In an article titled "Three Threats to the Modern World," Russian Senator Kostantin Kosachev, who chairs the Federation Council's Committee for International Relations, discussed what he considers to be today's real challenges. Kosachev listed Islamism, Pseudo-Communism, and Liberal-Globalization as the three major threats. According to Kosachev, this trio of ideologies has much in common: "Each one employs blackmail, threats and force, visual and media effects, and relies on zombified activists prepared to do anything for the sake of an idea."
As for liberalism, Kosachev wrote that a "slim hope" exists that, once the West stops feeling that it is seemingly in a "sinking ship", it will "calm down," otherwise "Western fundamentalism" will continue waging its "liberal jihad" against any moment and in any part of the world "in the form of yet another coup", "humanitarian intervention" or "color revolution".
Following are excerpts from Kosachev's article, published in the pro-Kremlin daily Izvestia.ru:
Kostantin Kosachev (Source: Regnum.ru )
Kosachev: Islamism, Pseudo-Communism, Liberal-Globalization Rely On 'Zombified' Activists
"Many have probably forgotten how, a couple of years ago, the then 'leader of the free world' Barak Obama called Islamic terrorism, Russia, and the Ebola fever the main threats on the planet.
"This classification was as ridiculous as the US president's claim to speak on behalf of the entire world was groundless. In his version, terrorists, a disease, and a state that is a permanent member of the UN Security Council ended up in a single package of global challenges.'
"Time has proven that ideologies rather than events should still be regarded as the real threats today (as in the 20th century). Such ideologies have aggressively fundamentalist ideas as their basis, and claim to have the absolute and 'the exclusively correct' truth. And especially when their [the ideologies'] carriers, first – have the capacity to harm all the others, second – are prepared to do it, because they find moral justifications for the use of force in their ideology, and third – tend to blame others, 'those in the wrong, 'the infidels', for their problems.
SUPPORT OUR WORK
"It is easy to discern that three such threats to the world indeed exist today. They are three ideological fundamentalisms – the Islamic one, personified by ISIL (an organization whose activity is banned in the RF), the pseudo-Communist one, exemplified by the DPRK [North Korea], and the liberal-globalization one, embodied by a particular segment of the Western elites. Of course, they are uneven in scale or ideological roots, but they have much in common: each one resorts to blackmail, threats and force, visual and media effects, and relies on zombified activists ready to do anything for the sake of an idea.
"Naturally, liberal fundamentalists will not want to see themselves on the same list with Islamists and dogmatists. But de facto, they have, in recent years, convincingly demonstrated their own transformation into 'democratic Bolsheviks' in the past years. The resistance to Trump before and after his election to the top post in the U.S., the current coordinated and rather dirty anti-'populists' campaign in Europe, the entire history of their confrontation with Russia, from the Sochi Olympics to the 'cyberattacks', from Ukraine to Syria – all this shows that in some cases we are not dealing with democrats but with people of sectarian, messianic mindset, who do not shun any methods for the sake of their "faith". As they say, the end justifies the means.
"A very short time ago, they were on the offensive, as exemplified by Hillary Clinton's joyful 'Wow!' at the sight of an unarmed Gaddafi being lynched by a savage mob. But in the last two-three years, they have felt an existential threat to themselves and to the entire global model lovingly crafted to suit their needs – democratic and liberal in name, unipolar and authoritarian in essence.
Kosachev: If The West Does Not Calm Down, Western Fundamentalism Will Continue Waging 'Liberal Jihad'
"The threat came from an unexpected direction – from within: the peoples of the Western countries began to exhibit dissatisfaction with the ruling elites, which had become increasingly detached from the population. However, instead of proactive system transformation it reacted in an authoritarian pattern: firstly, by viewing what was happening as 'intrigues by the enemies'; secondly, by demonizing those opposing it, caricaturing them as 'the new dictators'; and thirdly, by accusing the people of susceptibility to populism. However what they call populism may actually be an attempt of politicians to react to the voice of the people rather than that of the elites.
"This is not the first time that the feeling that democracy is a hindrance to 'democrats' has arisen.
"Quite long ago, the established elites of the West moved away from real alternatives in domestic politics and towards a system where identical liberal parties with different names replace each other at the countries' helm. So long ago, in fact, that the strengthening of those who are just a little more left- or right-wing than 'entitled' has provoked a real shock. As a result, instead of the traditional task of winning democratic elections in Europe in 2017, an almost Lenin-like slogan has been introduced to the agenda: 'the European fatherland is in danger!'
"Chancellor Merkel has been proclaimed the last bulwark of the 'free world'; the entire Europe 'piled on' to the various election campaigns (in Austria, the Netherlands, and now France) in order to bar entry to the 'non-system elements'. I remember how correspondents from totally different German (it's important!) mass media came to me with the interval of a couple of days, asked some questions for form's sake, and then inquired, pointedly and with identical (as if carbon-copied) questions, how Russia was 'financing [French politician Marine] Le Pen' and supporting the National Front.
"In a Scandinavian newspaper, a journalist urged people to take seriously the wishes of the people to return to national states 'as a place where democracy really works and you can hold the leaders to account if it turns out that one cannot do it on a transnational basis'.
"This is an important principle: the wish of the people to bring back national states to historical center-stage is quite a democratic trend. In contrast, defenders of the system that is supranational and hard to control from below look like reactionaries and liberal conservatives who oppose its democratic renewal.
"Apparently, the "European spring" in the form of revolution from below will not take place – the global liberal elites have recovered from the shock and been able to block Trump's initiatives by 'besieging' him in the Congress and in the mass media and catching his team on the 'hook' of spy stories. In Europe (France, UK, Germany), the elections will be most likely won by the representatives of the system [it should be noted that the article was written before the second round of the French presidential elections. Kosachev considers French president Emmanuel Macron to be a representative of the system], in no small measure because of the manipulation of public opinion by the obediently coordinated mass media.
"A slim hope exists that when they stop feeling themselves on a 'sinking ship', they will calm down somewhat and, inter alia, will tone down their campaigns against the external 'enemies of European values', with Russia considered the main foe. Otherwise, the third world threat – the threat of Western fundamentalism – will continue to be of top relevance due to its readiness to organize a 'liberal jihad' at any moment and in any part of the world in the shape of yet another coup, 'humanitarian intervention' or 'colour revolution'. When the famous Serbian film director Emir Kusturica said that if Hillary Clinton had won the U.S. elections, 'there would have been a huge war', I think he did not exaggerate excessively.
"As for us, I think we should conduct ourselves in about the same way that the West behaved towards the ideology-driven Soviet Union. Support pragmatic dialogue, avoid entanglement in ideological discussions (since they only yield the conclusion that somebody 'is attacking the values'), and continue integration into a multi-polar world as an equal participant, who respects other peoples."
 Izvestia.ru, April 24, 2017.