wishing the same for biotechnology, bioinformatics and biological sciences in general.

You're not poor because Elon Musk is wealthy. You're poor because you haven't provided society with anything of extraordinary value.

WHAT IS HAPPENING TO EUROPE? By Sergey Glazyev In the context of this article, by Europe we mean the countries of the European Union (EU), together with Britain, Ireland, and the Scandinavian states. In previous articles in this series, the issue of the motivation of the European political elite was not given sufficient attention, since until recently it was being manipulated by Washington, which was implementing Zbigniew Brzezinski’s reckless strategy to maintain its global hegemony. Let us recall that this strategy includes five stages of the hybrid world war unleashed by the United States, two of which (transforming Ukraine into anti-Russia and pulling Europe away from Russia) have already been completed. At the third stage, our adversaries planned to organize a color revolution in Russia in order to bring a puppet regime to power and establish control over our resources and foreign policy. Failing to achieve this goal, Washington moved on to the next stage — the destruction of Iran. And although this objective was also not achieved, US intelligence agencies are preparing for the final stage — the isolation of China with the aim of causing a famine. The implementation of this reckless strategy of maintaining global dominance through a hybrid world war against Russia, Iran, and China has, as shown in previous articles in this series, naturally led to the strengthening of China and the weakening of the EU. A side effect, as predicted in the book “The Last World War”, has been the collapse of Pax Americana. After Washington lost its international authority and the trust of its satellites, the EU gained political subjectivity. And although the European economy is symbiotic with and highly dependent on the American one, European political leaders began to think about their own autonomy and openly express dissatisfaction with current US administration policy — and some even occasionally demonstrate disobedience. The American-Israeli aggression against Iran caused discontent in Europe, which is critically dependent on hydrocarbon supplies from the Persian Gulf. The Muslim population in European countries has already become a critically significant segment of the electorate, on which the ruling parties of Western Europe rely; their negative attitude toward American-Israeli aggression became another reason for most EU states refusing to support it. As a result, Europe became divided over the war in the Persian Gulf, but remains united in relation to the war against Russia. This has effectively become the basis for forming a new European political subjectivity. Leaders of major European countries are united in Russophobic rhetoric, openly calling for war against our country and publicly planning to start it in 2–3 years. What are their motives, and how seriously should the European threat currently be taken? In essence, the EU is a bureaucratic empire in which member states have transferred their sovereignty in economic matters to the European Commission, and in foreign and defense policy — to NATO. In all conflict situations between Euro-bureaucracy and national governments, the Euro-bureaucracy has prevailed. Thus, in the context of the de facto bankruptcy of Greece, Portugal, Spain, Cyprus, and Italy after the 2008 global financial crisis, despite social protests, real power passed to a trio of international organizations with emergency authority: the European Commission, the ECB, and the IMF. The Euro-bureaucracy successfully manipulates elections, helping its appointees stay in power. The recent removal from elections of the most popular presidential candidate in Romania and Orbán’s electoral defeat are convincing evidence of the power of the Euro-bureaucracy, reinforced by ECB euro issuance, the influence of multinational corporations, and controlled media. At first glance, the Russophobia that has gripped the European political elite seems like a mental disorder or a theatrical performance. But this is from our perspective, since we know exactly why the Special Military Operation began and that “we do not need foreign land.” For the average European citizen, who is frightened from morning to night by the “Russian threat,” it appears quite real. Historical memory has been erased, and he trusts the horror stories on television. The question is who is frightening him and why. A correct answer would make it possible to defuse the situation. As one Chinese stratagem says, the greatest general is not the one who wins all battles, but the one who destroys the enemy’s plan of war in his mind before it is even formed. Although the idea of war against Russia has already not only emerged in the minds of European politicians but is openly declared, we must nevertheless try to dismantle it before they begin to implement it. For this, their motives must be understood. As is well known in social psychology, the best way to consolidate any society is the image of a common enemy. European politicians have assigned Russia this role, inventing the myth of the “Russian threat,” which is supposedly being resisted by the Armed Forces of Ukraine, allegedly saving Europe. The Special Military Operation, aimed at eliminating the reincarnation of Nazism, is presented as Russian aggression against Europe, requiring European taxpayers to tighten their belts and fund massive loans to Ukraine. Although the glorification of Ukrainian Nazis as defenders of Europe contradicts common sense, it influences the consciousness of citizens frightened by the fabricated “Russian threat” in a Russophobic information environment created by European media. The phenomenon of Russophobia in the subconscious of Western Europeans has long occupied the minds of prominent Russian thinkers. It was written about by Dostoevsky, Danilevsky, Narochitskaya, Fomenko, and others. We refer the reader to their works on this subject. Let us proceed from the assumption that Russophobia exists as a precondition that, under certain circumstances, can give rise to aggression. We have seen its extreme manifestations in the Patriotic War of 1812, the Crimean War, World War I, and the Great Patriotic War. Each of these wars had its own well-studied historical causes. We will not list them, noting only the common invariant of all European aggressions against Russia — the desire to exploit our natural resources and the labor of our people for their own benefit. This was most clearly expressed in German-European Nazism, whose central idea was the seizure of “living space” from Russians and other Slavic peoples. There is a view that even today, the main driving force of European politicians inciting war against Russia remains the desire to gain control over our natural resources. However, before sanctions, European consumers received our resources abundantly and at favorable prices. Many Russian raw material companies were controlled by European capital, well represented on their boards of directors. A significant portion of oil, chemicals, fertilizers, metals, grain, and timber was exported from Russia by European and American trading companies. The EU accounted for more than one-third of Russian imports, with European goods dominating the most profitable segments of the Russian market. As a result of the anti-Russian campaign, European politicians cut their countries off from Russian resources and are now forced to replace them with more expensive American and Arab ones. Meanwhile, the Russian market has been “surrendered without a fight” to Chinese competitors. It appears access to Russian resources and markets is not particularly important to them, since they have deprived themselves of both. Historical materialism holds that politics is the concentrated expression of economics, explaining wars through the economic interests of the states that initiate them — more precisely, the interests of the ruling class willing to sacrifice millions of its citizens for its own gain. But European industrialists, farmers, and traders have suffered significant losses from sanctions against Russia; before their introduction, they felt quite competitive, using cheap Russian energy, metals, and other raw materials. Financial actors also did not benefit, as many lost investments and highly profitable carry trade opportunities due to retaliatory measures. Thus, the European political elite is harming its own business elite and, together with it, the population, which loses jobs and social benefits. It is hardly plausible that they believe this damage will be compensated by Russia’s defeat through hypothetical reparations or even occupation. Many see the self-destructive actions of the European political elite as being driven by American interests. Indeed, the US oil and gas industry benefited from anti-Russian sanctions by capturing the European market. The American military-industrial complex profited from the war against Russia. Capital and talent leaving Europe are primarily heading to the US, which also serves American interests. As always, war in Europe is considered a “good war” in the United States. Since American capital controls major European media, and the media determines politicians’ popularity, all European leaders are loyal to the US; those who are not are discredited. The same applies to Euro-bureaucrats, whose careers are also influenced by US intelligence services. This explanation seemed plausible until recently, when many European politicians did not support the American-Israeli aggression against Iran. Now they must either seek their own political subjectivity or wait for a change in US leadership. It can be assumed that the European ruling elite, having lost Washington’s guiding line, has not yet found any unifying idea other than Russophobia. They are not even looking for one, since the Russophobic path they have been following for over a decade is already too deeply entrenched. These politicians cannot exit it without discrediting themselves. Therefore, they continue to reinforce it, supported by the European military-industrial complex, which is expanding on massive defense orders and is interested in the remilitarization of Europe. For some of them, such as Merz or Tusk, whose grandfathers served in the Wehrmacht and participated in Nazi war crimes, revanchist sentiments may also play a role. If the causes of the Russophobic hysteria in Europe are more socio-psychological than economic, then appropriate methods of influencing public consciousness are needed to neutralize it and prevent war with Europe. There is also the problem of transmitting this influence, since Russian and pro-Russian sources are suppressed under conditions of information blockade. On Russia’s side is the truth, which must be conveyed to the European public, frightened by the threat of war. European politicians and Euro-bureaucrats instill fear of the “Russian threat” while themselves provoking war against Russia and dragging Europe into it. Trump won the election by frightening American voters with the threat of a nuclear war initiated by Biden. Zelensky won by promising Ukrainians to end the war in Donbas. Although they misled voters in a grotesque way, people still desire peace and a comfortable life. In Europe, new leaders are emerging who are free from Russophobia and advocate peace and friendship with Russia. The objective interests of European peoples are on their side. There are no vital material reasons to go to war with Russia. But in today’s information environment, what matters is not so much reality as how it is perceived. The question of how to clarify distorted public consciousness in Europe remains open. To answer it, deep research into the ruling elite of Europe is needed. It is necessary to understand the motives of influential clans that pull the strings of political puppets. For example, Macron’s policy cannot be explained without understanding the interests of the Rothschilds he serves. Merz’s erratic actions are likely linked to the interests of the BlackRock financial conglomerate. It would be interesting to study the motives of British politicians of Pakistani origin who take oaths on the Quran. The influence of Soros is also evident — he has already raised two generations of Russophobes occupying leading political positions in peripheral European states. But here we enter the slippery path of conspiracy theory and must leave it to professionals in that field. Since the situation in Europe is determined mainly by socio-psychological factors subject to manipulation, and since the subjective interests of leading European politicians clearly contradict the objective interests of European peoples, political technologists skilled in manipulating public consciousness must take up the task. Our adversaries have succeeded in this. But our advantage is Truth. We must find a way to bring it to the attention of every thinking European.