Kirsan Ilyumzhinov: The world is at a crossroads. What's next?

On these bright Christmas days, maybe just few people would want to remember such gloomy things as the crisis, war and other misfortunes. But, in my opinion, this is the best time to seriously consider our future and what it might turn out to be if we continue to live by inertia. And, may the reader forgive me, I have serious reasons to bring up this issue right now, and remind you far from most pleasant realities of our time.

World Powers Pledge to Stop Spread of Nuclear Weapons made on January 3, gives little hope for mutual understanding. It emphasizes the desire to prevent war between the member states of the nuclear club and adherence to the principles of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. So, we may relax?
I am afraid it is not the case. The point is not even the regrettable incapacity to negotiate and the habit of changing the rules during the game, which our Western partners have repeatedly demonstrated over the past decades. The pledge concerns only nuclear weapons but what about conventional weaponry, the destructive power of which is now little inferior to missiles with nuclear warheads? The pledge contains general words about avoiding an arms race but it does not say a word about stopping the development of military robots and drones with artificial intelligence. Meanwhile, this development threatens us no less than the danger of a global nuclear war.
More than 50 Nobel laureates recently called for 2% cut to military spending worldwide over the next five years. At the same time, they proposed half the saved money in a UN fund to combat pandemics, the climate crisis, and extreme poverty. A positive response to this initiative would be the best evidence of the commitment of the leaders of the nuclear club to the principles of disarmament and peace in the world. 

Of course, I fully support this initiative. After all, what I have been constantly talking about since 1994 has come true. But on the other hand, I have no special illusions about its implementation: so far, no country has responded to the call of the Nobel laureates. At least I don't know anything about such a response.
And there are objective reasons for this. "A war nobody wanted was inevitable" - this phrase, which has become a textbook, belongs to the pen of Barbara Tuchman, a historian and publicist from the United States, and is believed to characterize the situation before the First World War.
But that war (as well as the Second World War that followed a quarter of a century later) was inevitable because too many people wanted it. The very structure of an economy based on a constant growth in consumption is such that periodic wars are needed to ensure this growth.
That is why humanity did not live a single year without people killing each other with rapture around the world. Moreover, all parties to such conflicts are always firmly convinced of their own righteousness.
And it's not only about major clashes between states, but also about civil conflicts. Right now, we see different stages of carnage in Africa, Syria and Ukraine. Immediately after the New Year, riots unexpectedly flared up in Kazakhstan. It is difficult to say how many ideology and worldview disagreements are in these clashes, but it is certain that particular people benefit from them. What can I say if we observed quite serious clashes even in the most successful First World country - the USA last year!
Unfortunately, we must admit that all these conflicts no longer solve the main goal of all wars: recovery of the crippled economy. Back in 2008-2009, a global crisis broke out. They did not dare to deal with it using harsh methods, because this meant plummeting of consumption in Western countries and, consequently, the political suicide of the ruling elites.
The COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated the untreated diseases of the global economy, and now the world is once again in a situation where "no one wanted war...". I could cite dozens of signs of a crisis, but I will limit myself to just one. According to the IMF, the total world debt reached an incredible amount of 226 trillion dollars in 2020, which is 256 percent of world GDP! An unaffordable amount for humanity.
The traditional solution to such problems is the global war, which, as you know, "will solve everything." But let’s not delude ourselves: we will not be able to hide behind a nuclear missile shield. First, we are in the same boat as the rest of the world. And secondly, Russia, with its endless resources and, alas, not a very large population, has been serving as a traditional target and a coveted prize for the West for the past 300 years.
The trouble is that, according to many experts, this time even a war will not solve anything. The capitalist system based on the growth of consumption has exhausted its possibilities. This is recognized even in the homeland of capitalism, in Europe. So, regardless of the outcome of the third world war, a new one awaits survivors, and after it another and another. And so it will be, until humanity has completely exhausted itself.
In chess, there is such a concept - critical position, in which the next move can determine the victory or defeat of one of the players. In my opinion, now all of humanity is in such a critical position. We - and only we all together - must decide whether we agree to live as before, or do we want to avoid total annihilation?
Which road to take? In one of his recent speeches, the Dalai Lama said: “There are so many problems and so much suffering in the world, which are the work of our own hands. Why? As one of the world's seven billion people, I believe that everyone has a responsibility to make the world a happier place. Ultimately, we need to be more concerned with the welfare of others. In other words, we need compassion and kindness, which we now lack."
I am deeply convinced that the right to life should be recognized the highest priority of civilization from now on. The right to reasonable comfort, health, intellectual and spiritual development of every person wherever he lives. And, as a result, the right to a healthy environment, which implies the preservation (and sometimes the revival) of all the wealth of biodiversity, bestowed upon us from above.
I am not so naive as to believe that the principles of Vitacracy will be recognized by everyone and will be applied right from tomorrow. I am afraid it will be a difficult and long way for us to abandon old habits and start to live according to new principles. Probably, it will take a few generations before these principles finally become the basis of our civilization and each person’s life.
What do we get in return? Nothing. Except for the hope that in the next thousand years our descendants will live happily on this Earth.