BRICS+: Bright or Dark Perspectives of a Block of Countries in the Path to Real or Delusional Multipolarity

БРИКС+: светлые или темные перспективы блока стран на пути к реальной или иллюзорной многополярности

 

When last August, in the XV BRICS summit (22-24.8.2023), it was announced that the five constituent members of the Block (China, India, Russia, and Brazil, as initial members in 2006, with the addition of South Africa in 2010) agreed to admit another six (6) countries, namely Argentina, Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and UAE (herewith mentioned in alphabetic order; Argentina did not make use of the offer, following the recent presidential elections), the member states ushered the world community in a new era. The groundbreaking decision will be effect January 1st 2024. The development -in and by itself- is neither good nor bad; the outcome will depend on the choices that will be made and the changes that will be implemented with respect to the nature, the status, the function, the targets, and the international role of the Block itself. In fact, right now, all options are open.

Содержание

I - Что такое БРИКС и чем он не является

II - Сильные стороны БРИКС

III - Слабые стороны БРИКС

IV - Расширение БРИКС

V - Что дальше для БРИКС?

VI - Экономические интересы могут быть основой только слабо ассоциированных государств (или Лиги), а не союза государств

VII - Многосторонние организации государств никогда не могут быть созданы как противоположный полюс мировой державы

VIII - Многополярность: реальность или заблуждение?

IX - Многополярность завтра: реальность только через изоляцию однополярного мирового центра

 

Contents

I - What BRICS is and what it is not 

II - Strong points of BRICS

III - Weak points of BRICS

IV - The Expansion of BRICS

V - What next for the BRICS?

VI - Economic interests can be the basis of only loosely associated states (or a League), not a union of states

VII - Multilateral organizations of states can never be established as an opposite pole of a world power

VIII - Multipolarity: a reality or a delusion?

IX - Multipolarity tomorrow: a reality only through the isolation of the unipolar world center

 

What is better or more suitable? Is it wise to enlarge BRICS or to deepen the integration of this block of 11 countries? The challenges are enormous and the repercussions will be cataclysmic for the entire world. This topic has indeed been controversial for some time; Russia, India and Brazil were not enthusiastic about China's incessant suggestions for the "influx of fresh blood". In fact, the decision to invite six emerging market group countries was a compromise; several other states had expressed their wish to join, but after numerous deliberations, for various reasons they were not accepted now.

 

Before new members arrive, the existing partners should define what they truly want BRICS or BRICS+ to be; this issue is still perplex, diverse and vague. In this regard, it is crucial to always recall that the original concept of BRIC (for only four countries) is credited to an Englishman, namely Jim O'Neill (Baron O'Neill of Gatley), who was at the time the chairman of Goldman Sachs Asset Management; the idea was first expressed within very different context -quite noticeably- in November 2001.

 

However, the governments concerned took some time to explore and evaluate the thought before adapting it to their interests and perspectives; the first high-level meetings started in 2006, and the first formal summit (4 members) was held in Yekaterinburg in July 2009. Everyone today effortlessly understands that the world was very different at the time; meanwhile, the achievements of the 5-country block, although significant for the beneficiaries, were modest at the international level.  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_O%27Neill,_Baron_O%27Neill_of_Gatley

https://www.goldmansachs.com/intelligence/archive/building-better.html

 

Consequently, before considering BRICS as the perfect counterbalance to the West (as President Putin stated openly lasst year), it is essential for anyone to accurately understand what BRICS is, what it is not, what it can be, and what it cannot.  

https://english.elpais.com/international/2023-08-23/brics-explores-expanding-its-membership-to-counterbalance-the-west.html

 

I - What BRICS is and what it is not 

BRICS is not an 'organization' like the SCO (Shanghai Cooperation Organization), which is a Eurasian political, economic, international security and defense organization, and the EAEU (Eurasian Economic Union), which is an economic union of several post-Soviet states located in Eurasia. To be constructive and effective in his approach to this topic, an astute observer should dissociate three totally distinct issues:

a- the hitherto achievements of the 5-country block;

b- what BRICS is nowadays; and

c- what BRICS can become in the future.

 

In this regard, what Muhammad Kamal wrote in the Egyptian daily Al Masry al Yom (« نحو عضوية «البريكس; Towards BRICS Membership) is totally inconsistent; worse, his pessimism for Egypt's adhesion to the 5-country block only reflects the wishes of the idiotic and corrupt stooges of Western embassies in Cairo. This type of thought may be disastrous for Egypt. If BRICS did not achieve 'much' in the past, this fact hinges on eventually misplaced worldviews and pointless considerations that the member states may have had. All the same, with a new approach, with an accurate perception of what an expanded BRICS can or cannot become, and with a strong commitment to the interests of these countries' populations, one can certainly mark a spectacular success. https://www.almasryalyoum.com/news/details/2875518

 

Definitely, BRICS is not an organization; it is not an economic bloc, in spite of the numerous projects launched and materialized, such as the New Development Bank (launched in 2014-2015), the Contingent Reserve Arrangement (CRA), the BRIC Cable (the construction of which has not yet started), joint publications, and various initiatives. Under discussion are issues of paramount importance, namely a potential BRICS payment system and an eventual common currency. It becomes therefore evident that there are slow steps toward a comprehensive partnership.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Development_Bank

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BRICS_Cable

https://rosstat.gov.ru/storage/mediabank/BRICS%20Joint%20Statistical%20Publication-2022.pdf

 

The latest initiative is VII BRICS International School, which will be held by the Russian National Committee on BRICS Research on November 13-18, 2023 in Moscow. About: http://infobrics.org/post/39507

 

Precisely because BRICS is not an organization, they don't have a proper portal, as it happens in the case of existing international bodies like the SCO, the Turkic Union or the African Union. Instead, they have a rudimentary site with basic info, and every annual meeting comes up with a separate, new site. Examples:

http://infobrics.org/

http://infobrics.org/post/39107/

http://infobrics.org/news/summits/

http://infobrics.org/news/brics-plus/

https://brics2023.gov.za/

 

The rest is up to private initiatives, think tanks, research centers, online magazines, and the world's mass media. Examples:

https://kidsnews.top/brics-summit-2022/

https://brics-plus-analytics.org/what-is-bricks-plus/

https://www.bricsmagazine.com/en/articles/what-makes-brics-strong

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2017/06/21/4-charts-on-how-russians-see-their-countrys-place-in-the-world/

https://intellinews.com/comment-so-what-did-happen-to-that-claimed-turkish-aspiration-to-join-brics-289788/

https://www.visualcapitalist.com/visualizing-the-future-global-economy-by-gdp-in-2050/

https://www.reuters.com/world/brics-poised-invite-new-members-join-bloc-sources-2023-08-24/

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/prime-minister-narendra-modi-on-wednesday-said-india-supports-expansion-of-brics-to-include-new-nations-/articleshow/102982077.cms?from=mdr

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/topic/BRICS

 

As group of countries, BRICS is a heteroclite array of states with certain common interests, but also with very divergent economies, structures and legislations, and partly different socioeconomic visions; until now, no common long-term perspective has been envisaged – let alone agreed upon. This means that the governments of the member states have to seriously consider and scrupulously study how they will manage to set up a common economic space and how to first offer themselves the necessary tools in order to advance in that direction. 

 

Many charts, tables, drawings and tables have been produced in order to highlight to all what BRICS really is; but this approach comprises also a drawback that can cause confusion and misjudgment. This is due to the fact that each visual representation highlights only one aspect of the reality; however one gets a complete idea of the reality, only if one goes through illustrations of all the existing aspects of the reality. One missing diagram about the BRICS is enough to obscure our understanding and confuse our perception.

 

II - Strong points of BRICS

As of end 2023, over 3.3 billion people lived in the BRICS countries, making more than 40% of the world population; BRICS states stretch over 30% of the world's land surface and account for 26% of the global economy. The 5-country block represents 18% of trade in goods and 25% of foreign investment. At this point, we already face some challenges in our effort to quantify the reality. Verifiable facts like the area and the population of a country are undeniable points of reference; the area of a country is measured in kilometers square, whereas the population is estimated in millions or thousands of people. However, when it comes to the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of a country, there are two diametrically opposed methods of calculation; the end results may be very divergent.

 

GDP estimates published by financial and statistical institutions are calculated at market or government official exchange rates. But what is called 'Nominal GDP' is stated without taking into consideration the existing differences in the cost of living among the countries. This means that the data presented can vary enormously from one year to another due to fluctuations in the currency exchange rates; but this may be temporary and therefore irrelevant.   

 

That is why GDP (PPP) forecast estimates are to be considered as a better reflection of the economic realities, and of the comparison between two countries; to sort this data and publish their databases, financial and statistical institutions calculate using both, market and government official exchange rates. PPP (Purchasing Power Parity) is a method of measuring that takes into consideration the relative cost of local goods, services and inflation rates of the country.

 

The ensuing difference can be colossal: China's nominal GDP for the year 2023 is 19.37 trillion US$, but the PPP-based GDP of China for the same year is 33 trillion US$; on the contrary, on either case, US GDP amounts to 26.85 trillion US$. As it can be surmised, PPP-based GDP is preferable for comparison; all the same, the size of an economy being also a matter of political propaganda, many Anglo-Saxon institutions deliberately show a predilection for Nominal GDP in order to occasionally show that Russia is not among the top ten economies of the world.

https://www.france24.com/en/business/20230822-size-population-gdp-the-brics-nations-in-numbers

http://brics2022.mfa.gov.cn/eng/tpzx/202206/t20220627_10710527.html

https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WEO/weo-database/2023/April/weo-report

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)

https://www.statista.com/statistics/254281/gdp-of-the-bric-countries/

https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/field/real-gdp-purchasing-power-parity/country-comparison/

https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/БРИКС

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BRICS

https://zh.wikipedia.org/zh-cn/金砖国家

https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/BRICS

https://hi.wikipedia.org/wiki/ब्रिक्स

 

III - Weak points of BRICS

Be that as it may, the aforementioned impressive figures about the BRICS are not attested on other occasions; for instance, the total voting quota of the 5-country block in the IMF is only 14.7%, although in 2021 they accounted for about a third of world GDP, a fifth of world trade, about a quarter of direct investment, and their foreign exchange reserves reached 35% of the world's total. This point was highlighted by President Putin in his address to President Xi Jinping on 22nd June 2022.

Приветствие участникам Делового форума БРИКС (Greetings to the participants of the BRICS Business Forum)

http://www.kremlin.ru/events/president/transcripts/speeches/68689

 

On another note, in the US$ 109 trillion world stock market, BRICS represent only a small segment of the world market capitalization (around 20%), whereas the US, which is home to 39 of the 100 largest companies in the world, has more than 40% of the market and the European Union amounts to ca. 11%.  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_stock_market_capitalization

https://www.theglobaleconomy.com/rankings/stock_market_capitalization_dollars/

https://www.visualcapitalist.com/the-109-trillion-global-stock-market-in-one-chart/

 

IV - The Expansion of BRICS

On the basis of the above mentioned data, one can understand that the recently admitted six (6) countries do not constitute a major expansion. When it comes to total area (in kilometers square), the six states {Argentina (2.780.400 km2), Saudi Arabia (2.149.690 km2), Iran (1.648.195 km2), Ethiopia (1.104.300 km2), Egypt (1.002.450 km2) and UAE (83.600 km2)} amount to ca. 20% (8768635 km2) of the land surface of the BRICS countries (ca. 40 million km2).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_dependencies_by_area

 

Similarly, with respect to population, the six newly accepted states {Ethiopia (107.334.000), Egypt (105.388.000), Iran (85.298.600), Argentina (46.654.581), Saudi Arabia (32.175.224) and UAE (9.282.410)} have a total population of 386.132.815 people, which is around 10% of the current population of BRICS. However, the 11-country block will be home to almost half the population of the world (46%); this marks a significant threshold indeed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_dependencies_by_population

 

Similar conclusions we draw concerning the economic indicators of the six newly admitted states and notably their PPP-based GDP; combined the GDP of the six countries {Saudi Arabia (2.300.967 US$ million), Egypt (1.803.584 US$ million), Iran (1.691.819 US$ million), Argentina (1.274.807 US$ million), UAE (890.171 US$ million), Ethiopia (393.847 US$ million)} is around 8.350.000 US$ million; in other words, the six states produce only one seventh (1/7) of the total GDP of the current BRICS member states (56 US$ trillion).

 

This aspect was duly discerned also by those who are accustomed to rather take into account the nominal GDP; that's why they underscored the fact that "Saudi Arabia is the only trillion-dollar economy being added to the BRICS".

https://www.visualcapitalist.com/visualizing-the-brics-expansion-in-4-charts/

 

Combined the nominal GDP of the six new member states {Saudi Arabia (1.061.902 US$ million), Argentina (641.102 US$ million), UAE (498.978 US$ million), Egypt (378.110 US$ million), Iran (367.970 US$ million), Ethiopia (156.083 US$ million)} amounts to 3.1 US$ trillion; this is about one ninth (1/9) of the nominal GDP of the current BRICS member states (27.7 US$ trillion).

 

If we stop at this point and we do not further explore the manifold aspects of BRICS expansion, we will be left with the idea that, due to necessary compromises, the first major phase of BRICS expansion did not include several other countries, which also expressed the interest to join, notably Algeria, Belarus, Bangladesh, Kazakhstan, Venezuela, Vietnam, etc. But this will prevent us from observing a very interesting and crucial aspect of the development. As a matter of fact, this was not particularly highlighted by anyone in the world's mainstream mass media. There is indeed one economic sector in which the present stage of BRICS expansion made a significant breakthrough; this is the energy sector, and more particularly, the Oil production.

 

As a matter of fact, the addition of Saudi Arabia, Iran and the UAE will more than double BRICS' share of global oil production. With six out of the nine top oil producers being BRICS+ member states (Saudi Arabia, Russia, China, Brazil, Iran, UAE), the 11-country block represents 43% of the world oil production.

https://www.visualcapitalist.com/visualizing-the-brics-expansion-in-4-charts/

https://wisevoter.com/country-rankings/oil-producing-countries/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_oil_production

https://www.visualcapitalist.com/charted-worlds-biggest-oil-producers-in-2022/

 

This means that, in spite of the compromises made, BRICS made a big step ahead in preparing their forthcoming transformation from an ill-defined block of countries to a well-defined organization that will change the post-WW II world drastically and irrevocably. As I already said, the concept that they will have to adopt for their alliance is that of the common economic space.

 

V - What next for the BRICS?

Dangling between long term strategy and everyday opportunities, the governments of the 5- or 11-country block can really make of their partnership whatever they want. They can turn it to the tool par excellence for the transformation of the present world; indeed, they can make of the BRICS+ the cornerstone in the foundation of a human world order of unity, equity, justice, lawfulness, concord, and worldwide cordiality. Reversely, they can neglect their imagination, fail to create a vision, ignore their intellect, and thus waste their time.

 

In this regard, it is clear that BRICS+ will be the reflection of the shared vision that the member states, the respective governments, and -above all- the civil societies will initiate. It is therefore essential to avoid extreme optimism or pessimism and to make an effort not to mix a long term perspective with any type of unnecessary political propaganda. The difference can be understood in the following examples:

 

Speaking about Russia’s vision of the BRICS+ format as early as February 2018, Sergey Ryabkov, a noteworthy statesman and Russia’s Deputy Foreign Minister since 2008, stated: «we suggest that our partners consider BRICS+ as a platform for developing what could be termed an 'integration of integrations'».

https://brics-plus-analytics.org/what-is-bricks-plus/

 

This sounds as sheer advocacy of the 'single economic space' concept, which leads to economic union. Quite contrarily, Sergei Lavrov (Center for World Politics and Strategic Analysis) and Kirill Babaev (Director of the Institute of China and Modern Asia), both of the Russian Academy of Sciences, in their article «И вширь, и вглубь - Пути укрепления институциональной основы БРИКС» (Both in breadth and in depth - Ways to strengthen the institutional framework of BRICS / Бабаев К.В., Лавров С.В. И вширь, и вглубь // Россия в глобальной политике. 2023. Т. 21. № 5. С. 69–81; https://globalaffairs.ru/articles/vglub-i-vshir-brics/) present a far more realistic approach, opting for the 'common economic space' concept.

 

There are important differences between the two concepts, and it is essential to make this point clear, because the 'single economic space' concept simply cannot work in the case of BRICS, and even more so that of BRICS+. This is exactly what the authors of the aforementioned article do; the question is whether this is enough.

 

VI - Economic interests can be the basis of only loosely associated states (or a League), not a union of states

At this point, taking into consideration the international situation as it is evidently downgrading over the past few years, the governments of the BRICS+ member states must truly become consciously serious in their judgment, drastically bold in their action, and greatly resourceful in their vision before they are soon met with an aggravated deterioration of the world order in which their efforts will unfortunately be irrevocably meaningless.  

 

Although BRICS+ governments are correct in their analyses and conclusions as regards the major structural problems of the world economy, they all apparently fail to understand where the world community is led to; this is due to the prevailing, very confusing, and definitely perplex situation. But the present condition of the world affairs makes of the aforementioned economic problems only a tiny sector of the very grave troubles that currently exist and impact every human across the Earth.

 

Consequently, in spite of the fact that the world economy is in major trouble, all its aspects cannot be tackled independently of the other, grave and thorny, issues of intellectual, academic, educational, scientific, cultural, and socio-governmental order that we are currently facing. As a matter of fact, erroneous intellectual concepts, delusional interpretations of the reality, intentional distortions of World History, ideological aberrations, and overwhelming oppression of indigenous cultures are at the origin of developments that brought the world economy to the brink of collapse. Scientific absurdities, military interventions, and corrupt governmental practices contributed to the overall deterioration, and have therefore to be also taken into consideration.   

 

As far as BRICS+ member states are concerned, there is one word that terminally encapsulates the aforementioned reality in its totality: Western colonialism. What matters in this regard is that this term is not to be identified with only its military, political and economic dimensions.

 

Colonialism is basically a criminal and anti-human development the most crucial dimension of which is cultural; culture determines the psychology of people, nations, ruling classes and governments, and this -in turn- impacts the local economy.

 

In addition to the aforementioned points, there is a critical factor which must also be taken into account: only a union of loosely associated states can ever be successfully established on the basis of economic interests. This is a fundamental condition to retain. As situation, it is due to the fact that states do not exist in themselves, but constitute the receptacle of human activity related to the administration and the governance of the society.

 

Consequently, a number of states can form an effective organization that will impact worldwide developments only on the basis of major decisions taken by conscious peoples and statesmen genuinely representing their societies, which are known for their historically diverse values, distinct moral principles, varied cultural heritage, but shared goals and common vision. But this is much broader than an economic union.

 

The perfect example of failure is in this regard offered by the European Union. The debilitated union of states started before 72 years with the establishment of the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC; 1952), which was designed to integrate the coal and steel industries in Western Europe (France, West Germany, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg). Evaluated for that purpose, ECSC was good, but it could never progress in the direction of transformation from an economic community to one nation-state.

 

Different peoples do not integrate into one nation-state without a unifying force; this can certainly be a faith, a cult, a worldview or even an ideology, but never economic interests. That is why BRICS+ member states, although they are forced to define how to set up a 'common economic space', have to broaden the box and try to see things as widely as they can.

 

VII - Multilateral organizations of states can never be established as an opposite pole of a world power

In spite of the urgency of their economic demands for new standards and rules or a new world order (as many people say), BRICS+ member states have got to approach the world affairs in a different, far broader, and definitely comprehensive manner. This imperative is due to both, their incomparably enormous size and the undeniable fact that they altogether constitute a worldwide organization with major, not only economic, interests that they have in common. Actually, the troubles that all these countries face at the level of the international trade and world economy are due to

a- political developments that took place over the last70-80 years,

b- two successive World Wars,

c- numerous earlier conflicts,

d- extreme ideological aberrations,

e- preposterous intellectual assumptions,

f- outrageous educational-academic forgeries, and

g- a 5-century long, nefarious and calamitous, colonial legacy.

 

In this case, BRICS+ member states cannot possibly imagine that they are able to rectify a so deeply rooted injustice and inhumanity that prevail worldwide by merely sidestepping the US dollar via

- local currency trading,

- Mbridge (a multi-central bank digital currency platform, which is shared among participating central banks and commercial banks, as it is built on distributed ledger technology in order to enable instant cross-border payments and settlement) or

- other alternative payment routes and methods of de-dollarization.

 

In fact, their true problem is what is accurately called 'the Collective West' in its entirety. The US dollar replaced indeed the British pound as the world’s reserve currency (in 1944 following the Bretton Woods Agreement); it ceased unilaterally to be convertible to gold (in 1971, due to the so-called Nixon shock); and it became the sole currency in which Saudi Arabia is paid for Oil (in 1974, as per the terms of the Saudi Arabia and US Agreement on Cooperation, signed June 8, that made the petrodollar possible, which also known as 'the petrocurrency effect' and 'the petrodollar recycling').

 

However, all these developments consist, truly speaking, in Microhistory, if viewed within a wider context. In fact, they constitute only in the latest episodes of the colonial conquest, contamination and putrefaction, which have progressively enveloped the world. That is why BRICS+ member states must see things within a macrohistorical context and shape their decision making processes accordingly.

 

Precisely because the aspects of the world troubles are so many, BRICS+ member states have to realize that the country, which capitalized on its monetary privilege, namely the petrodollar, did so while also defending all the other aspects of the 5-century long Western predominance, which proved to be catastrophic for the entire world, except for the West European colonial powers and their annexes.

 

As a matter of fact, the historically true definition of the USA is not "the country with the US dollar as national currency", but "the heir of 5-century long, colonial legacy". This is what the US stands for – not just a currency.

 

Indeed, the US dollar is not only the default world currency, but at the same time, the strongest currency of the Western world. All the same, people often tend to forget that the American currency was first one of the strongest in the Western world, then its strongest, and only 'recently' the world's medium of exchange. It is therefore undeniable that, also at the financial and economic level, it represents the 'Collective West'.

 

Due to the successive historical developments, which led the entire Mankind to the present occurrence and on which the US predominance has persistently based its delusional legitimacy, it would be foolish to believe that the US will ever accept the reduction of the systemically omnipotent Western world into merely two or three poles (EU, US, and -eventually- Japan) of a delusional multipolar system composed by them and by the rising, major BRICS+ forces. Nuclear wars of any form are far more plausible to take place than a multipolar world to be potentially formed with the participation of the EU and the US.  

 

To put it in simple words, you can never possibly ask someone, who considers himself as extraordinarily enormous as a 'dinosaur', to condescend to accept few 'cockroaches' as equal; this metaphor does not constitute the exact representation of the reality, but it accurately reflects the mentality of the people who currently run the EU, the US, the UK and their annexes. These forces have by now carried out a fully obvious colonial agenda across the Earth; even worse, they are evidently intending to implement the next parts of the agenda, which has already been proven as inherently unacceptable to the mankind – the majority of the misfortunate inhabitants of the Collective West included. In other words, the world situation is far worse than what most of the foolish or fooled leaders of the BRICS+ member states have imagined.  

 

VIII - Multipolarity: a reality or a delusion?

Discussing about the chances for the emergence of a multipolar world system does not hinge only on a qualitative examination of intentions and a quest for world peace and security; it is not sufficient to only scrutinize the purposes of the decayed and ailing but raucous and rancorous elites of US, Germany, France, England and Italy from one side and assess the aspirations of the ruling classes of China, India, Russia, Brazil and a nebula of several heavily populated countries, namely Indonesia, Pakistan, Nigeria, Bangladesh, Mexico, Ethiopia, Egypt, Congo, Vietnam, Turkey, Iran, Thailand, Tanzania and South Africa.

 

Despite the undeniable importance of all the aforementioned parameters, there is another factor that determines even more conclusively the outcome of the present cleavage. This pertains to the process of historical developments that brought about the present state of international affairs. There are only specific procedures that allow a multipolar world community to be formed; it cannot rise anytime anywhere.

 

The past eighty (80) years have been characterized by a unipolar system of world governance; this was not the first time in World History in which a very large part of the Earth was under the control of one state (the Neo-Assyrian Empire, Achaemenid Iran, the Abbasid Caliphate, the Mongol Empire of Genghis Khan, the Chagatai Empire of Timur/Tamerlane, etc.) without any other state being able to challenge it.

 

Several political commentators often dare to portray the present period as the first time in which one country 'controlled' almost the totality of the surface of the Earth, but this is definitely a maximalist approach. In fact, as description, it is wrong. As conclusion, it has only a nominal value; this is so because the 'control' was asserted only via various layers of proxies, who were, practically speaking, unable to always govern all the territory that they claimed to possess.

 

It is essential not to confuse the present conjecture with the days that antedated WW II or WW I; many irrelevant historians and inconsistent intellectuals are pleased to draw parallels between 1914 and 2024 or between 1939 and 2024, but they are very wrong, confusing, and dangerously deceitful.

 

Parallels as regards the ensuing consequences or outcome cannot be drawn between a past circumstance and the present occurrence; this is so because people know what came next, after the past circumstance that they take as one pole of the parallel, but only assume that the other pole (namely the present occurrence) will have the same exit (namely a war).  

 

Parallels can be drawn between a past circumstance and the present occurrence only with respect to the anteriority of both moments that are taken as parallels. In this case, we know very well that no unipolar system of world governance existed either in the period 1870-1914 or during the interval between the two world wars.

 

Prior to WW II, the world community revolved around six major poles, i.e. England (as the British Empire), USSR, USA, France, Japan and Germany; the six powers gradually formed two heteroclite groups of allies of which one prevailed in 1945.

 

Prior to WW I, the world community revolved around nine major poles, i.e. England (as the British Empire), the Russian Empire, France, Germany, Austria-Hungary, Italy, the Ottoman Empire, USA, and Japan. 

 

It is very critical at this point to comprehensively comprehend that those major poles or constituents of the world community did not seek to establish a multipolar system of world governance either in 1914 or in 1939; it is actually necessary to take into consideration the fact that the concept of 'world community' had not yet been formed or formulated as a substitute to the criminal colonial activities of England and France, which attempted to divide Africa, Western and South Asia, and Oceania among themselves.

 

Even worse for the silly raiders of the lost multipolarity, it is even more crucial to take into account that, if a proposal for the establishment of a multipolar system of world governance was made back in 1914, the colonial powers England and France would be the first to reject it. Actually, the criminal gangsters, who always ruled Paris and London and later hijacked Washington D.C., deliberately triggered WW I, by duly utilizing their paranoid Serbian lackeys.

 

Why England and France back in 1914 would vehemently oppose any proposal for the establishment of a multipolar system of world governance is easy to assess; this development would block their effort to terminally dismantle Austria Hungary and the Ottoman Empire, while also effectively carrying out cruel operations of regime change in the German and the Russian Empires.

 

Furthermore, we have to also reckon with the fact that, if someone advanced a proposal as regards the establishment of a multipolar system of world governance back in 1939, he would surely be resolutely reprimanded by the criminal colonial rascals of London and Paris. England and France declared war on Germany, because they did not want to establish a multipolar world community including the USSR, Japan, Germany, and Berlin's ally Italy. As we all know, regime change operations took place in the latter three states in 1945, and 40-45 years later in the (until then greatly marginalized, continually defamed, and shamelessly vilified) USSR.

 

So, to conclude the present assessment, we have to perceive the establishment of the so-called 'world community' and the inception of the 'international law' as mere tricks, intentional schemes, and colonial contrivance deceitfully presented but successfully elaborated by England, France and their successor, namely the US. In fact, on multiple occasions over the past 80 years, it was fully proven that there is no world community, but a perilous jungle inhabited by ferocious monsters, which are more incensed and more devilish than any wild animal, those of the Mesozoic included.

 

The sole reality is this: what the mankind attested for 300 years -from the Carnatic Wars (1740-1763; Anglo-French wars in India) to the end of WW II- was only the rise of the Western colonial powers to world predominance. The world impressively shifted from a multipolar system of world belligerency (with 11 poles, namely Spain, Portugal, England, France, Holland, Austria-Hungary, Russia, the Ottoman Empire, Safavid-Afshar Iran, Mughal India, and Qing China) to a unipolar system of world governance, which can be conclusively described as the Western barbarism and colonial tyranny over mankind.  

 

The above makes clear to all that the termination of a unipolar system of world governance can never happen through negotiations with the central pole of the system; in a Jurassic environment, only idiots would believe in and count on such 'negotiations'.

 

IX - Multipolarity tomorrow: a reality only through the isolation of the unipolar world center

It would be anything between foolish and paranoid to imagine that the forces, which controlled the Western states and elites over the past five centuries, will be ready to yield power to those whom they have been considering, for at least 350-400 years, as targets for conquest and world dominance.

 

BRICS+ member states stand therefore in front of a dilemma: either reject the Western unipolar dominance or capitulate. Since the latter is a non-option, it would be useful to explore the possible ways to reject the barbarian, catastrophic and heinous Western rule. However, before pondering on how the 5-century long colonial impact can be overthrown by the countries that represent ca. 90% of the world population, it would be essential for all of them, and more particularly, for the BRICS+ governments, to specify the sectors in which the rejection of the colonial rule (or unipolar system of world governance) must take place.

 

Because it will be partly functional and basically ineffective, if the BRICS+ member states challenge the Collective West only at the monetary, financial and economic levels, it is imperative for the respective governments to come to an agreement about launching BRICS+ commissions specializing in almost all the sectors for which there are presently fully-fledged UN Specialized Agencies, Programmes and Funds, Research and Training Institutes, Other Entities and Bodies, as well as Related Organizations. A separate commission in Decolonization and De-Westernization should be added, involving groups of study and rejection of all aspects of academic, educational, scientific, intellectual, cultural, moral, behavioral and socio-governmental colonialism.  

 

Following a 6-month period of tense consultations, the commissions and the groups of study should come up with conclusive proposals about the restructuring of all the international bodies, their priorities, works, methods and processes. Effectively backed by a comprehensive refutation of the 5-century long Western colonial order, an overwhelming denunciation of the racist and fallacious Western version of World History, and an all-encompassing condemnation of the preposterous and biased function of the UN for 80 years, BRICS+ member states and all their allies should irrevocably withdraw from all the UN organizations, unequivocally deny any legitimacy to the fake international body, and immediately launch the All Peoples Assembly, as the sole legitimate international body. This will convene initially for an indefinite period of time and institute the fair, just, unquestionably multilateral, and solid international milieu to which all the people worldwide have long aspired. A new Internet will have to be rapidly launched for all the member states totally independently from the US-based legacy system.   

 

This will be tantamount to complete transformation of the BRICS+ into the new international body, which has been badly missing to almost all the people across the Earth. All the employees of the new international body and its specialized agencies, institutes and related organization will have to be proportionally hired on the basis of ethnic origin, language and religion/belief. It will therefore be impossible for a group that constitutes approximately 0.2% of the 8 billion world population to literally invade key positions, promote sectarianism, and thus become the well-justified reason of its own rejection by all the rest.  

 

Subsequently, BRICS+ member states and all their allies will be accepted as members of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (CSO), which will turn out to be the de facto guarantee of worldwide peace and security. International relations with the NATO member states, their allies and satellites will be totally severed at all levels, commercial, educational, recreational, academic, intellectual, scientific, technological, economic, social, governmental and military.

 

This abrupt separation will evidently produce a tremendous international economic shock; but the BRICS+-led countries will be able to face the challenge, recover in relatively short time, and adapt in a far better environment totally void of the Western colonial barbarism, horrific criminality, heinous inhumanity, and evil delusions.

 

The Collective West must die and it will die; powerfully quarantined, asphyxiated within its borders, economically collapsed, socially imploded, and irreversibly poisoned by the evil delusions, sick literature, inhuman governance, rotten thoughts, insidious ideas, demented ideologies, corrupt arts, suicidal philosophies, absurd disbelief, and utter nonsense that their supposed spiritual, religious, intellectual and social leaders produced, the Western world will totally perish in the most deserved hecatomb, which will be the price they will pay for the unipolar system of world governance that they imposed and for the plans of human annihilation that they developed.

 

Quite unfortunately for the BRICS+ member states and their allies, there is no alternative; by totally isolating the unipolar world center (namely Canada, USA, UK, EU, Australia and New Zealand), which is what is called the 'Collective West', they will be in a position to effectively install a genuinely representative, peaceful, secure, sustainable multipolar system of world governance, which will extend covering the quasi-totality (ca. 90%) of the world population.

 

The only other possible transition from a unipolar to a multipolar world is nuclear; if the eventually foolish and fooled leaders of the BRICS+ member states do not truly know or do not duly expect this, it will certainly be too bad for them. If they do not act immediately according to the aforementioned description, they will inevitably offer their worst enemies the privilege of a surprise attack. This is so because the Collective West is very close to the point of no return; they reached the stage of irreparable social disintegration. Consequently, their own chance of survival is to trigger further wars abroad. This is actually what these barbarians have always done after 1492; but this time, it will surely be nuclear.

 

All those, who 'calmly' wait for the US presidential elections to take place and -even worse- anticipate the victory of Donald Trump, will be proven as the best, although unpaid, agents of the Collective West among the leadership of the BRICS+ member states.

 

And the establishment of a country, which is hit by a nuclear attack of any type, will have either to cause tremendous nuclear devastation -which involves also terrible collateral damages- or to leave in History the memory of a protracted but failed tenure. It will be a shame and an example to avoid.

 

 ---------------------------------------------   

Download the article in PDF:

https://megalommatiscomments.wordpress.com/2024/08/28/brics-bright-or-dark-perspectives-of-a-block-of-countries-in-the-path-to-real-or-delusional-multipolarity/

https://vk.com/megalommatis?w=wall429864789_13461%2Fall

https://www.academia.edu/123338902/BRICS_Bright_or_Dark_Perspectives_of_a_Block_of_Countries_in_the_Path_to_Real_or_Delusional_Multipolarity

https://www.4shared.com/web/preview/pdf/pWCifbU8ku?

https://www.patreon.com/posts/brics-bright-or-110991870

Mikhail Kutuzov in 1812, Sergei Shoigu in 2024, and Aleksey Kivshenko's Historical Painting of the Military Council in Fili, a suburb of Moscow

 Many Russians were astounded yesterday morning, when reading in the news that during searches conducted in the residences of the former Deputy Minister of Defense of Russia Dmitry Bulgakov, who was arrested on charges of corruption on 26th of July, a small number of very bizarre frames and paintings were found.

The historically true: Commander-in-Chief of the Russian armies Mikhail Kutuzov at 'the Council in Fili', 1812

The mystically allegorical: Sergei Shoigu, former Minister of Defense of Russia and currently Secretary of the Security Council of the Russian Federation as an atemporal replica of General Kutuzov

Contents

I. Introduction

II. Brief description and possible parallels

III. Shoigu's lengthy tenure exceeded by far that of President Putin

IV. Long 'reigns' come with indulgence in corruption and extravagance

V. An attempt to inculpate or a mystical allegory?

VI. Appendices

 

Содержание

I. Введение

II. Краткое описание и возможные параллели

III. Длительное правление Шойгу намного превзошло президентство президента Путина

IV. Длительное «правление» сопровождается потворством коррупции и расточительству

V. Попытка инкриминировать или мистическая аллегория?

VI. Приложения

 

I. Introduction

The most mysterious of those paintings is based on a historical painting, which was created by the famous 19th c. Russian painter Aleksey Kivshenko (1851-1895) in 1879, and known as 'the Council in Fili'. This great masterpiece of Modern Russian Art represents the artist's impression of a historical event, namely a military council that took place (1812) in a suburb of Moscow, prior to Napoleon's temporary occupation of the Russian city (14 September – 19 October 1812). The extraordinary summit occurred immediately after the Battle of Borodino, which was a Pyrrhic victory for the French army.

 

Created 67 years after the event, the painting had an enormous success; Kivshenko, who was already known for his numerous, fascinating works and representations of significant historical events of the Russian past, had to repeat the painting twice, which clearly means that his artwork generated an overwhelming and exceptional enthusiasm. This situation was basically due to the primordial importance of the historical event.

 

The Commander-in-Chief of the Russian armies, Infantry General Mikhail Golenishchev-Kutuzov had then to take a most critical decision: the orderly retreat of the Russian army from Moscow. The meeting (13 September 1812), which is known through several historical sources, started with the dilemma formulated by General Leonty Bennigsen, namely to give battle against the French army in an unfavorable position or to surrender. Kutuzov sided finally with the minority opinion and took the decision to abandon Moscow, which was finally proven correct, because Napoleon could not hold his position for long.

 

Then, how should we today, 212 years after the event and 145 years after the painting, interpret a bizarre painting in which a group of top Russian statesmen and military desire to be and are effectively depicted as exchanging roles with the historical personalities who saved the Russian Empire before two centuries?

 

In the painting found in Bulgakov's house, Sergei Shoigu, the former Minister of Defense of Russia, and now Secretary of the Security Council of the Russian Federation, is depicted as the Russian commander Mikhail Kutuzov. Shoigu's former deputy Ruslan Tsalikov plays General Mikhail Barclay de Tolly. The painting also features former deputy defense ministers Timur Ivanov, Tatyana Shevtsova and other officials.

 

Several other bizarre paintings were found in the arrested statesman's house, but the atemporal replica of the said historical painting raises more questions, due to the potential symbolisms or parallels that can be drawn. If the potentially allegorical but effectively incomprehensible artwork was found in 2005 or in 2012, no one would pay much attention, and the eventually innocuous representation would be taken as the result of a certainly bold, yet counterproductive, imagination of a group of top level Russian officials, eventually characterized by their narcissism.

 

It is clear that many Russians are -truly speaking- under terrible shock because of the revelations, and their comments about this, most weird, story are very negative. With no doubt, Kutuzov is almost a holy person for the Russians because, although he did not mark a real victory over Napoleon, he forced him to advance following Pyrrhic victories during a prolonged war of attrition which led finally to the collapse of the French Army. How a defeat at the battlefield can possibly be transformed into a victory in the long perspective is a most fatalistic turn of events for historians to possibly fathom. But it was known since the time of the Battle of Kadesh (May 1274 BCE) between the Hittite Emperor Muwatalli II and the Egyptian Pharaoh Ramesses III.

 

On the other hand, many of the persons depicted on the bizarre paintings have recently lost their positions or even been arrested. Bulgakov was arrested only 4-5 days ago, following allegations of bribery, but he is only the last of several similar cases.

 

II. Brief description and existing parallels

As the mystery of these eventually absurd but potentially meaningful pictures is beyond imagination, several friends contacted me to make some inquiries. They asked me what this meant in reality and whether this initiatory and hypothetically purposeful painting denoted a hidden desire of Shoigu to "take Putin's place".

 

What follows here includes parts of my responses; it is actually difficult to answer such a question because there are many parameters involved in this regard; but in general, I never thought that Sergei Shoigu would be interested in taking Putin's place. In addition, the painting does not hint at anything of the sort. Kutuzov did not imagine, even for a second, not to be loyal to the Russian czars whom he served.

 

First and foremost, it is essential for any non-Russian to comprehend that Russians have no conventional thought. Historically, it is very common in Russia to evaluate one man as higher and as more important than the czar, the secretary general or the president.

 

If one goes to Russia and speaks with the average people, one will understand that what they narrate as «History of Russia» is not what is taught in the West about this topic. By this, I don't mean discrepancies at the level of historical facts and narratives, but a totally distinct perspective of the time and a markedly different evaluation of the human deeds.

 

There are effectively some parallels between Kutuzov (1745-1813) and Shoigu (born in 1955).

 

Kutuzov served (as military officer and diplomat) three czars (Catherine II, Paul I, and Alexander I).

And Shoigu was a minister under four presidents (Gorbachev, Yeltsin, Putin, and Medvedev). 

 

Prince Mikhail Illarionovich Golenishchev-Kutuzov-Smolensky (Михаил Илларионович Голенищев-Кутузов-Смоленский) belonged to an ancient noble family of German-Prussian extraction. The Golenishchev-Kutuzov branch consisted of the descendants of Gabriel, who left Prussia (1252-1263) and became the founder of the Kutuzovs.

https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Голенищевы

 

Sergei Kuzhugetovich Shoigu (Сергей Кужугетович Шойгу) belonged to a Turkic Tuvan family, as his father (Kuzhuget Shoigu, 1921-2010) was first Deputy Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the Tuvan Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic, and a deputy of the Supreme Soviet of the Tuvan ASSR. Shoigu's mother (Alexandra Yakovlevna Shoigu, 1924–2011) was a Ukrainian-born Russian, who was detained by the German occupation forces during World War II and had a traumatic experience from this event.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuzhuget_Shoigu

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuvans

 

Mikhail Kutuzov was a multilingual, as he was fluent in Russian, German, French and English; on later occasions he also studied Ottoman Turkish, Polish, and Swedish.

 

Sergei Shoigu is also a multilingual, who speaks Tuvan, Russian, and another seven languages including Chinese, Japanese, Turkish, English, etc.

 

III. Shoigu's lengthy tenure exceeded by far that of President Putin

All the people know that Vladimir Putin has been president since the year 2000 (with an interval of four years (2008-2012), when he served as prime minister; however, few people remember today that Shoigu was a minister since 1991. Only last May, he was removed from the position of Minister of Defense and promoted/rewarded as «Secretary of the Security Council of Russia».

 

This means that Shoigu was a minister for 33 years! When the positions are so important, a person creates his own small state within the state; this is normal and inevitable.

 

As a matter of fact, Yeltsin appointed Shoigu as Minister of Emergency Situations in April 1991. All the same, at the time, Yeltsin was only the «President of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic», not the «President of the Russian Federation». This means that Yeltsin was under Gorbachev who was then the «President of the Soviet Union». In other words, Shoigu was at the very beginning a minister of USSR, not Russia! He was appointed before the August 1991 coup attempt, which failed and led to the rise of Yeltsin, resignation of Gorbachev, and demise of the USSR. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergei_Shoigu#Early_career_and_first_steps_in_CPSU

 

And what was Vladimir Putin at the time?

 

In June 1991, in (then) Leningrad, he was appointed as head of the Committee for External Relations of the Mayor's Office. So, you cannot compare. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Putin#1990%E2%80%931996:_Saint_Petersburg_administration

 

In fact, better than any other Russian, Sergei Shoigu epitomizes the transition from the USSR to today's Russia. Consequently, although he was not a career military man but an apparatchik and part of the Soviet nomenklatura, he had progressively become a major pole of power. And because of his success, which guaranteed Putin’s success, it was surely unthinkable for anyone to remove him. 

 

However, the uneasiness of the Russians with the ongoing fake war in Ukraine and the disclosure of several financial scandals and cases of bribery in the Russian army and the Ministry of Defense generated another environment.

 

IV. Long 'reigns' come with indulgence in corruption and extravagance

Last April, the Russian deputy defense minister Timur Ivanov was arrested. 

https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2024/05/08/arrested-russian-deputy-defense-minister-accused-of-accepting-12-mln-bribe-lawyer-says-a85072

 

This occurred only little time after Putin’s re-election. 

 

One month after the arrest, Sergei Shoigu was removed and replaced by Andrey Belousov, who is provenly a very good economist, a well-experienced statesman, and a former First Deputy Prime Minister of Russia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrey_Belousov

 

At the time, many people said that Putin placed an economist at the top of the Ministry of Defense, because he wanted to make a more effective programming of the military industrial production in view of the continuation of the war in Ukraine. It may be.

 

But personally, I was absolutely convinced that the reason for this appointment was the desire to effectuate an extensive control of earlier business transactions, carry out a thorough examination of past deals, identify practices of corruption, and uncover all cases of bribery that the «Shoigu establishment» allowed or tolerated or supported or covered deliberately. In the face of the collateral damages caused by the Russian military operations in Ukraine, it would be unacceptable that top officials accumulated illegal benefits. 

 

Almost four months after the aforementioned case of Timur Ivanov, the arrest of Bulgakov rang the bell for the part of the Russian establishment that was exposed to such inexcusable weaknesses at wartime and for ministers who indulged themselves in corruption and extravagance.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dmitry_Bulgakov

and

https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2024/07/26/former-russian-deputy-defense-minister-arrested-on-corruption-charges-a85837

 

And with the frames and paintings found in his house yesterday, we learned that Bulgakov viewed Shoigu as Kutuzov!

 

Of course, Kutuzov is more important than Alexander I for the Russians. Czar Alexander I acknowledged personally that Russia owed the final victory to Kutuzov. This means that, with all similarities taken together as coincidental (!!), Bulgakov and his associates, friends and subordinates viewed Shoigu like a 'god'. Several Russian friends interpret this approach as absolutely true; they even consider it as the result of extreme narcissism of all persons involved. 

 

What follows is a selection of comments that I found in Russian social media (I translated them into English):

1. «This is blasphemy against the memory and exploits of our ancestors»!

2. «They came up with this a long time ago and are successfully stealing it»

3. «A finished script for a film. How far human stupidity and impudence go»!

4. «They are very far from Kutuzov and others; but there is plenty of time for self-admiration»

5. «A gang of thieves assembled»

6. «Where is Timur Ivanov»?

From the following web pages:

А такие портреты нашли дома у задержанного экс-замминистра обороны Дмитрия Булгакова во время обысков.

https://vk.com/mash?w=wall-112510789_11396831

and

Минутка статистики по одному из шедевров золотой коллекции задержанного замминистра обороны Булгакова.

https://vk.com/mash?w=wall-112510789_11397605

 

V. An attempt to inculpate or a mystical allegory?

As a matter of fact, it would not make sense for Shoigu and his close associates to envision that he would take Putin’s place (let alone to conspire with this target in mind); in addition, the picture says the opposite. Kutuzov was already more important than the czar.

 

All the same, there is another dimension too; these pictures may have been placed in Bulgakov's home after his arrest in order to inculpate him, Shoigu and others in some way. This would however seem rather to be a puerile attempt, because there can be far worse and far more effective ways to inculpate someone than the revelation of the narcissistic visions and the grandiose imaginations of a group of corrupt and not corrupt officials.

 

If there is a symbolism, it means that the true ruler is («was»?) Shoigu; but even in this case, it is a very unusual type of praising and self-praising for some top officials. In real terms of boastfulness, such an atemporal replica of Aleksey Kivshenko's legendary painting adds nothing on the table.

 

I believe that, if some people want truly to unveil a real and serious purpose in this painting, they must rather view it as a mystical allegory – not a mere symbolism. In this case, the otherwise bizarre artwork becomes meaningful.

 

What are the major points of an allegorical mysticism in this regard?

 

I will brief enumerate a few.

 

1- Reminiscent of the French invasion of the Russian Empire, the present war in Ukraine reveals that the Russian Federation is under attack.

 

It matters little whether some Western idiots believe that we have to deal with a Russian invasion of Ukraine; there was never such an event, because Ukraine is an integral part of Russian territory that criminal Anglo-Saxon gangsters brutally and illegally detached from Russia at the time of the Soviet collapse.

 

Yuval Harari was very correct when saying that "Gorbachev saved us from nuclear war"; but his truth ends there. What truly happened in 1989 is not the continuation of a development that started in 1985. In fact, Gorbachev was openly threatened by George Herbert Bush with imminent nuclear attack if he did not rapidly dissolve the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact. The truth was enveloped in thousands of lies, endless smiles, and hypocritical hand shakings, because this was beneficial for both, the US and the Soviet Union/Russia. I cannot further expand now on this topic, because I would digress.

 

So, as it happened in the 1810s and the 1940s, Russia has been under attack since the late 1980s.

 

2- Similarly with Kutuzov's ingenious strategy and tactics, the Russian state withdrew from lands for quite some time now.

 

The formation of the Ukrainian pseudo-nation after 1991 was an entirely orchestrated fabrication, involving the creation of a bogus-idiom named 'Ukrainian language', the pseudo-translation of thousands of toponyms and personal names into their hypothetically Ukrainian forms, the compilation of a distorted 'History of Ukraine', the diffusion of heinous anti-Russian racism, and the subtle disfigurement of the Orthodox faith of the local population into a charlatanesque form of Anti-Christian Catholicism.

 

3- Similarly with what happened during the French Invasion of the Russian Empire, the military proved to be the backbone of the Russian nation.

 

In this regard, the lengthy tenure of Sergei Shoigu reflects perfectly well the long military career of Mikhail Kutuzov.

 

4- The partly withdrawal from the Western Russian lands, as implemented by the Commander-in-Chief of the Russian armies, can be mirrored in Moscow's agreement for a separate, 'independent' Ukrainian state. The concession made is very similar to the decision taken at the Military Council in Fili.

 

5- Sergei Shoigu's contribution to the final victory may be analogous to Kutuzov's strategy which brought the final victory after many rather insignificant defeats.

 

6- Last but foremost, the final defeat of Napoleon in Russia ended with the subsequent demise of his regime; the allegory is very clear as regards the combined Anglo-Saxon world that has attacked USSR-Russia since 1945 – or if you prefer 1985.

 

VI. Appendices

1- Links to news:

У арестованного генерала Булгакова нашли картины с Шойгу в образах чекиста и Кутузова

https://news.mail.ru/incident/62153731/?frommail=1

 

Никас Сафронов оценил картины арестованного генерала Булгакова

https://news.mail.ru/society/62157731/?frommail=1

 

2- About Mikhail Kutuzov and the historical developments prior to and after the Council in Fili:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Kutuzov

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Kutuzov#Borodino

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Borodino#End_of_the_battle

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleon#Invasion_of_Russia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_invasion_of_Russia#Invasion

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_invasion_of_Russia#Capture_of_Moscow

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_occupation_of_Moscow

 

3- About the Military Council in Fili (13 September 1812) as a major historical-military event that determined the Patriotic War (Отечественная война) of Russia against Napoleon:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_at_Fili

https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Совет_в_Филях

 

4- About Fili, the historical suburb of Moscow that was first known as Hwili (Хвили) in 1454:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fili_(Moscow)

https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Фили

 

5- About Aleksey Danilovich Kivshenko (Алексей Данилович Кившенко; 1851-1895):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleksey_Kivshenko

https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Кившенко,_Алексей_Данилович

https://rah.ru/the_academy_today/the_members_of_the_academie/member.php?ID=52874

In 1891, Kivshenko accompanied the archaeological expedition of Nikodim Kondakov to Palestine and Syria, from where he brought back many sketches reproducing the nature and folk life of the countries of the Middle East.

 

6- About Aleksey Kivshenko's painting Military Council in Fili in 1812 (created in 1879):

Созданная картина Военный совет в Филях в 1812 году приносит художнику заслуженную известность, саму же картину художник повторяет еще дважды: по заказам П.М. Третьякова для его галереи и московских властей для Музея истории и реконструкции Москвы. На картине самый драматический момент совещания: «Я приказываю отступление властью, данной мне государем и Отечеством». Это М.И. Кутузов.

The painting Military Council in Fili in 1812 brought the artist well-deserved fame, and the artist repeated the painting twice more: by order of P.M. Tretyakov for his gallery and by the Moscow authorities for the Museum of History and Reconstruction of Moscow. The painting shows the most dramatic moment of the meeting: "I order a retreat by the authority given to me by the sovereign and the Fatherland." This is M.I. Kutuzov.

https://vsdn.ru/museum/catalogue/category70066.htm

(with extensive bibliography about Kivshenko's works)

 

7- Five notes about Aleksey Kivshenko's painting Military Council in Fili (from left to right):

https://ar.culture.ru/ru/subject/sovet-v-filyah

 

1. About the girl at the extreme left of the painting: / О девушке в крайней левой части картины:

Девочка Малаша — вымышленный персонаж романа Толстого «Война и мир». Писатель показал ход совета глазами дочери хозяина избы, Малаши: «В просторной, лучшей избе мужика Андрея Савостьянова в два часа собрался совет. Мужики, бабы и дети мужицкой большой семьи теснились в черной избе через сени. Одна только внучка Андрея, Малаша, шестилетняя девочка, которой светлейший, приласкав ее, дал за чаем кусок сахара, оставалась на печи в большой избе. Малаша робко и радостно смотрела с печи на лица, мундиры и кресты генералов, одного за другим входивших в избу и рассаживавшихся в красном углу, на широких лавках под образами». На самом деле хозяина избы в деревне Фили, где остановился Кутузов и где проходил военный совет, звали Михаил Севостьянович Фролов. И, конечно, ребенку бы не позволили присутствовать на совете русских генералов.

 

The girl Malasha is a fictional character in Tolstoy's novel War and Peace. The writer showed the course of the council through the eyes of the owner's daughter, Malasha: "At two o'clock in the spacious, best hut of the peasant Andrei Savostyanov, the council gathered. The men, women and children of the large peasant family crowded into the black hut, through the entryway; only Andrei's granddaughter, Malasha, a six-year-old girl, to whom His Serene Highness, having caressed her, gave a piece of sugar with tea, remained on the stove in the large hut. Malasha timidly and joyfully looked from the stove at the faces, uniforms and crosses of the generals, who entered the hut one after another and sat down in the red corner, on the wide benches under the icons." In fact, the owner of the hut in the village of Fili, where Kutuzov stayed and where the military council was held, was called Mikhail Sevostyanovich Frolov. And, of course, a child would not have been allowed to attend the council of Russian generals.

 

----------------------  

 

2. About the officer behind Kutuzov, the Commander-in-Chief of the Russian armies: / Об офицере, стоявшем за Кутузовым, главнокомандующим русскими армиями:

Достоверных свидетельств о присутствии на совете полковника Паисия Кайсарова нет, но в романе с его образом связана важная психологическая деталь. «Адъютант Кайсаров хотел было отдернуть занавеску в окне против Кутузова, но Кутузов сердито замахал ему рукой, и Кайсаров понял, что светлейший не хочет, чтобы видели его лицо».

 

There is no reliable evidence of Colonel Paisiy Kaisarov's presence at the council, but an important psychological detail is connected with his image in the novel. "Adjutant Kaisarov wanted to pull back the curtain in the window opposite Kutuzov, but Kutuzov angrily waved his hand at him, and Kaisarov realized that His Serene Highness did not want his face to be seen."

 

-------------------------------- 

 

3. About the central figure of the painting, Infantry General Kutuzov: / О центральной фигуре картины, генерале от инфантерии Кутузове: 

Главнокомандующий русскими армиями генерал от инфантерии Михаил Голенищев-Кутузов. Кившенко изобразил Кутузова в кресле у печи, по описанию Толстого: «Сам дедушка, как внутренне называла Малаша Кутузова, сидел от них особо, в темном углу за печкой. Он сидел, глубоко опустившись в складное кресло, и беспрестанно покряхтывал и расправлял воротник сюртука, который, хотя и расстегнутый, все как будто жал его шею. Входившие один за другим подходили к фельдмаршалу; некоторым он пожимал руку, некоторым кивал головой…». Однако по воспоминаниям генерал-лейтенанта Коновницына известно, что во время совета Кутузов сидел в центре лавки, стоявшей у окна.

 

Commander-in-Chief of the Russian armies, Infantry General Mikhail Golenishchev-Kutuzov; Kivshenko depicted Kutuzov in a chair by the stove, based on Tolstoy's description: "Grandfather himself, as Malasha called Kutuzov inwardly, sat separately from them, in a dark corner behind the stove. He sat, deeply sunk into a folding chair, and constantly grunted and straightened the collar of his frock coat, which, although unbuttoned, seemed to squeeze his neck. Those entering one after another approached the field marshal; he shook hands with some, nodded his head to others...". However, according to the memoirs of Lieutenant General Konovnitsyn, it is known that during the council Kutuzov sat in the center of the bench standing by the window.

 

-----------------------------------------------

 

4. About the person depicted with his back to the viewer, at the central part of the painting, Lieutenant General Leonty Bennigsen: / О человеке, изображенном спиной к зрителю, в центральной части картины, генерал-лейтенанте Леонтии Беннигсене:

Начальник Главного штаба русской армии генерал-лейтенант Леонтий Беннигсен настаивал на сражении под Москвой. В своих воспоминаниях генерал Алексей Ермолов описывал Беннигсена так: «Известный знанием военного искусства, более всех современников испытанный в войне против Наполеона». Беннигсен был человеком уважаемым и авторитетным, и спорить с ним было не просто. Однако в письме супруге Дохтуров писал: «Я прилагал все старание, чтобы убедить идти врагу навстречу; Беннигсен был того же мнения, он делал что мог, чтобы уверить, что единственным средством не уступать столицы было бы встретить неприятеля и сразиться с ним. Но это отважное мнение не могло подействовать».

 

The Chief of the General Staff of the Russian army, Lieutenant General Leonty Bennigsen, insisted on a battle near Moscow. In his memoirs, General Alexei Yermolov described Bennigsen as follows: "Famous for his knowledge of the art of war, more experienced than all his contemporaries in the war against Napoleon." Bennigsen was a respected and authoritative man, and it was not easy to argue with him. However, in a letter to his wife, Dokhturov wrote: "I made every effort to convince them to meet the enemy halfway; Bennigsen was of the same opinion, he did everything he could to convince them that the only way to not give up the capital was to meet the enemy and fight him. But this courageous opinion could not work."

 

------------------------------------------------------------- 

 

5. About the person under the holy icon, namely the commander-in-chief of the 1st Western Army, infantry general Mikhail Barclay de Tolly: / О человеке в красном углу, а именно о главнокомандующем 1-й Западной армией генерале от инфантерии Михаиле Барклае де Толли:

В красном углу, согласно Толстому, художник изобразил главнокомандующего 1-й Западной армией генерала от инфантерии Михаила Барклая де Толли. Кившенко подчеркнул нездоровый вид генерала, как и Толстой: «Под самыми образами, на первом месте, сидел с Георгием на шее, с бледным болезненным лицом и с своим высоким лбом, сливающимся с голой головой, Барклай де Толли. Второй уже день он мучился лихорадкой, и в это самое время его знобило и ломало».

 

Under the holy icon (lit. 'in the red corner'), according to Tolstoy, the artist depicted the commander-in-chief of the 1st Western Army, infantry general Mikhail Barclay de Tolly. Kivshenko emphasized the general's unhealthy appearance, as did Tolstoy: "Under the very icons, in the first place, sat Barclay de Tolly with St. George on his neck, with a pale, sickly face and his high forehead merging with his bare head. He had been suffering from fever for the second day already, and at that very time he was shivering and aching."

 

8- For the photoshopped replica of the painting of the 100th anniversary of the Soviet and Russian army:

https://vk.com/mash?w=wall-112510789_11397605

 

Минутка статистики по одному из шедевров золотой коллекции задержанного замминистра обороны Булгакова. На зафотошопленной реплике картины 100-летия советской и российской армии вместе с ним изображены:

1. Министр обороны, генерал армии Сергей Шойгу — снят с должности;

2. Первый замминистра обороны Руслан Цаликов — снят с должности;

3. Замминистра обороны Тимур Иванов — арестован;

4. Замминистра обороны, генерал-полковник Юрий Садовенко — снят с должности;

5. Замминистра обороны Татьяна Шевцова — снята с должности;

6. Замминистра обороны, генерал армии запаса Николай Панков — снят с должности;

7. Замминистра обороны, генерал армии Павел Попов — снят с должности;

8. Глава Роскосмоса Юрий Борисов — при исполнении;

9. Замминистра обороны, генерал-полковник Александр Фомин — при исполнении;

10. Начальник Генштаба ВС РФ Валерий Герасимов — при исполнении.

 

------------------------------- 

 

A minute of statistics on one of the masterpieces of the gold collection of the detained Deputy Minister of Defense Bulgakov; in the photoshopped replica of the painting of the 100th anniversary of the Soviet and Russian army, together with him are depicted:

1. Minister of Defense, General of the Army Sergei Shoigu - removed from office;

2. First Deputy Minister of Defense Ruslan Tsalikov - removed from office;

3. Deputy Minister of Defense Timur Ivanov - arrested;

4. Deputy Minister of Defense, Colonel General Yuri Sadovenko - removed from office;

5. Deputy Minister of Defense Tatyana Shevtsova - removed from office;

6. Deputy Minister of Defense, General of the Army (Reserve) Nikolai Pankov - removed from office;

7. Deputy Minister of Defense, General of the Army Pavel Popov - removed from office;

8. Head of Roscosmos Yuri Borisov - in office;

9. Deputy Minister of Defense, Colonel General Alexander Fomin - in office;

10. Chief of the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces Valery Gerasimov - on duty.

 

9- Lenta.ru article in Russian and English translation

У арестованного генерала Булгакова нашли необычные картины. Шойгу и его соратники изображены дворянами и революционерами

https://lenta.ru/news/2024/07/30/u-arestovannogo-generala-bulgakova-nashli-neobychnye-kartiny-shoygu-i-ego-soratniki-izobrazheny-dvoryanami-i-revolyutsionerami/

 

При обыске у генерала Дмитрия Булгакова нашли картины с ним, Шойгу и Ивановым

 

В местах жительства бывшего заместителя министра обороны России Дмитрия Булгакова, арестованного по обвинению в коррупции, прошли обыски. В ходе следственных действий правоохранители обнаружили дома у генерала армии картины, на которых изображены экс-глава оборонного ведомства Сергей Шойгу и его заместители в образах дворян и революционеров.

 

В сети появились фотографии полотен. На одном из них запечатлен сам Булгаков в форме офицера времен войны 1812 года, на другом — Шойгу вместе с чиновниками Минобороны. Одна из картин выполнена по мотивам «Совета в Филях» художника Алексея Кившенко. На ней бывший министр обороны России, а ныне секретарь Совета безопасности РФ изображен в роли русского полководца Михаила Кутузова. Бывший заместитель Шойгу Руслан Цаликов — в роли генерала Михаила Барклая де Толли. На картине также присутствуют экс-заместители министра обороны Тимур Иванов, Татьяна Шевцова и другие чиновники.

 

На другом полотне помимо Шойгу, Цаликова, Иванова и Шевцовой на фоне тачанки с пулеметом и знамен в форме красных командиров и комиссаров запечатлены бывшие заместители министра обороны, генерал-полковник Юрий Садовенко, генерал армии запаса Николай Панков, генерал армии Павел Попов, глава «Роскосмоса» Юрий Борисов, действующий замглавы Минобороны, генерал-полковник Александр Фомин и начальник Генштаба Вооруженных сил РФ Валерий Герасимов.

 

По данным Telegram-канала «Досье Шпиона», ни в квартире, ни в частном доме Булгакова не было наличных денег, дорогих шуб или украшений, а только коллекция наград и необычных картин. Сообщается также, что из квартиры накануне обысков могли вывезти дорогие итальянские трюмо.

 

В доме у Булгакова нашли звезду Героя России и более 70 медалей

По словам директора Ассоциации коллекционеров фалеристов «Истинные друзья фалеристики» полковника юстиции в отставке Сергея Бычкова, в ходе обысков следователи нашли у Булгакова большое количество орденов и медалей. Большая часть из них — это ведомственные награды.

 

===========  

 

Официальные государственные ордена и звания: звезда Героя Российской Федерации, три ордена «За заслуги перед Отечеством» второй, третьей и четвертой степени. С красной ленточкой и желтой полоской — это орден Александра Невского, государственная награда Российской Федерации

 

Сергей Бычков

директор Ассоциации коллекционеров фалеристов «Истинные друзья фалеристики»

 

================== 

 

Всего в доме у генерала обнаружили более 70 наград. Среди них оказались орден «За военные заслуги», орден Почета и советский орден «За службу Родине в Вооруженных Силах СССР» третьей степени. Также в жилище Булгакова был знак «Заслуженного военного специалиста», премии Суворова и Жукова.

 

«Также медали: "60 лет Вооруженных Сил", "70 лет Вооруженных Сил", "850-летие Москвы", ведомственные награды Министерства обороны Российской Федерации, которых на сегодняшний день более 150», — рассказал специалист, добавив, что многие из этих медалей разового действия, но некоторые оказались действующими.

 

В заключение фалерист обратил внимание, что среди найденных у Булгакова медалей были награды разных родов войск, которыми разрешено награждать представителей других ведомств за содействие, сотрудничество.

 

Булгаков зарабатывал более 15 миллионов рублей, а на его жену были оформлены три участка

 

Булгаков занимал пост замминистра обороны с 2008 по 2022 год. В армии он отвечал за обеспечение войск. 26 июля стало известно о задержании и аресте генерала по делу о коррупции. Его заподозрили в растрате, откатах и подмене мяса для бойцов.

 

Предполагается, что Булгаков действовал в интересах Грязинского пищевого комбината. При генерале была создана система поставок некачественного питания в войска по завышенной стоимости: говядина заменялась свининой и курятиной, а энергетическая ценность пайков завышалась. По данным следствия, таким образом армии поставили девять миллионов пайков. Сумма ущерба по уголовному делу Булгакова составила 1,3 миллиарда рублей.

 

Согласно последней опубликованной декларации, в 2018 году высокопоставленный военный заработал 15,2 миллиона рублей. При этом большая часть имущества была записана на его жену, которая за тот же год заработала всего 226 тысяч рублей. Вместе с ней он владеет квартирой свыше 109 квадратных метров.

 

На супругу также зарегистрировано три земельных участка общей площадью почти 3000 квадратных метров. Но одном из них располагается жилой дом площадью 620 квадратных метров. Также на жену зарегистрирована иномарка Lexus.

 

Анализ данных за другие годы показывает, что через несколько лет после начала работы в Минобороны, в 2010-2011 годах у Булгакова был зафиксирован резкий рост доходов. В 2009 году его общий годовой доход составил 1 648 710 рублей, в 2010-м — 9 495 705 рублей, а в 2011-м — 18 147 933 рубля.

 

------------------ 

 

(English translation)

Unusual paintings were found at the home of the arrested General Bulgakov. Shoigu and his associates are depicted as nobles and revolutionaries

 

During the search of General Dmitry Bulgakov, paintings of him, Shoigu and Ivanov were found

 

Searches were conducted at the residences of the former Deputy Minister of Defense of Russia Dmitry Bulgakov, who was arrested on charges of corruption. During the investigative actions, law enforcement officers found paintings at the home of the army general, which depict the former head of the defense department Sergei Shoigu and his deputies as nobles and revolutionaries.

 

Photos of the paintings appeared online. One of them depicts Bulgakov himself in the uniform of an officer from the war of 1812, and the other shows Shoigu together with Defense Ministry officials. One of the paintings is based on the "Council at Fili" by artist Alexei Kivshenko. In it, the former Minister of Defense of Russia, and now Secretary of the Security Council of the Russian Federation, is depicted as the Russian commander Mikhail Kutuzov. Shoigu's former deputy Ruslan Tsalikov plays General Mikhail Barclay de Tolly. The painting also features former deputy defense ministers Timur Ivanov, Tatyana Shevtsova and other officials.

 

In another painting, in addition to Shoigu, Tsalikov, Ivanov and Shevtsova, against the backdrop of a machine gun cart and banners in the uniform of red commanders and commissars, former deputy defense ministers Colonel General Yuri Sadovenko, retired army general Nikolai Pankov, army general Pavel Popov, head of Roscosmos Yuri Borisov, current deputy defense minister Colonel General Alexander Fomin and Chief of the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces Valery Gerasimov are depicted.

 

According to the Telegram channel "Dossier Shpiona", there was no cash, expensive fur coats or jewelry in Bulgakov's apartment or private house, only a collection of awards and unusual paintings. It is also reported that expensive Italian dressing tables may have been taken from the apartment the day before the searches.

 

A Hero of Russia star and over 70 medals were found in Bulgakov's house

According to the director of the Association of Phalerist Collectors "True Friends of Phaleristics" retired Colonel of Justice Sergei Bychkov, during the searches investigators found a large number of orders and medals at Bulgakov's. Most of them are departmental awards.

 

===========

 

Official state orders and titles: Hero of the Russian Federation star, three Orders "For Services to the Fatherland" of the second, third and fourth degrees. With a red ribbon and a yellow stripe — this is the Order of Alexander Nevsky, a state award of the Russian Federation

 

Sergey Bychkov

Director of the Association of Phalerist Collectors "True Friends of Phaleristics"

 

==================

 

In total, more than 70 awards were found in the general's house. Among them were the Order "For Military Merit", the Order of Honor and the Soviet Order "For Service to the Motherland in the Armed Forces of the USSR" of the third degree. Also in Bulgakov's home was the badge of "Honored Military Specialist", the Suvorov and Zhukov prizes.

 

"Also medals: "60 years of the Armed Forces", "70 years of the Armed Forces", "850th anniversary of Moscow", departmental awards of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation, of which there are more than 150 today," the specialist said, adding that many of these medals are one-time valid, but some were valid.

 

In conclusion, the falerist noted that among the medals found on Bulgakov were awards from various branches of the military, which are allowed to be awarded to representatives of other departments for assistance and cooperation.

 

Bulgakov earned more than 15 million rubles, and three plots of land were registered in his wife's name

 

Bulgakov served as Deputy Minister of Defense from 2008 to 2022. In the army, he was responsible for providing troops. On July 26, it became known that the general had been detained and arrested in a corruption case. He was suspected of embezzlement, kickbacks, and substitution of meat for soldiers.

 

It is assumed that Bulgakov acted in the interests of the Gryazinsky Food Plant. Under the general, a system was created for supplying low-quality food to the troops at inflated prices: beef was replaced with pork and chicken, and the energy value of rations was inflated. According to the investigation, nine million rations were supplied to the army in this way. The amount of damage in Bulgakov's criminal case amounted to 1.3 billion rubles.

 

According to the latest published declaration, in 2018 the high-ranking military man earned 15.2 million rubles. At the same time, most of the property was registered to his wife, who earned only 226 thousand rubles in the same year. Together with her, he owns an apartment of over 109 square meters.

 

Three land plots with a total area of ​​almost 3,000 square meters are also registered to his wife. But one of them contains a residential building with an area of ​​620 square meters. A foreign-made Lexus car is also registered to his wife.

 

Analysis of data for other years shows that several years after starting work in the Ministry of Defense, in 2010-2011, Bulgakov recorded a sharp increase in income. In 2009, his total annual income was 1,648,710 rubles, in 2010 - 9,495,705 rubles, and in 2011 - 18,147,933 rubles.

 

 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------    

Download the article in PDF: 

https://megalommatiscomments.wordpress.com/2024/07/31/mikhail-kutuzov-in-1812-sergei-shoigu-in-2024-and-aleksey-kivshenkos-historical-painting-of-the-military-council-in-fili-a-suburb-of-moscow/

https://vk.com/megalommatis?w=wall429864789_13288%2Fall

https://www.academia.edu/122488276/Mikhail_Kutuzov_in_1812_Sergei_Shoigu_in_2024_and_Aleksey_Kivshenkos_Historical_Painting_of_the_Military_Council_in_Fili_a_suburb_of_Moscow

https://www.4shared.com/web/preview/pdf/LUkw1yy6ku?

https://www.calameo.com/read/007156897f8424f88f57b

https://figshare.com/articles/journal_contribution/_b_Mikhail_Kutuzov_in_1812_Sergei_Shoigu_in_2024_and_Aleksey_Kivshenko_s_Historical_Painting_of_the_Military_Council_in_Fili_a_suburb_of_Moscow_b_/26422093?file=48065509

https://anyflip.com/fdfzl/jjdn

https://pubhtml5.com/jxyro/iapl/

https://online.fliphtml5.com/qynhg/pgbo/

https://www.patreon.com/posts/109291453