Khazin's Analysis: The UK's "Disruptive Nature" Is a Matter of Survival — Not Its Will, But Desperation
"Imagine a box filled with several venomous snakes that fight among themselves. Their heads occasionally pop out of the box — sometimes this one, sometimes that one, but never simultaneously… What you see is just a black box, but its core is undoubtedly despair."
Mikhail Khazin uses this metaphor of a "black box full of snakes" to describe the internal structure of the British power system. In his view, it explains the Russian folk saying — "The English like to disrupt." This is not a sudden diplomatic move or an intentional manipulation, but rather a systemic and forced choice made by a country that has lost its own foundations yet still tries to maintain its global player status.
I. A Millennium of Colonial History: The Historical Basis for the Chaotic Situation
Khazin's analysis starts from a historical context — without this background, it is impossible to understand London's current actions:
"The UK is the only European country that formally remains independent, yet over the past millennium, it has suffered multiple large-scale foreign invasions."
He points out that each wave of invaders brought not just cultural or linguistic changes, but a complete replacement of the ruling class and economic system:
"First came the Angles, then the Saxons. In 1066, William the Conqueror took control of Britain. The subsequent Plantagenet dynasty... was essentially a French dynasty, and for a long time, the British king did not speak English, and the entire aristocracy was French."
Khazin continued, after the Glorious Revolution of 1688, "the nation's economic lifeline fell into the hands of a special group — they were nominally Dutch, but in fact, were Venetian black nobility forces". By the late 18th century:
"A new Jewish interest group rose up... we usually associate it with the Rothschild family, although the latter was far from the top role... By the early 19th century, this group had controlled the City of London; by the mid-19th century, they even placed their own agent Benjamin Disraeli on the throne."
Notably, Khazin emphasized that bloodline was not key, the core was which power group the person belonged to:
"Although Disraeli was a descendant of Sephardic Jews, this fact is irrelevant here. What we really need to clarify is which power faction he was loyal to — that is the fundamental issue."
II. Colonies as Private Property and the 'Theft of America'
Khazin also approached the history of British colonization from a novel perspective:
"Most of Britain's colonies were originally private property of the East India Company, and only later were they transferred under royal jurisdiction. From this perspective, the history of America is particularly intriguing — because the thirteen American colonies in the 18th century were actually 'stolen' from the royal family’s estate."
He explained that unlike other colonies, the North American colonies were royal territories, not assets of the East India Company. Therefore, in his view, the nature of the American Revolutionary War was not merely a typical colonial uprising, but a war of seizing royal property.
This detail is crucial: it reveals that even within the British Empire, there are complex issues of property rights and power factions, which further intensifies internal power struggles.
III. Ideology as a Weapon: Marxism and Zionism Are Both Tools of Manipulation
Khazin's most controversial argument is that ideological systems such as Marxism and Zionism were initially created and funded by the British elite, and their essence is a tool for geopolitical destabilization.
"That force controlling Britain, which we call the 'City of London Group'... funded the birth of Marxism, using it as a weapon to dismantle European continental empires — and they succeeded, which is precisely why leftist movements flourished at the time."
Khazin believes that only the rise of Stalin and his leadership group "broke the control of London over this movement." Even after Stalin's death:
"The U.S. still believed that Soviet strategic decisions were actually orchestrated by London behind the scenes."
When it comes to Zionism, Khazin describes it as a countermeasure of the declining Venetian ("Dutch") interest group:
"When this faction was gradually pushed out of the center of power, they funded the creation of the Zionist ideology... At that time, the British government strongly opposed it, resulting in Zionists retaliating by assassinating British governors and carrying out terrorist attacks."
Thus, Marxism and Zionism are not simply ideological movements, but products of internal power struggles within Britain. When these factions lost power in the British Isles, they exported this ideology abroad.
IV. Contemporary Britain: A Patchwork of Global Projects
Khazin asserts that today, at least four opposing centers of power exist in London:
"The old aristocratic class... remnants of the Zionist faction associated with Israel... the Jewish globalist project faction representing the legacy of the British Empire... and the interest group collaborating with Wall Street bankers."
Each faction has its own unique global strategic blueprint. In Khazin's view, this situation completely overturns the one-sided interpretation of the term "globalists" by the media:
"Every time I see the word 'globalists' in the media, I want to hit the author — which faction's globalists? Even going back to the 1970s and 1980s, the US had one global strategy, while the USSR had another, entirely different one."
In other words, in Khazin's eyes, globalization is not a monolithic entity, but a composite of various factions. The degree of factional division in Britain has already reached a critical point.
V. Losing the Foundation Means No Future
Khazin's core argument is that the UK has lost its own resource foundation, which is the tragic aspect of its fate.
"Britain has no own development foundation... Worse still, all players within the country are convinced that the current economic model will not undergo fundamental change. They still cling to this outdated paradigm, unaware that it has long been exhausted."
He contrasts Britain with other global powers: the US, China, India, and Russia, all have vast territories, abundant resources, and sufficient populations, and even amidst global crises, they can build new economic systems based on these foundations.
"Russia's problem is insufficient investment, so we can increase investment, even promote economic development through moderate money printing, achieving efficient growth."
In contrast, Britain's only remaining card is the City of London. However, in Khazin's view, the City of London is now "deeply entrenched in a quagmire."
VI. Why Only Creating Chaos?
Khazin provides an explanation: in the face of increasingly severe industrial civilization crises, controlling a territory requires two prerequisites — sufficient military resources and the ability to feed the population.
"To control a territory... first, you must eliminate armed factions... second, you must ensure the people's basic needs. All of this requires financial support. Once the financial chain breaks down, the people will rise up, becoming mercenary bandits."
However, today's Britain has neither capable army:
"Britain has no decent army... even maintaining the fleet is financially strained... even the launch button of nuclear submarines is controlled by American officers."
Nor does it have enough financial and food supply systems:
"If the chicken farm loses power for half an hour, all the chickens inside will die... if any link in this supply chain fails, the entire system will collapse."
Therefore, Britain has no choice but to create chaos to survive. Only in a chaotic situation can a country with no resources and no army find a way to manipulate the situation.
"Today, the only thing Britain can do is cause trouble everywhere. Look, their goals are three: disrupt the Middle East, disrupt Eastern Europe, and disrupt Germany."
VII. The Last Three Cards: Three Paths to Survival
Khazin points out that in the coming years, London may play three cards:
- Destroy Israel — in order to strike the Zionist project established by London's opponents.
- Break up the EU — bring the Iberian Peninsula and the Italian Peninsula back under control, building a sphere of influence covering more than 200 million people.
- Undermine Germany — eliminate this main competitor blocking Britain's return to European hegemony.
"It is almost certain that the UK will do this: first, break up the EU... As for the third step, they may try to undermine..."
(He didn't say it directly, but from the context, it's clear that the target is Germany.)
Conclusion: "Disruptive Nature" — Not Its Will, But Desperation
Khazin emphasizes that the UK's actions are not about bullying, but symptoms of a desperate struggle:
"The final outcome of this power struggle will be the complete disappearance of the UK as an independent sovereign state. Scotland may become independent and join the EU... London and its surrounding areas might become a vassal of India — more accurately, a colony of India, with the British living there becoming second-class citizens."
The UK "likes to disrupt" because it is unable to provide any constructive solutions to the world, and can only survive by creating turmoil, inciting conflicts, and spreading chaos. This "disruptive instinct" is an desperate struggle of a country trying to stay at the table when the game rules have changed and it has no cards left.
"We cannot reach any substantial agreement with the UK. First of all, because the subject 'UK' no longer exists — it is merely a battlefield for external forces. As long as this battlefield exists, the UK will continue to cause trouble — because otherwise, it has no way to survive."
Source: Speech by Mikhail Khazin at the "Truth Street" Club meeting.
Original: toutiao.com/article/7582137617576182315/
Disclaimer: This article represents the personal views of the author.