What happened is this: Russia ultimately abandoned its strategy of integration into the world system, i.e. the global West, while retaining its sovereignty, because the two orientations proved incompatible.

The Trump administration, which focused mainly on domestic issues and fighting globalist elites (the 'swamp') within the United States, still left some hope that the West would peacefully accept a multipolar world and agree on a form of partnership more or less acceptable to Russia without critically compromising its sovereignty; but with Biden's rise to power in the United States and the globalist forces behind this elderly politician in an obvious state of dementia, this possibility was blown out of the water.

As President Putin admitted in his speech to the State Duma, the West has succeeded in imposing war on us. In doing so, any prospect of cooperation has been swept away, if not forever, for a long time. The level of confrontation is so high that not even the return of Trump will change the situation. After all, already during his first presidential term, the globalists accused him precisely of not being active enough in intensifying relations with Russia. On this issue, his hands will be even more tied if he returns to lead the United States, which is very likely given the complete failure of Biden and the Democratic Party, which is rapidly losing all its positions.

The fate of one of the West's most Russophobic leaders, British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, who was recently forced from power in a coup, is telling. But not so much for his policy towards Russia, but rather for his blatant idiocy and total inadequacy, which has sickened even the British. Of course, the question is put to them: why did they have to elect a mad clown who is far beyond the bounds of reality and common sense? But the same question can be asked of many people. Of the clown - for the Ukrainians, of the senile degenerate out of his mind - for the Americans, of the insane narcissist - for the French, of the mafioso crook - for the Italians. But they will probably be replaced by no better figures: completely incompetent women of the Erasmus generation raised in the new feminist gender paradigm.

Russia is clearly not on course with the current Western elites, nor with those to come, not in the short, medium or long term. Of course, at some point the intensity of the confrontation will lessen, but in principle nothing will change, especially as it may not lessen, but the opposite.  In any case, the time has come to focus on ourselves and the world left open to us after the removal of the European carrier.

In my opinion, a new principle comes to the fore in this situation, that of sovereign efficiency. It will require a qualitative change in the governance structure of the state.

Before the Special Military Operation, the criterion of effectiveness was based on two factors:

Success in integration into the global world economy, which implied a rapprochement with the West and the global institutions it controlled;
Success in strengthening sovereignty, especially in terms of political governance and military capabilities.
Now the first criterion has been abolished, leaving the second and, note well, only the second. The first is no more. And what is to be done with the part of our power elite that has thrown everything it had into the first criterion and made news of it? The question is a very difficult one. I do not want to gloat, but the situation here is rather deplorable. What yesterday was something to be proud of, today is something to be accountable for. Some were afraid, others did not understand the seriousness of the change, and still others took a wait-and-see attitude, what if everything changed again.

The President has made it clear that things will not change and that this is only the beginning. But Westerners and liberals still hope that, and if...

The new conditions will also affect high-ranking officials who stood between the Westerners and sovereignty. Formally they are in a better position, if only their priorities are shifted to sovereignty. But here the following is revealed: the balance between one and the other created comfortable conditions for them, in which it was possible to do nothing, with reference to the complexity of the task at hand. With the SMO begun, this excuse is no longer valid. We will have to show fairly sovereign successes and this is obviously a problem. If there are no problems, that's fine, but something tells me that this category of power elite will have them.

At first glance, the army, the security forces and to some extent the Foreign Ministry are in the best position. They are on the fringes of the conflict and were initially only focused on sovereignty. But even here there can be difficulties. Now it is necessary to be sovereignly effective all the way, so that failure, laziness and incompetence can no longer be blamed on the 'fifth column'. Liberals and their networks are simply banished, which makes sense.

However, there is no longer any excuse for those on whom everything depends in a civilised confrontation. The urgency of the situation and, in essence, the state of emergency, when the country is under attack by the enemy and the confrontation sometimes even moves onto our territory, requires extraordinary qualities, valour, courage, resourcefulness, daring and even heroism, and this is a completely different account from simply preparing for a future confrontation under peaceful conditions. The conditions are no longer peaceful and require corresponding figures, war figures.

All this leads to the conclusion that the new criterion of sovereign efficiency will soon begin to make itself felt in all areas - especially in public administration, in the behaviour of the ruling elite, in personnel policy, in the reform of institutions that will have to be rebuilt in a new way. None of this is fatal, but it cannot fail to have an impact on personnel selection. And of course it will.

Translation by Lorenzo Maria Pacini