THE TIME OF MYTHS IS OVER

T en to fifteen years ago, in a conversation with acquaintances living in the United States, I asked about the political situation in America and the new president. Someone who knew my life and me better than others remained silent; the rest replied, “What can a president do? He was appointed by world leaders—they are the ones who run things.” I kept silent at the time, but I had already foreseen how the situation would develop, and later I spoke about it repeatedly in my interviews. And just a few days ago, a very promising young Georgian geopolitical analyst said to me: “You think everything depends on Trump!” I do not want to repeat myself—I have already written a great deal about Trump before. He is a product of his environment and his time, which is why I have now decided to present my view of the situation as a whole in a way that is somewhat unusual for me.

First, a bit of history. In 1991, together with Alexander Nikolayevich Yakovlev, a member of the CPSU Central Committee Politburo, and the head of France’s largest industrial company, Pechiney S.A. (a firm associated with a scandal following which the Prime Minister of France shot himself—or perhaps was shot), I met with the head of the Masonic lodge the Grand Orient of France. It was an interesting and respectful conversation (I was only 30 years old at the time), and he gave me a book as a gift.

Exactly eight years later, in New York (at a club near the park), my second meeting with the “grand old men” took place—oil and financial magnates (for example, one of the owners of ExxonMobil Corporation), all of them already over seventy. The meeting was connected with Saddam Hussein; a constructive dialogue ensued, and we parted on friendly terms.

I realized that, for them as well, I was “inconvenient,” just as I was for the “small leaders” of states (be it Armenia, Georgia, and the like), because even at that time I could see that the world was heading toward destruction. But I want to emphasize that the difference is enormous: “small leaders,” upon coming to power, very quickly begin to feel like masters of their people and to regard the state as their own property, whereas the “old men,” who had steered the world for more than a hundred years through finance, were intellectual, educated individuals.

It is true, however, that prolonged rule brings turbulence for both. I believe the strongest blow will be felt by America (not an attack on it—the problems originated from within: chaos, instability, and conflicts with Spanish-speaking states. I have long warned about this and written about it).

And although they—the “old men,” unlike the “small ones”—never openly presented themselves as world leaders, it was precisely they who brought the world to its current state, to the brink of nuclear war, and did so in a very short period of time—just fifty years.

Let us return to the present.

Not long ago, I had a conversation with a person I deeply love and respect—my friend—who for many years headed strategic intelligence and later led one of the world’s most powerful intelligence services. I suggested that he meet with a former Director of the CIA, not in Washington, Moscow, or London, but in the center of Yerevan, over a cup of coffee, to discuss what mistakes had been made in the past and to share their vision of the future with the younger generation. Given their immense life and professional experience, I am certain they sense more acutely the danger looming over humanity.

A couple of weeks ago, I shared this idea with a young Georgian geopolitical analyst and suggested that he voice it in an interview. However, since I understand that his appearance is delayed, I decided to outline it briefly myself, while he promised to give an interview once a platform for the meeting is ready.

Why am I speaking about this now? The “world leaders” who for decades dictated terms and made appointments through their financial power are no longer able to control the situation. The time of myths is over. We must understand that the global system and the mentality of people are changing; multipolarity should be rooted in peoples—their spiritual values and culture—rather than in states.