Political scientist Makarkin analyzed Medvedev’s forecast about the collapse of the United States and the seizure of Western Ukraine

The predictions of the Deputy Chairman of the Security Council of the Russian Federation a priori did not claim to be the ultimate truth. In principle, Dmitry Medvedev himself, in his publication on the Telegram channel, hinted at this: “Many are practicing futuristic hypotheses, competing in the proposal of the most unexpected and even absurd. Let’s do our part.”

However, the content of the forecast made me think about some points. For example, assumptions about a possible “collapse of the European Union”, “capture by Poland and Hungary of the western regions of Ukraine”, “civil war in the USA”, “transfer of all financial activity to Asia”. Knowing and taking into account the unpredictability of events in the current world, the stated theses do not seem so “futuristic”. But maybe it only seems?

Alexei Makarkin, First Vice President of the Center for Political Technologies, analyzed a number of predictions from Dmitry Medvedev and assessed their hypothetical possibility:

“Nothing from futuristic predictions usually comes true. We see a forecast that the West will split, that there will be a war in Europe, but this does not mean that this is a reality. Here you can see a signal to the West that “we are no longer interested in you.”

– Some points in the light of recent events do not seem invented. Take, for example, the American Civil War. Given a roughly 50-50 split in Congress, how feasible is that?

“They almost always do that. Separation is not uncommon. If it is already realistic to talk about it, then the House of Representatives has turned over, yes. But before there was a slight advantage for the Democrats, now it is for the Republicans. So, America always lives 50/50.

If you look at their electoral map, most of the constituencies are actually assigned to the parties. The representative of this or that party can lose only if he commits some huge stupidity. And so: there are “blue” (democratic), “red” (republican) districts, and there are also districts where they really fight. These are “suspended” regions where absolutely different voters live. However, most of their positions retain. The “suspended” districts swing first in one direction, then in the other, and therefore there is a slightly greater advantage for some, and then for others.

Even when one or another party has a big advantage, it gets 53-54 seats in the Senate, in extreme cases 55. Now the Democrats, together with their allies, have 51 seats. The difference is not very big. In general, in the United States there is no such situation as in some European countries, so there is always such a split.

However, there are two factors. First, the emotional rejection of supporters of the two parties has really grown. There is an interesting survey in America: “How would you react if a representative of another party comes to the family?” For example, as a son-in-law or daughter-in-law. This is where the rejection intensifies. Many people are not ready to accept a supporter of another party into the family. They are more ready to accept representatives of another race, nationality, but on the basis of the party, emotions have intensified.

If in the nineties it was said that Democrats are not much different from Republicans and vice versa, now the differences have intensified, which leads to an emotional split. So when they say that America will fall apart, this is also what they mean.

The second point is related to the fact that this emotion led to the storming of the Capitol at the beginning of last year: the most radical part of the Republican supporters rushed there to revise the election results and Trump remained for a second term. In this regard, it is also said that America must fall apart. In fact, these arguments are important, but there are alternative arguments that balance them.

– What arguments can be given as an example?

– If you look closely, then almost the entire political class of the United States still recognized Biden’s victory. Almost all of them also condemned the protesters. There was no split here.

If we talk about the Republicans, then most of their politicians are people who are fully integrated into the two-party political system, who are used to it and are not going to make a revolution. These are not revolutionaries. These are conservatives with their own pragmatic interests, their task is not to make a revolution, not to split America, but to be re-elected in the next elections. In the interim period, the main task is to lobby the interests of your constituency so that the central government allocates more funds, and for this you need to actively work in parliamentary committees, get additional funding for your constituency, and not go to the street. They are not really interested in any splits and revolutions.

Republicans are now, of course, trying to find an alternative to Trump. Many of them really believe that Trump won the 2020 election. But the political class is looking for an alternative, they are actively looking at Ron DeSantis (Governor of Florida – “MK”), who is much more predictable. So now the problem is more in the Republican Party itself. There were many predictions that the Democrats would leave, and the Republicans would take everything they could, be more radical, the political system would go to pieces. But nothing like that happened.

The main topic for Biden this year was not Ukraine, not Russia, but gasoline and its cost. Fuel prices have risen – the president’s popularity has fallen, but now gasoline prices have decreased – the president’s popularity is growing. There is no civil war in the US. There have been many divisions in American history, but the civil war happened over 150 years ago. It took a very long time to get to her. Statements about the collapse of America are more emotional, while the United States itself is much more elastic. Even Trump for 4 years could not do anything to weaken the country.

– And what about the point about “the capture by Poland and Hungary of the western regions of Ukraine”? What are the real prospects for this?

– In the proposed format, this is not possible. If Ukraine begins to completely disintegrate, if very large-scale integration processes begin there, then anything can happen. How can this happen?

These two countries have different relations with Ukraine. In Poland, they are much closer, now the Poles are moving closer to Ukraine in every possible way. But when people start from something to capture – they start from a whole set of arguments. Let’s see how the local population reacts to this. When World War II ended, there was a so-called population exchange between Poland and Ukraine within the USSR. The Poles historically had support in these territories: the Poles lived there, they were the largest landowners, they were strong in Lviv University. Of course, the Polish element in these territories was powerful for a long time.

When the Poles were negotiating with the then RSFSR about where the border would be after the war of 1919-1921, the Poles had in mind that they had a very serious support in Lvov and other parts of Galicia. Then the phenomenon of siegemen appeared: they began to give land to the participants in the war. Strengthened the Polish element.

But in 1947 there was an exchange. The same Polish professors from Lviv University left. The Polish aristocracy in these territories was eradicated as early as 1939-1940. Therefore, now Poland has no support there.

If it is unfriendly to take over now, you will get a very disloyal population. The history of relations there is very complicated. When Stepan Bandera appeared in the thirties and it was his supporters who then killed the Polish Minister of the Interior, they also killed Ukrainians, whom the nationalists considered collaborators who collaborated with the Poles. And how, in general, to include in Poland the territories where the hero is Stepan Bandera, with all the consequences?

– What about Hungary?

– As for Hungary, the relationship is even more complicated. Prime Minister Viktor Orban considers himself the patron and leader of all Hungarians, not only those living in Hungary. She has a lot of revanchist emotion. Their catastrophe was 1919, when the Treaty of Trianon was signed after the First World War and the Hungarians lost a lot of territory.

But there is another limitation here. Hungary is part of the EU. Orban’s policy is complex, he constantly maneuvers. Hungary is very seriously dependent on the European Union and Orban will not go into a big radical conflict with the EU for the sake of some piece of territory. And in general, the West has a common enemy – Russia. And it brought countries together. Therefore, forecasts that the EU will disintegrate are unlikely.

– There is also a clause about “transferring financial activity to Asia”. In the current realities, is this possible or will this continue to face problems?

– The financial market loves the established infrastructure, where it is familiar and comfortable. Bankers and stockbrokers are conservative people and serious grounds are required for transfers.

As for Asia, here we see a certain demystification of China. That is, before the PRC appeared as a country with a very good level of governance, with excellent performance, extremely favorable conditions for the development of entrepreneurship. Now the situation is changing there. Financiers are cautious about where they go. There are many factors that contributed to the decline in growth.

China began to change politically as well. Entrepreneurs and business began to be perceived by the ruling elite not only as a resource, but also as a risk. Risk to the stability of China, the dominance of the Communist Party. And the Celestial Empire began to tighten the screws on business. Modern China is no longer as business-friendly as it was under previous leaders.

Business understands the rules of the game in America: you understand who is responsible for what. But with China it is more difficult. Financiers do not quite understand what to expect from local leaders, there is a different entrepreneurial culture and traditions. And this is also a problem. Businessmen will think about whether it is worth leaving the habitable territory for a complex and unpredictable world.