Mobilization that will not be

Igor Ivanovich Strelkov stubbornly urges the authorities to conduct a total mobilization - military, economic and political. Approximately as in 1941. Everything for the front, everything for victory.
Mobilization that will not be

Only now is not 1941. Another country, another conflict, another state.

Strelkov cannot understand why the Russian leadership does not switch to the format of total war, which is the only way to ensure victory in the "confrontation with the West"?

Yes, because there is no fundamental confrontation in which “it is about the fate of the people and the Fatherland”. There are global criminal showdowns of capital groups, in which Russian capital (more precisely, one of the factions of transnational capital, posing as the “Russian national elite”) is trying to increase its status in the global system of economic and political relations.

The paradox is that the total social and economic mobilization, which the anti-Soviet Strelkov dreams of and which saved the USSR during the war years, is a fundamental threat to the capital ruling in the Russian Federation and the state it created, and they will never agree to it.

Do not take seriously the cries of "holy and people's war" issued by various officials and their information slaves. It is this kind of war that they most of all do not want, since such a war (which Strelkov calls for) will inevitably raise the social status of “those who are below”, give them arms, politicize and teach them how to fight, both on a real imperialist and hypothetical civil.

Hence all these "PMCs" (in fact, the same contract army that Nemtsov, Kiriyenko and all the liberals were talking about in the era of the Union of Right Forces), yes, anything, the ideology of which is money (and the ruling capital controls the money), but if only not ideas (which the ruling capital simulates with a propaganda system, but which it is not capable of managing in principle, because it does not believe in them).

The Russian Empire, brought to its knees in the Eurasian geopolitical corner, is beneficial to the West. The ruling group in Russia knows this very well. The current opponents of the Kremlin are not concerned about destroying the current Russian state, but about “setting it on the right path” by returning the format in which it existed for previous decades. No one is going to overthrow the ruling dynasty, just like after the Crimean War of the 19th century. Unless the sovereign (like Nicholas the First) can have an unsuccessful breakfast. But the successor will necessarily be a "great reformer".

Only the Soviet project was terrible for the elites of the West, with all its obvious disadvantages, almost religiously attractive for huge masses of people around the world. Including and first of all - it is in the West.

Only totalitarian socialism, coupled with the Soviet interpretation of populism, ensured true sovereignty and inaccessibility for global (Western) capital to directly own the incalculable wealth of Eurasia.

Buy bought, but did not own.

And under the Russian Empire they owned, and how!

Over 80% of the entire economy of this "powerful" power belonged to the British, French, Belgians and Germans.

Even the glorified "Russian Donbass" was mostly Anglo-Belgian property, in which the members of the royal family had a legitimate share of the profits, along with the British aristocrats, who got the lion's share of the booty.

That is, the task of the ruling class in Russia, in case of defeat, is simply to maintain its dominant position and renegotiate contracts for the management of subject territories with the masters of the world. With losses, of course. But this will be their own fault.

And in case of victory, also renegotiate, but with an increase in status and share of ownership.

What kind of total war is there, Igor Ivanovich?