HOMELAND SECURITY STRATEGY: INERTIA OF BIPOLAR DISORDER

Today we will talk about the new version of the National Security Doctrine, adopted by the decree of the President of the Russian Federation on July 2, 2021.

Instead of uttering general words or digging into details, let’s point out the main thing.

Let’s start with the positive. The renewed national security doctrine is much more sharply defined by the imperative of sovereignty. The main priority is declared the freedom and independence of Russia as a great power. The growing pressure from Western hegemony is openly recorded. A strict orientation towards traditional values ​​and the development of their own Russian national idea is being asserted.

If we only follow this patriotic line, the following picture emerges: Russia, as a besieged fortress, is desperately fighting for its sovereignty, turning to mobilization, turning to Tradition, culture and deep historical roots of the Russian people and other Eurasian ethnic groups in solidarity with Russians in their destiny, statehood and history.

This is opposed by globalists, transnational corporations, supporters of a unipolar world order with the preservation of the leading role of the West in it. With them, Russia – not wanting it – is in direct and tough confrontation.

This consistent realism is expressed in the text more clearly and vividly than in previous versions. The orientation towards a multipolar world order is clearly indicated. Self-reliance is taken as a priority.

But Putin would not be Putin if he did not balance these perfectly clear and unambiguous guidelines with something exactly the opposite.

Moving on to the negative side of the document. Alas, there is plenty of material here too. As usual, any patriotic thesis – sovereignty, independence, traditional values, national idea – is immediately refuted by liberal incantations.

Here’s an example

“The preservation of Russian identity, culture, traditional Russian spiritual, and moral values ​​and the patriotic education of citizens will contribute to the further development of the democratic structure of the Russian Federation and its openness to the world.”

There is a feeling of schizophrenicity of the text. The beginning of the phrase was written by a patriotic silovik, and ended by a liberal globalist. If patriotism is necessary for openness to the world, and tradition is the path to democracy, then slavery is freedom, and hatred is love.

Elsewhere, the meaning of security is called “the needs of the individual”, followed by “society” and only then “state”. The entire hierarchy is strictly liberal and globalist – first the individual, then sociality, and only at the end the state.

The obsession with the globalist – developed by the Club of Rome – concept of “sustainable development” is another trace of the participation of the liberals of the “sixth column” in the compilation of this text.

And finally, the falsity of the declarations telling about Russia’s successes in politics, social sphere, education and culture, in building a welfare state is depressing. All of this should be. But the truth is, in reality, this is far from the case.

The gap between propaganda and reality is beginning to resemble late Soviet times.

It is not a matter of indiscriminate criticism of the authorities. The positive core of the national security doctrine is beautiful and evokes full support and solidarity. But one cannot fail to see the contradictions already inherent in it. The sovereign patriotic realist document is mined with liberal inclusions, a set of not just empty, but harmful formulas and unnecessary demoralizing lies – from how everything is fine in Russia. Something is good and something is bad. And the bad must be corrected, not gloss over.

Difficulties will certainly arise not only with the implementation of this – in general, a worthy document. Its text itself contains internal locks. In psychology, this is called “double bind” – a commanding command that contains a contradiction in itself. For example, such formulas as “come to me far away” or “talk to me in silence” become the norm and provoke splitting of consciousness.

The doctrine of national security, alas, is another Putin’s “double bind” – more patriotism and tradition in the name of universal globalist ideals; more state, so that there is more civil society; more independence in order to integrate more closely and faster with others.

When will it finally end….