Russian Foreign Ministry) and the creation of Russian non-governmental organizations operating in the CIS countries, the EU and the USA.
In January 2006, he proposed the creation of Eurasian Russia as an interstate entity on the model of the European Union on the territory of the post-Soviet space, headed by the sovereign (according to Machiavelli), which would restore and strengthen economic integration, with the gradual accession of a number of Balkan and other countries to it. Proposed Vladimir Putin as the first sovereign of Eurasian Russia.
In February 2006, for the first time, he proposed to create an oil and gas exchange in Russia trading for rubles (the exchange opened in St. Petersburg on September 24, 2008, and in March 2009, Rosneft Oil Company sold 6.7 thousand tons of oil products at auction for 97 million rubles ). In addition to Rosneft, Gazprom Neft, Lukoil, Surgutneftegaz and TNK-BP planned to enter the stock exchange.
In January 2009, he proposed the creation of a five-sided commission, an expert mechanism for international consultation on overcoming the global crisis.
March 27, 2009 Panarin took part in a lecture by the UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, which took place in the Grand Mansion of the Russian Foreign Ministry. After the lecture, Panarin commented on the need to introduce a new world currency AKYURE (the name was invented by Panarin himself) based on the three leading world currencies: AKU (Asian Monetary Unit) is a conditional (!) monetary unit, in fact, a virtual basket of more than 10 currencies, the weighted average rate of which conditionally (!) is calculated by one of the research institutes in Japan, no decision “to create a monetary unit” with such a name has ever been made by any country), the ruble and the euro, as well as the discussion of proposals from Russia and China on a new world currency at the G20 summit in London. In his opinion, it is precisely the introduction of AKURE agreed upon by 20 countries that will allow a painless transition to a new model of world development.
In April 2009, he proposed the integration of Eurasia as one of the means to overcome the global financial and economic crisis, including the development of a joint SCO anti-crisis program and the abandonment of the dollar in mutual settlements between the SCO member countries in favor of a dual-currency basket (consisting of two currencies - the yuan and the ruble) as new currency of the SCO. He proposed a transition to mutual settlements of three levels: national currencies; ruble or yuan; two-currency basket (ruble yuan), and also invited the SCO countries to make a joint proposal on the introduction of a new world currency ACURE by the next meeting of 20 countries in autumn 2009.
Series member international conferences and exhibitions (Austria, Great Britain, Germany, Greece, India, Spain, USA, etc.). He took part in news and analytical programs on television and radio.
Former KGB officer and well-known political scientist about who wants to take over the world and on whose side Natalya Poklonskaya plays
The hybrid war methodology was born in the British Empire, while Leon Trotsky and Adolf Hitler acted in the interests of London, according to writer and political scientist, former intelligence officer Igor Panarin. About how his new book, recently presented in Moscow, is designed to arm Russia against its eternal "Anglo-Saxon enemies", why Trump has "iron nerves" and what damage the last chairman of the KGB of the USSR inflicted on the country - in the material "BUSINESS Online".
Igor Panarin's book, presented in Moscow, is designed to arm Russia against its eternal "Anglo-Saxon enemies"
“DAYS BEFORE VLADIMIR PUTIN’S BIRTHDAY, 120 THOUSAND PEOPLE WERE EVACUED IN MOSCOW”“On November 8, the NATO alliance announced the creation of a cyber operations center. Thus, a new step has been taken in developing the concept of a hybrid war,” warns political scientist and full member of the Academy of Military Sciences Igor Panarin. He spoke about what the theory of covert operations and sabotage looks like today in the recently published book “Hybrid Warfare: Theory and Practice”. The presentation of this solid work took place in Moscow at the School of Common Sense. Among the listeners of the lecture, which lasted more than two and a half hours, was the correspondent of "BUSINESS Online".
According to Panarin, on March 9, 2014, 16 officers from the NATO cyber center arrived in Kiev to organize information support on the spot. “Of course, we must understand that this system will only develop against us,” the political scientist believes, adding that three years ago we suffered an ideological defeat in Ukraine, but reunification with Crimea is “a great success.”
“Despite our shortcomings in this information sphere, several important events have taken place,” Panarin believes, placing in this series not only the annexation of the peninsula, but also the “war of 08.08. 2008”, as well as the successful, from his point of view, Syrian campaign.
"Nest Daesh ( Arabic name for the ISIS group banned in the Russian Federation- approx. ed. ), which was intended to later terroristically rip Russia apart from the Caucasus and Central Asia, was eliminated,” the speaker said. According to Panarin, the so-called DAISH is a weapon of the hybrid war of the Anglo-Saxon world against Eurasia.
The narrator also called telephone terrorism a component of the hybrid war, noting that over the past year there has been an increase in terrorist activity in the world. For example, the day before your birthday Vladimir Putin, which was celebrated on October 7, 120 thousand people were evacuated in Moscow (from hospitals, universities and shopping centers). And on November 5, people from GUM, the Bolshoi Theater and the Metropol Hotel were evacuated. A total of 3.5 thousand people had to be withdrawn from the Bolshoi Theater. On November 5, 360 people were detained in the capital. “November 5 is Military Intelligence Day. I think that the choice of this date is not accidental,” concluded Panarin.
Panarin called telephone terrorism a component of the hybrid war, noting that over the past year there has been an increase in terrorist activity in the world.
As for classical terror, Panarin cited figures on this score: in 2016, a total of 249 terrorist attacks occurred in the world, and by the current moment in 2017 - already 380. Of these, in 2016, 55 terrorist attacks occurred in Afghanistan, and in this year already 165, that is, almost three times more. “This is despite the fact that there are NATO troops in Afghanistan, allegedly sent there to stabilize the situation. The fact that the situation in Afghanistan is getting worse does not bode well for us,” the scientist stated sadly.
The political scientist believes that not only the NATO military-political bloc, but also transnational corporations are involved in the hybrid war. As the goals of the hybrid war, the speaker singled out the disintegration of the state, a change in foreign policy, the replacement of leadership with loyal regimes and the establishment of control by other states or transnational corporations. By the way, Panarin conducted a study this summer, as a result of which he found out that 76 percent of people believe that the main weapon of a hybrid war is disinformation. “Information warfare is the core of hybrid warfare. But nevertheless, terrorism, and extremism, and many other components are included in the hybrid war,” said the doctor of political sciences.
“Hush, hush, hush,” the leader of the School of Common Sense tried to calm the audience. By the middle of the lecture, people had already begun to actively talk among themselves, apparently thinking what question to ask Panarin after his long monologue about the hybrid war.
The 45th President of the United States, Donald Trump, won the election in a "tough information war using new technologies"
“IN SUCH SCORES, TRUMP SHOULD HAVE IRON NERVES”
The political scientist believes that we are lagging behind the West in the theory and practice of hybrid warfare and, in particular, connects this with the fact that we, later than the Americans, drew up our information security doctrine ( new version approved by presidential decree of December 5, 2016- approx. ed. ). “Russia is different in that we had the first such doctrine in 2000,” explains Panarin. - I was directly involved in its development. The text was ready already in 1997, and only Putin signed it. This is his merit."
“1992 is their [Western] directive on this matter,” Panarin calculates the steps of competitors. - Then 1998 - the doctrine of information operations. They first introduced the concept of defensive and offensive information operations there. Offensive information operations can also be carried out in peacetime. Here is the main conclusion. In 2006, they already had an emphasis on the Internet.” According to the writer, the role of social networks is still underestimated in our country, although this item should have been included in the new version of the doctrine.
Currently, new technologies will be introduced into the system of US government structures, says Panarin and notes that the 45th US President Donald Trump won the election in a "tough information war using new technologies." Panarin generally expressed admiration for Trump's use of social media and the internet as tools to win the election. In his opinion, he did it all right, realizing that all the global media are against him. He also said that he was initially confident that Mr. Donald would win the election.
“I participated in various talk shows and argued with Michael Bohm ( American journalist and political commentator, known as the "Whipping Yankee" on Russian television- approx. ed. who will win the election. He told me, “You don't know America. Clinton will win. There's not even anything to say." The only thing I regret is that I did not argue with him for something material. I told him that Trump would win. And Bom later admitted his defeat, ”said Panarin.
“The assessment of Trump as a kind of voluntarist who accidentally took the presidency does not correspond to reality,” the political scientist is sure. - I will recall the moment of the inauguration of the President of the United States, when CNN comes out officially with a “hypothesis” within a day that Trump will be shot during the ceremony. In such scenarios, you need to have iron nerves in order to carry it all out. The second is that Trump has allocated 5 times more financial resources to work in social networks. Despite the fact that his total financial budget was half that of Clinton. Trump, in fact, outplayed Clinton in her field and provided through Twitter access to the information field, bypassing the global media, which all supported Clinton.
According to Panarin, Trump's main idea was to quickly reform the intelligence community. But it could only be carried out by the former director of intelligence for the US Department of Defense, Michael Flynn. “Smart, tough and loyal to Russia,” the writer emphasizes. - Trump's mistake is that he removed it. Trump thought that if he fired Flynn, he would be left behind. Trump went along with them, but he did not break, from my point of view. Counterplay on the liberal field characterizes him as a fighter, as a person who will pursue his own line.
In December 1991, Vadim Bakatin handed over to the United States all the wiretap circuits that were in the American embassy in Moscow.
HOW THE FORMER KGB CHAIRMAN OF THE USSR BETRAYED HIS COUNTRY
We created a media system similar to the American CNN only in 2005, says Panarin. Meanwhile, CNN was founded back in 1980. “Didn't the USSR have the money to create a similar media system? - the political scientist asks a rhetorical question. “Our journalists, who receive a lot of money from state resources, while abroad, are not at all engaged in building a state-information line, that is, no one controls them and does not build them into a single system.”
However, according to Panarin, in the summer of 2016 we carried out a successful counter-hybrid war operation to thwart a military coup in Turkey. “The main objective of this coup was to stop the transit of our cargo through the strait. Then our Syrian campaign would have ended in complete failure. But we managed to prevent a coup, save Recep Erdogan, who continues to move from left to right. But the regime that could replace it would be absolutely anti-Russian, and for us it would be a threat,” the political scientist believes.
But we must understand that in our history there were both triumphs and negative moments, Panarin noted, talking about the scandalous act of the last KGB chairman Vadim Bakatin. In December 1991, Bakatin, who at that time served as head of the inter-republican security service ( structure created after the August coup as a result of the reform of the KGB- approx. ed. ), handed over to the United States all the circuits of listening devices located in the American embassy in Moscow. Thus, according to Panarin, Bakatin inflicted enormous damage on the entire intelligence network of the country.
“Do we have many documents about the betrayal of Bakatin? - the political scientist reflects. - Do we have an invoice that indicates that he betrayed us and handed over our entire reconnaissance and technical network? He hasn't even been convicted yet. Nevertheless, the damage that Bakatin inflicted on our entire technical intelligence and the intelligence network as a whole is, of course, disastrous for decades. By that time, our technical intelligence was ahead of the Americans. Comrade Bakatin came to the American embassy with technical documentation, and the Americans could not believe it and called a commission from the United States in order to understand whether this was some kind of disinformation operation or reality, ”said Panarin.
In order to start catching up with the West in terms of hybrid warfare technology, Panarin proposed the creation of a coordinating and expert analytical council, similar to the US national intelligence council created in 1979. “It is of fundamental importance that this national council publishes public reports and sets the information agenda. In order to get ahead of us in this hybrid war of the adversary, we need to publish not once every four years, like they do, but annually three reports, thereby forming the information agenda. - calls Panarin. - The second is the formation of the Internet and television, at least with weekly releases of reviews of the current situation, as well as social networks. The third is the formation of a special non-profit organization in the form of a fund. The American analogue is Stratfor. This private intelligence company periodically throws in various materials - informational, disinformation."
"Our enemies are the London-based global oligarchy that is trying to take over the world and impose values that are alien to us"
"RUSSIA'S MAIN ENEMY IN THE HYBRID WAR - LONDON"
After an hour-long lecture, Panarin answered all the questions of the audience. Among the questioners was the well-known political scientist Andrey Devyatov. “Igor Nikolayevich is already tense,” Panarin said about himself and smiled when Devyatov stood up. "Nebopolitik" asked Panarin which team, in his opinion, he plays Natalia Poklonskaya in this hybrid war - enemies or allies. “This is not a topic of discussion on which side Poklonskaya is on,” the speaker responded. - I think that she has her own perception, there are probably some advantages and disadvantages. But the contribution that she made at a decisive moment in the events of 2014 deserves respect. I think that over time, the information husk will disappear.”
During the lecture, Panarin talked a lot about London. In particular, he called the revolutionary Leon Trotsky an agent of MI6, and Adolf Hitler - an agent and nominees of the British Empire, who implemented the tasks of Great Britain. “The methodology of hybrid warfare was born in the British Empire, but finally formed with the help of the British Round Table Society in 1891,” said the political scientist. - The February coup d'état, by the way, was carried out and successfully carried out by the forces of British intelligence, the Round Table Society and the forces of Western Freemasonry. The attack on the USSR in 1941 was also caused by London intrigues.
London Panarin considers "Russia's main enemy in a hybrid war." “There is a group of people who want to own the world,” Panarin believes. - And they have achieved a lot in this. If the territory of the USSR was 22 million kilometers, then the territory of the British Empire was 36 million kilometers. These people simply cannot finally take over the world as long as our civilization exists. Therefore, our enemies are in London. Over time, London began to accumulate the spirit of a civilization of profit. Our enemies are the London-based global oligarchy that is trying to take over the world and impose values that are alien to us.”
However, within the American community, as well as in Germany and France, Russia has allies in a hybrid war, says the writer, for whom Trump's victory is a victory for conservative values. “Our allies are those forces that stand for the family. I mean the relationship between people, kindness,” said Panarin.
Panarin was also asked what the image of victory in a hybrid war looks like in his mind. “For me, the image of victory is the fall of London on May 9, 2020,” the political scientist, true to himself, replied. - If our Russian special operations forces march through London on May 9, it will be an image of victory for me. It’s hard to imagine yet, but we need to strive for it.”
After the lecture, many listeners rushed to buy Panarin's new book, but it (worth more than 500 rubles) was snapped up in a few minutes. Therefore, some had to purchase Panarin's previous book, Hybrid War Against Russia, instead. The author himself was signing autographs for 20 minutes after the end of the lecture.
Igor Panarin (born October 30, 1958) is a Russian political scientist, candidate of psychological sciences, doctor of political sciences, full member of the Academy of Military Sciences. Member of the Scientific and Methodological Council under the Central Election Commission of the Russian Federation, member of the Expert Council of the Committee on CIS Affairs of the Federation Council.
He graduated from the Oryol Military School of Communications of the KGB of the USSR (today the Academy of the Federal Security Service of Russia) and the Department of Psychology of the Military-Political Academy. Lenin (with a gold medal).
He began his career in the KGB in 1976. After 1991, he worked at FAPSI (field of activity - strategic analysis and integration of information flows of closed and open information, management of information flows in crisis situations, situational modeling of global processes).
From 1999 to 2003, he worked as the head of the analytical department of the Central Election Commission of the Russian Federation. From 2006 to 2007 he was the press secretary of the Federal Space Agency (Roscosmos).
In 1993 he defended his Ph.D. thesis in psychology on the topic "Psychological factors of an officer's activity in the conditions of innovations." The degree of Doctor of Political Science was awarded by the Dissertation Council of the Russian Academy of Public Administration under the President of the Russian Federation on May 7, 1997, the topic of the dissertation is "Information and psychological support for Russia's national security."
On September 9, 1998, at an international conference in Linz (Austria), he first came up with a hypothesis about the possibility of the United States breaking up into 6 parts in 2010, showing the conference participants a map of the collapse of the States.
In February 2005, he proposed a reform of the Russian foreign policy propaganda system, the first steps of which were the introduction of the post of adviser to the President of Russia on foreign policy propaganda and information confrontation and the creation of a Russian state commission (or council) on public diplomacy (in December 2008, he also proposed the creation of a Committee information security of Russia with the information counterintelligence service in addition to others within it). He proposed the subordination of the Russian Foreign Ministry to the Voice of Russia radio station and the RIA Novosti news agency (later on the basis of the created structure, the formation of a foreign policy media holding within the Russian Foreign Ministry) and the creation of Russian non-governmental organizations operating on the territory of the CIS countries, the EU and the USA.
In January 2006, he proposed the creation of Eurasian Russia as an interstate entity on the model of the European Union on the territory of the post-Soviet space, headed by the sovereign (according to Machiavelli), which would restore and strengthen economic integration, with the gradual accession of a number of Balkan and other countries to it. Proposed Vladimir Putin as the first sovereign of Eurasian Russia.
In February 2006, for the first time, he proposed to create an oil and gas exchange in Russia trading for rubles (the exchange opened in St. Petersburg on September 24, 2008, and in March 2009, Rosneft Oil Company sold 6.7 thousand tons of oil products at auction for 97 million rubles ). In addition to Rosneft, Gazprom Neft, Lukoil, Surgutneftegaz and TNK-BP planned to enter the stock exchange.
In January 2009, he proposed the creation of a five-sided commission, an expert mechanism for international consultation on overcoming the global crisis.
On March 27, 2009, Panarin took part in a lecture by UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, which was held at the Grand Mansion of the Russian Foreign Ministry. After the lecture, Panarin commented on the need to introduce a new world currency AKYURE (the name was invented by Panarin himself) based on the three leading world currencies: AKU (Asian Monetary Unit) is a conditional (!) monetary unit, in fact, a virtual basket of more than 10 currencies, the weighted average rate of which conditionally (!) is calculated by one of the research institutes in Japan, no decision “to create a monetary unit” with such a name has ever been made by any country), the ruble and the euro, as well as the discussion of proposals from Russia and China on a new world currency at the G20 summit in London. In his opinion, it is precisely the introduction of AKURE agreed upon by 20 countries that will allow a painless transition to a new model of world development.
In April 2009, he proposed the integration of Eurasia as one of the means to overcome the global financial and economic crisis, including the development of a joint SCO anti-crisis program and the abandonment of the dollar in mutual settlements between the SCO member countries in favor of a dual-currency basket (consisting of two currencies - the yuan and the ruble) as new currency of the SCO. He proposed the transition to mutual settlements of three levels: national currencies; ruble or yuan; two-currency basket (ruble yuan), and also invited the SCO countries to make a joint proposal on the introduction of a new world currency ACURE by the next meeting of 20 countries in autumn 2009.
Participant of a number of international conferences and exhibitions (Austria, Great Britain, Germany, Greece, India, Spain, USA, etc.). He took part in news and analytical programs on television and radio.
2017 G.
Circulation 1000 copies.
Format 60x90/16 (145x215 mm)
Version: paperback
ISBN 978-5-9912-0609-9
BBC 66.4
UDC 327.8
annotation
Systematized knowledge on the issues of hybrid war, taking into account the latest events in the world. An attempt is made to analyze the course of the West's hybrid war against Russia, which twice led to the collapse of the Russian state (in February 1917 and in December 1991). There is also an author's view on the history of Russia, the problems of the information war, "color revolutions" and international relations. The material for the book is drawn from numerous sources and special studies, as diverse as its plots.
For a wide range of readers - it will be useful to civil servants, political scientists, employees of special services and law enforcement agencies, military personnel of special operations forces and the Russian National Guard, media workers, students and graduate students, and will also be of interest to everyone who is trying to look into the future, taking into account the lessons of the past and present.
Interview with Igor Panarin (RT-Arabic, Arabic) from 01/11/2017
Interview with Igor Panarin dated October 28, 2016
Interview with Igor Panarin dated 11/01/2016
Interview with Igor Panarin dated 11/19/2016
Interview with Igor Panarin dated November 30, 2016
Introduction
Chapter 1. 1816 - the beginning of a hybrid war against Russia
Chapter 2. February 1917: The collapse of the Russian Empire by Freemasons, liberals and traitor generals
Chapter 3. Stalin - a successful Russian counter-hybrid war project
Chapter 4. A. Dulles and J. Kennan - a new strategy for the collapse of the USSR
Chapter 5
Chapter 6. Miscalculations of the Central Committee of the CPSU
Chapter 7. The KGB of the USSR and agents of influence of the West
Chapter 8. R. Reagan - Modernization of the Information War Doctrine
Chapter 9. Chief Liquidator of the USSR M.S. Gorbachev
Chapter 10. The USSR fell as a result of the hybrid war of the West
Chapter 11 NATO Hybrid Warfare Strategy
Chapter 12
Chapter 13
Chapter 14
Chapter 15
Conclusion