This series of articles is dedicated to the geopolitical struggle for influence. It explores methods, key concepts, and concludes with my personal insights and opinions, which are entirely optional for you to consider.

The objective is to convey useful and important information in a comprehensive, accurate, and clear manner. This is in response to the increasing informational pressure, which can be more effectively managed with the knowledge shared here.
The first part provides a general overview and structure, a concept from a socio-historical perspective, and important conclusions for understanding.

Everywhere I look, I see posts with an obvious and simple motive: «Tell me who your friend is, and I’ll tell you who you are. Their goal is clear — discredit. But politics is much more complex. Using logic and a little history, I will show that Gudkov’s judgments are flawed.

Does this adage apply to the geopolitical scene?

Of course not. Countries outlive people, and having the same allies over time is a rarity, driven by pre-existing relationships. We mostly live in peaceful times where almost everyone is an ally. The world has only divided into groups in the run-up to major wars. Before that, allies were «one-offs»: they fought together and that was it, with friends and enemies constantly changing.

Principles at play in politics

In politics, as you may have guessed, interests and goals often form the basis for alliances. Over the course of decades, a country may change its goals and allies several times, based on the most favorable conditions. Enemies do exist, but ordinary assessments don’t apply in politics. Relationships here are much more complex, based not just on sympathy but on mutual benefits and prospects.

Modern geopolitical examples

The most influential powers, such as the US, China, and Russia, are actively involved in international politics. The primary goal is to grow themselves while slowing down others. Let’s look at some examples:

• USA: As the strongest power, the USA secured resources through agreements with Saudi Arabia, South American and African countries. When negotiations failed, force and cunning were used. The principle of «divide and conquer» is well demonstrated in Iraq and Syria, where the US actively intervened in the conflicts.
• U.S. professionalism: This is evident in the subjugation of states without open warfare, drawing them into economic and political relationships. Examples include support for favored candidates or opposition to regime change.
• USSR and Afghanistan: A good example where the U.S. funded the opposing side, causing significant damage to the USSR. In Iraq, the US secured resources by supporting one side.
• Syrian conflict: Complicated by Russia’s presence, leading to an interesting precedent: two superpowers fought for their side’s right to power, discrediting the opposition.

So, Who are the terrorists?

Terrorist organizations are often labeled based on who wins. In Syria, the opposition lost; in Afghanistan, the Taliban (a banned organization) took power; and in Iraq, ISIS emerged. Terrorists are those who do not have an official voice, but assert their right to power.

An example is Hamas, initially supported by Israel, but later demanding power in Palestinian autonomy, which led to its designation as a terrorist organization.

Conclusion

It doesn’t matter who the state’s ally is when it wins. Russia’s alliance with Hamas is no different from Israel’s alliance with the U.S. when it comes to disputes over autonomous territories. The victors become the official power, while the rest are labeled terrorists and traitors.

These mind games are part of the information and psychological warfare aimed at undermining trust in the various sides. Returning to our example, Gudkov, possibly out of ignorance or naivety, tries to discredit Russia because its allies are labeled as «terrorists,» when in fact they are political parties and resistance movements.

In support of Russia, I present facts to justify its allies, while Gudkov uses labels and engages in information warfare.