On Russian TV broadcast I have many times asked the question about the readiness to exchange the “sovereignty” of the country “sausage”, I see the need in writing and in a calm situation to formulate its position for this reason. The exchange of “sovereignty” to “sausage” is always unequal in the sense that the sausage (wealth) receive tens of millions of people, and sovereignty, in practice, is one, well, maybe a few hundred people in the country. All those who develops and implements its foreign policy.
It is these several hundred people, depending on the level of foreign policy power in the country (sovereignty), I feel more or less comfortable and authoritative in negotiations with their counterparts from other countries. And here the key question is whether there is a possibility of reverse conversion of the accumulated “sovereignty” into something more than psychological comfort of hundreds of people. For example, all in the same “sausage” for millions.
The last 100 years, the occasions when it worked in the opposite direction, to find extremely difficult, and for the last 70 years and it is impossible at all.
If before the First world war the exploitation of colonial empires and dominant position in the markets even sometimes pays for the costs of maintaining military and political power of the countries concerned (although even then it usually do not affect the welfare of the people in the metropolis), after the First world expenditure on the army, the war, the maintenance of colonies and active foreign policy is always and everywhere was more than any profit from them.
Ie in some specific local cases, the presence of the political influence it can afford today converted into economic benefits, however, the totality of profits from such local cases over the past 70 years, no country in the world never pays for the resources that this country has to spend on creating and maintaining its foreign policy power.
In the case of foreign policy from an economic point of view is even more costly and gives less economic return than the same cost-not pay off the foreign policy with other countries. Interesting details about endless debt, direct and indirect subsidies to our allies and a ridiculous share of Russian products in the import of our protectorates and satellites, I highly recommend reading the Chapter about foreign policy in a recent book, “Russia — old-fashioned country” by V. Inozemtsev.
USSR/Russia after world war II, spent on ensuring that its foreign policy power by orders of magnitude greater than received from its use.
Thus, on one side of the scale as payment for the “sovereignty” we see a real and undeniable losses of tens of millions, and the other is just personal comfort the hundreds of people.
So, the basic thesis of this post is that in today’s world, investment in the foreign power of the country, as a rule, directly disadvantageous to the absolute majority of its population. In these circumstances, the political leadership of some countries exchanged their personal comfort in the negotiations (“sovereignty”) on the welfare of citizens, as in the Baltic States, Belarus or, say, Japan. And the leadership of others for personal comfort in the negotiations sacrifice the real welfare of many millions, as in Russia or, say, Iran. Iran and especially Russia, in many ways much suverennyi Japan. From the views of their leadership in the world depends more than from the opinions of the Japanese. Only the people there live much worse than in Japan and enjoy it.
When some politician calls for reducing the salaries and privileges of officials, it is perceived as a struggle for the interests of the people. But the cost of all officials in Russia put together 3-4 less only the direct cost of maintaining the foreign power. And the result of all these costs consumed only a few hundred people.
In the above mentioned logic, the rejection of “sovereignty” for “sausages” this action is in the interests of tens of millions, against the interests of the units, and the call to donate “sausage” for the sake of “sovereignty” is the real betrayal of national interests”.
© 2019, z-news.link. All rights reserved.