Will there be a war between Russia and the USA? How does this threaten humanity? Experts predicted a war between Russia and the United States. Reality there will be a war with America.
The Third World War is a hypothetical conflict between political entities (states, political groups, etc.) with the possibility of occurring in the world for the third time.
In the 20th century, the most likely participants in the Third World War could be the superpowers of the USA and the USSR. Since the end of the 20th century and the beginning of the 21st century, the Third World War has been called a potential military conflict that could arise as an escalation after the use of nuclear or other weapons of mass destruction by new nuclear powers antagonizing each other (for example, India and Pakistan) or as a counteraction to internationally prohibited development their nuclear missile potential (for example, North Korea and Iran), or as a nuclear war between Russia and the United States, initiated by the authorities, careless actions or out of control representatives of one of the parties.
Predictions about World War III that you didn't know
1. Predictions of a 90-year-old Norwegian woman Gunhild Smelhus from the town of Valdre was recorded in 1968 by Pastor Emmanuel Tollefsen-Minos (1925-2004) - one of the most influential evangelical preachers in Norway.
“The third war will be the biggest catastrophe in history, it will not be marked by political crises and will begin unexpectedly,” Smelhus said. “The prosperity of Europe and an illusory sense of security will force people to move away from religion: churches will become empty and turn into places of entertainment.” The value system will also be changed: “People will live as husband and wife, although not in marriage”; “paternity before marriage and adultery in marriage will be natural”; "TV will be full of violence, so brutal that it will teach people to kill."
Smelhus cited a wave of immigration as one of the signs of the approaching war:
“People from poor countries will come to Europe, they will also come to Scandinavia and Norway.” The presence of migrants will lead to tension and social unrest. “It will be a short and very brutal war, and it will end with an atomic bomb.” “The air will be so polluted that we will not be able to breathe. In America, Japan, Australia - in rich countries - water and soil will be destroyed." “And those living in rich countries will flee to poor countries, but they will be as cruel against us as we were against them,” says the notes of a Norwegian pastor.
2. The Serbian seer is very popular in the Balkans Mitar Tarabić(died 1899) - peasant from the village of Kremna. He said that he heard voices in his head that told him about the fate of his people and the world. In his prophecies, he also saw “columns of refugees on the Serbian borders.”
“In this war, scientists will invent the most varied and strange cannonballs. Exploding, instead of killing, they will bewitch all living things - people, armies, livestock. Under the influence of this witchcraft they will sleep instead of fight, but then they will wake up again." (Serbs. - Ed.) we won’t have to fight in this war, others will fight over our heads,” said Tarabić. According to the seer, the final conflict will affect most of the globe: “Only one country at the end of the world, surrounded by seas and as large as our Europe, will live in peace and without problems.” What country is this, reader, guess for yourself.
3. Prediction Herman Kappelman from Scheidingen
“In a few years a terrible war will break out. Harbingers of the approaching war will be primroses in the pastures and widespread restlessness. But nothing will start this year yet. But when the short winter has passed, everything will bloom prematurely, and it will seem that everything is calm around, then no one will believe in peace anymore.”
4. "Forest Prophet" Mühlhiazl (1750-1825)
“One of the noticeable signs of the approaching war will be a “construction fever.” They will build everywhere. And everything will not look like houses, including buildings that resemble honeycombs. When people get so carried away with their arrangement, as if they were never going to leave the earth, then the “great destruction of the world” will begin.”
5. Abbot Couriquier (1872)
“A strong fight will begin. The enemy will literally pour in from the East. In the evening you will still say “peace!”, “peace!”, and the next morning they will already be at your doorstep. In the year when a powerful military confrontation begins, spring will be so early and good that in April the cows will be driven out to the meadows, oats will not yet be reaped, but wheat will be possible.”
6. Let’s finish the review with the predictions of the Bulgarian clairvoyant Wangi. Russians believe her because her prophecies turned out to be surprisingly accurate. As for the Third World War, just before her death, when asked about the beginning of the war, she answered: “Syria has not yet fallen.” From here the conclusion is that Syria cannot be allowed to fall, which is what Russia is doing.
Whether a third war is about to break out or, as some argue, is already being waged in the form of smaller conflicts, it will undoubtedly lead to the destruction of humanity. Albert Einstein said the following about this: “I do not know what weapons will be used during the Third World War, but the fourth will be fought with sticks and stones...”.
Who needs a world war?
A number of authoritative experts are confident that a global conflict is beneficial, first of all, to the United States. This is explained by the fact that the Americans urgently need to retain their status as an economic and political leader, which they are rapidly losing against the backdrop of a strengthening China. By starting wars in different regions of the planet, the White House government gains uncontrolled “access” to the natural resources of states declared by Washington as “enemies of world democracy.” The same methods of “soft capture” are used by America in relation to Russia. To achieve this, the Western coalition is using all possible levers, including:
- EU economic sanctions;
- decline in oil prices;
- support for protest movements within Russia.
Considering the current situation on the world geopolitical arena, we can conclude that America is currently actively using the same methods that contributed to the collapse of the USSR in 1991.
On the morning of April 11, 2018, a “doomsday plane” took off into the skies over America. This is a special E-4B airliner, which has the second name “Aircraft of the End of the World”.
Members of the US command center must be saved on it: President Donald Trump, as well as the country's top military leadership.
The aircraft is protected from a nuclear explosion and is alerted only in the event of the outbreak of a nuclear war, when there is a risk of damage or destruction of control structures on the ground.
When will the war with America begin?
A new round of tension between Russia and the United States began after the American leader threatened to retaliate against the use of chemical weapons in Syria (Douma province). The fact of a chemical attack on April 7, 2018 is denied by the Syrian authorities, as well as the Russian Ministry of Defense.
However, the American President threatened to make a decision on the further actions of the US Air Force within 24-48 hours. Washington promised to find out which states are involved in the latest events in Syria, and Donald Trump openly threatened that they “will all pay the price.”
The world is on the verge of World War III, when the arms race has reached its peak, and the economies of Russia and the United States are cracking under the pressure of overproduction of the latest murder weapons. Michel Nostradamus also agrees with this opinion, who in his predictions directly indicated that the Great War between the countries would begin in 2018.
The famous clairvoyant wrote that his forecast for 2018 assumes the beginning of a big war in France, after which most of the countries of Europe will be attacked. The notes of Nostradamus also indicate that peace will come soon after this, “but only a few will be happy with it.”
The eminent prophet indicated that the war between “the two great world powers will last 27 years.” The Nostradamus notes also hint that Russia, North Korea and China will join forces to jointly attack the United States.
Will there be a nuclear war in 2018?
The seer Vanga also said that the Third World War was inevitable, foreshadowing the fatal End of the World immediately after the fall of Syria. The great clairvoyant directly indicated that China's power will reach its apogee by 2018. But the Russian economy could suffer significantly due to the cessation of oil production.
Military experts and forecasters agree that the fall of the ruble and the explosive situation in the world are closely related. America is preparing an unpleasant surprise for Vladimir Putin on May 7, 2018, since his next inauguration is scheduled for this day. But at a meeting at the Central Intelligence Agency, they named the exact date for the start of the Third World War, which falls at the end of April.
The United States is aggravating the situation in Syria more and more, but America is afraid of a real war with Russia. “In relations with the United States, everything is heading towards direct confrontation. They are afraid of this because they have never fought with a powerful power anywhere, only with small countries. And we have new weapons that we can test during such a conflict,” Zhirinovsky wrote.
If a war breaks out between Russia and the United States, military operations will be carried out on foreign territory. “Not a single bomb will fall either on Russian soil or on US soil. All actions will unfold in Syria or Ukraine, all misfortunes will fall on the heads of the long-suffering Ukrainians, Arabs, Persians, and Turks. We, of course, feel very sorry for these peoples,” Zhirinovsky wrote.
What will happen to the ruble exchange rate in the near future?
After the introduction of new sanctions against Russia, the stock market collapsed, with some shares losing more than 30% of their value. Trump’s statements about a possible US missile attack on Syria also created a little panic. The fall of the ruble against the dollar and euro accelerated.
Already on April 11, 2018, the price for the euro was 80 rubles, and for the dollar - 64.5 rubles, which is comparable only to the rush of 2015
Large Russian businessmen literally lost about fifteen billion dollars in just a couple of days due to a sharp jump in the foreign exchange market.
The US Treasury has tightened sanctions against 38 oligarchs from Russia. The most famous among them: Oleg Deripaska (the main shareholder of the Rusal company), Igor Rotenberg, Kirill Shamalov and Viktor Vekselberg.
The collapse of the Russian national currency reduced the demand for foreign tours by almost 30 percent during the May holidays of 2018
The trend of strengthening the national currency in countries that are controlled by the US government speaks in favor of a deliberate collapse of the ruble exchange rate in Russia. Most likely, the American government used sanctions as its main trump card. Such pressure should not only reduce Putin’s political rating, but also force him to refuse to invest additional funds in the development of the Russian defense complex.
If a war breaks out between Russia and the United States, who will win?
Relations between Russia and the United States today remain very tense, and in the event of the outbreak of the Third World War, the chances of victory are approximately 50 to 50. The technical superiority of the United States is undeniable, but Russia also has something to answer in the event of unification with other countries
Both Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin are unlikely to decide to arrange a nuclear Armageddon, since this could lead to mutual self-destruction. Clairvoyants predict the End of the World precisely if one of the parties decides to openly use the atomic bomb. According to the soothsayers, in this case, all life on Earth will die...
When will NATO start a war with Russia?
The arms race is fueled by the efforts of strategists of the North Atlantic Alliance, who have already paraded along the Ukrainian Maidan and are eager to do the same on Red Square in Moscow.
However, leading politicians in Russia and America do not want bombs to fall on the cities of their countries. Great states are quite capable of protecting their population from the horrors of war, which cannot be said about the countries of the Middle East and the former USSR.
The countries that are most likely to come under attack are Turkey, Iran, Iraq, Israel, as well as Arab states. It is there that they will practice strikes, test the strength of enemy equipment, make provocations and demonstrate their military power.
According to the leader of the LDPR, Vladimir Zhirinovsky, it is beneficial for the Russian Federation to maintain a military confrontation with the United States, since one can clearly see what their army is capable of.
Dangerous events that are bringing our planet closer to the End of the World will continue, starting in 2018, for more than one decade in a row. And in the coming year of the Yellow Earth Dog, people all over the world will see special signs of the Higher Powers, indicating the approach of the Apocalypse.
For example, three solar eclipses and two lunar eclipses during the year, which is more than what happens in quiet years. And according to the prophecy of the Hopi Indians, in the second half of 2018 the Blue Star will collide with our planet, which will completely destroy all life on Earth.
Also, Easter 2018 fell on April 8 and almost coincided with the Annunciation, which is always celebrated on April 7. Clairvoyants say that these special signs are a direct warning from the Subtle World about future disasters and wars.
In contact with
Recently, the previously forgotten threat of a third world war is again a topic of general discussion. A week ago, US and Russian military vehicles almost collided in Syria. NATO is increasing its military potential on the border with our country and is not going to give up hostile rhetoric.
What are the scenarios for a possible military conflict? We need to think about this in order to prevent the not entirely adequate actions of our “Western partners,” who have long since turned back into “probable adversaries.”
Military analyst Valentin Vasilescu from Romania, a country at the forefront of NATO's anti-Russian front, is trying to answer this question based on the tactics and characteristics of the weapons used in recent US military operations. On the pages of the English-language analytical center "Katekhon" he argues that aggression by the United States and its allies against Russia is not an excluded scenario.
The United States is obliged to stop Russia at any cost, which, through its actions in Syria, and before that in Crimea and Ukraine, is changing the American-centric status quo. In order to maintain hegemony, the Americans are heading towards a big war.
Main direction of impact
According to Vasilescu, the main direction where we can expect a US strike is the west. "The United States is not planning a landing in the Russian Far East; instead, like Napoleon and Hitler, the United States will seek to occupy the strategically important capital of the country - Moscow", he sums up.
According to him, the goal of Euromaidan was initially to create a convenient springboard for aggression against Russia. Lugansk, the analyst notes, is located only 600 kilometers from Moscow. However, the plan of American aggression was preventively thwarted after the reunification of Russia with Crimea and the creation of people's republics in the East of Ukraine.
After this, the plan of American aggression was revised, and the Baltic direction was chosen as the new zone of aggression. From the Latvian border to Moscow is the same 600 kilometers, and to St. Petersburg it’s even closer.
To ensure that the local population did not resent the fact that their countries would soon be turned into a springboard for aggression, the American and local media and generals began to talk in unison about the fact that the Baltic and Northern European countries were in danger of attack from Russia. Norway even launched a series about the future Russian occupation.
In addition, the United States increased pressure on Sweden and Finland. They are not joining NATO yet, but they have already deployed American troops. Moreover, in May 2016, the northern quintet - a meeting of the foreign ministers of Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Norway and Iceland - announced that it was urgent to neutralize the Russian threat. Defense cooperation between Swedish-Finnish neutrals and NATO members was proposed as a way out.
According to Valentin Vasilescu, NATO's main task is to inflict a quick defeat on Russia, which will force the country's political system to collapse. Pro-American agents of influence will overthrow Vladimir Putin, and the war can be considered won. Therefore, the United States will act according to Hitler’s logic, relying on blitzkrieg tactics. In the event of Russia's defeat, NATO will occupy territories up to the line St. Petersburg - Veliky Novgorod - Kaluga - Tver and Volgograd.
At the same time, as the expert notes, due to the rapid modernization of the Chinese army, which will pose a serious danger to the United States in the Pacific theater of operations, the Pentagon will not be able to throw all the necessary forces and means against Russia. At least a third of all US armed forces will have to be concentrated in the Pacific region, anticipating a possible attack from China, now allied with Russia.
Probable time of impact
According to a military analyst, the US only has a chance of success if it invades before 2018. After 2018, the chances of success will decrease significantly, since after the rearmament of the Russian army is completed, the Pentagon will lose its technological advantage in conventional weapons. And in order to win the war, you will have to resort to nuclear weapons - and this is a step towards mutual nuclear destruction.
War in the air - colossal losses
The main targets of the first wave of air raids will be Russian airfields and air defense systems. Russia is armed with high-quality fighters and mobile anti-aircraft systems capable of detecting and destroying even a fifth-generation American aircraft.
Therefore, even with the support of NATO allies, the US military will not be able to achieve air superiority. With great effort, they can achieve temporary air superiority in some areas along the Russian border, 300 kilometers deep. In order to secure flights in those areas where Russian air defense systems are actively operating, the Americans will be forced to throw at least 220 aircraft into the first wave of attack (including 15 B-2 bombers, 160 F-22A and 45 F-35). The B-2 can carry 16 GBU-31 laser-guided bombs (900 kg), 36 GBU-87 cluster bombs (430 kg), or 80 GBU-38 bombs (200 kg). The F-22A can carry 2 JDAM bombs (450 kg) or 8 bombs of 110 kg each.
A serious obstacle for the Americans will be the fact that the AGM-88E missiles, designed to combat air defense systems with a range of 160 kilometers, are too large to be loaded inside the F-22A and F-35s (4.1 m long and 1 m high).
If they are installed on pylons, the vaunted “invisibility” of these aircraft will suffer. Previously, this problem did not arise, since in the last 20 years the United States has waged wars exclusively against opponents with outdated air defense systems.
In order to complicate the task of Russian air defense systems, the United States will fire more than 500-800 cruise missiles from ships and submarines in the Baltic Sea. Russian aircraft, primarily MiG-31 fighters, and air defense systems will be able to neutralize most of these missiles, the expert is sure, but that is not all that the Americans can use.
At the same time, F-18, F-15E, B-52 and B-1B aircraft, being at a safe distance from the Russian border and not entering the range of the S-400 systems, will strike with AGM-154 mini-cruise missiles or AGM-158, whose range is up to 1000 kilometers.
They can hit ships of the Russian Baltic Fleet and missile batteries of the Iskander and Tochka complexes. If successful, the Americans will be able to neutralize 30 percent of the Russian radar network, 30 percent of the S-300 and S-400 battalions stationed between Moscow and the Baltic countries, and 40 percent of the components of the automated reconnaissance, control, communications and target designation system, in addition, airfields will be affected. The departure of more than 200 planes and helicopters will be blocked.
However, the expected losses of the Americans and their allies will be 60-70 percent of the aircraft and cruise missiles that will enter Russian airspace during the first wave of air raids and strikes.
But what will be the most important obstacle to NATO forces gaining air supremacy? According to the expert, these are effective means of electronic warfare.
We are talking about the Krasukha-4 complexes of the SIGINT and COMINT types. These systems can effectively conduct electronic warfare against US LaCrosse and Onyx tracking satellites, ground-based and air-based radars (AWACS), including those located on RC-135 reconnaissance aircraft and Northrop Grumman RQ-4 Global Hawk drones.
According to the expert, the electronic warfare systems in service with the Russian troops can effectively interfere with American bombs and missiles with laser, infrared and GPS guidance.
Russia can also create two zones on the border with the Baltic countries in the areas of St. Petersburg and Kaliningrad that are impenetrable to enemy aircraft, combining air defense systems (S-400, Tor-M2 and Pantsir-2M) and electronic warfare.
Currently, 8 S-400 battalions protect the skies around the Russian capital, one is in Syria. In total, the Russian armed forces have 20-25 S-400 battalions. Some of them could be redeployed to the western border along with 130 S-300 battalions, which could be upgraded and equipped with the 96L6E radar, which effectively detects NATO stealth systems.
Currently, an even more advanced air defense system, the S-500, is being tested, which is expected to enter service with the troops in 2017.
The author is confident that due to Russia's advantage in electronic warfare, NATO will not be able to achieve an advantage in electronic warfare. As a result, in the first wave of attacks against Russia, NATO troops will strike decoy targets in 60-70 percent of cases.
Due to the high losses in the first wave of airstrikes and the inability to achieve air superiority, NATO air forces will suffer high losses. The American group of 5,000 aircraft will be joined by their allies. But they will not be able to provide more than 1,500 aircraft.
War at sea
At sea, the Pentagon can deploy up to 8 aircraft carriers, 8 helicopter carriers, several dozen landing craft, missile carriers, destroyers and submarines. These forces could be joined by two Italian aircraft carriers and one each from Spain and France.
Russian anti-ship defense systems - cruise missiles Kh-101 and NK Kalibr - move at subsonic speed and can be neutralized at the initial stage of approach. It will be more difficult for NATO to cope with the P-800 Onyx and P-500 Basalt missiles.
And finally, in 2018, the Russian fleet will receive the “aircraft carrier killer” - the 3M22 Zircon missile, capable of traveling at hypersonic speeds at low altitudes. “The United States will not be able to oppose anything to this weapon.”, - the expert concludes.
Superiority in armored vehicles
The armored vehicles currently in service with the Russian army - the T-90 and T-80 tanks and modernized versions of the T-72 tanks, Vasilescu notes, correspond to their NATO counterparts. According to the expert, only the BMP-2 and BMP-3 are inferior to the American M-2 Bradley.
However, the new T-14 Armata Tank has no analogues in the world. In all respects, it surpasses the German Leopard 2, the American M1A2 Abrams, the French AMX 56 Leclerc, and the British Challenger 2. The same can be said about the T-15 and Kurganets-25 infantry fighting vehicles and the new VPK-7829 Boomerang amphibious armored personnel carrier. After 2018, Russia will have the most modern armored vehicles, which will radically change the balance of forces on the battlefield.
During the Gulf War and the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the United States used mobile teams of tanks, vehicles, armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles to breach enemy defenses. The actions of these groups in Russia will need to be supported by massive airborne operations.
And here an unpleasant surprise awaits them. If against the Russian Pantsir and Tunguska air defense systems, as well as against the Igla and Strela MANPADS, American combat helicopters and aircraft can use the AN/ALQ-144/147/157 electronic warfare system, then against the 9K333 MANPADS "Verba", entering service with Russian troops in 2016, this equipment is powerless.
Verba's homing sensors are capable of operating simultaneously at three frequencies in the visible and infrared spectra. "Verba" can work in conjunction with the "Barnaul-T" system, responsible for electronic reconnaissance, electronic warfare and automatic control of landing forces. "Barnaul-T" neutralizes the radar of enemy aircraft and interferes with the operation of laser guidance systems for enemy missiles and bombs.
RESULT
As can be seen from the above analysis, even now a war using conventional weapons can be costly to our Western adversaries. The rearmament of the Russian army, which will take place by 2018, will completely eliminate the technological advantage of the West in the military sphere. The more ready, powerful and equipped our Armed Forces are, the less likely it will be that the West will decide on open war against Russia.
A situation is developing in Syria that could end in a large-scale military conflict between Russia and the United States. A detailed analysis of the quality of weapons, the experience of armies, the theater of operations, strategic capabilities and the likelihood of the use of nuclear weapons. War scenarios and conflict results.
What is behind the British hysteria: Over the past 10 years, Putin has moved the front line away from Russia by hundreds of kilometers.
Before starting to present my vision, I would like to ask readers who believe that all peoples and states (with the exception of “bloodthirsty”, “barbaric” Russia) consist of sexless angels who feed without waste on ambrosia, which they protect from barbarians with the help of highly humane bombers, inheriting traditions of the high Renaissance - do not bother yourself with reading an odious text - nor my thinking compatriots with the products of your indignation.
So. In Syria, a situation may be developing that deserves comparison with standing on the Ugra River or crossing the Rubicon, notes Sergei Khaprov in his article on FB.
Numbers first. Various sources report that NATO naval ships armed with more than six hundred SLCMs (sea-launched cruise missiles) are concentrated in the Eastern Mediterranean, the Red Sea and the Indian Ocean. For non-specialists, let me remind you that three invasion operations in Iraq and one in Afghanistan began with a cruise missile strike from the above-mentioned waters. Beginning in 1991, when the USSR and then Russia did not provide support to the attacked country for the first time since 1945, NATO interventions began with a massive missile and air strike (MRAU) using 700-1200 sea- and air-launched cruise missiles and up to 1,000 fighters and bombers. The USA and NATO have their air bases in Italy, Turkey, Qatar and Diego Garcia, in addition, B-2 and B-52 strategic bombers can attack from airfields in North America. This allows you to build up a strike force in a matter of hours.
Such a concentration of forces means the possibility of intervention in Syria (it would be surprising if it were in Saudi Arabia) within one or two hours after receiving the order. The result of such a MRAU is predictable, based on the experience of three interventions in Iraq, one in Yugoslavia and one in Afghanistan - the complete suppression of the resistance of the defenders and the destruction of critical infrastructure. According to information from unofficial sources, in 2016 the United States and NATO were already preparing a similar operation for Syria, but did not implement it.
WHAT CHANGED? AND WHAT'S SPECIAL HERE?
After 1945, the United States and European powers could not unilaterally use military force against countries that were supported by the USSR. For those who do not know, let me remind you that many modern states, especially in the Middle East, only after World War II ceased to be colonies of the liberal democracies of Europe. Iran, Iraq, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Israel and other countries have state borders drawn by the British and French after 1947. In the 50-60s, as a result of revolutions, national leaders came to power in Egypt (Nasser), Syria (Assad), Iraq (Hussein), and Libya (Kadafi). When the “terrible” USSR suppressed the uprising in Hungary in 1956, “saints” France and Britain suppressed the uprising in Egypt three years earlier. In 1962, “holy” France lost the war for Algeria, and six years later, in 1968, the “terrible” USSR suppressed the uprising in Czechoslovakia.
At the same time, the “saints” of the United States were already fully democratizing the former French colony of Vietnam. (I would like to ask my “well-read” compatriots, concerned about the centuries-old “corruption” of Russia, why modern French, English and Americans have changed and have nothing in common with their parents, while we, modern Russians, are continuers of “barbaric” traditions. But let’s leave the discussion split personality in those who are “pure” in soul and thought, for the next article). By the way, I was recently surprised to learn that in 1977, in accordance with the secret Indo-Soviet military treaty, the Soviet nuclear fleet prevented the American fleet from interfering in the Indo-Pakistani conflict. I found out because India celebrated the fortieth anniversary of this event in 2017.
In 1991, the history of the former colonies was reversed. By 2018, the leaders of Iraq, Libya, Egypt, and Yemen were eliminated or removed from power. Syria is on the brink of the abyss, followed by Iran and the countries of Central Asia. After taking control of these territories, China can forget about independent energy supplies from Iran, Iraq, Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan and Saudi Arabia. The supply of energy, food and goods to him and from him by sea and/or the Silk Road without the permission of the United States and the collective West, as in the last 200 years (minus the period from 1953 to 1991), will be impossible. For lovers of naive alternative scenarios, I invite you to imagine a country that, alone, under the threat of being hit by 1,200 cruise missiles and 1,000 aircraft, will not agree with sanctions for meldonium, oppression of gays, disrespect for animals, or a flask with white powder. Evidence, as we already know, is not needed; a statement in the media is enough.
The only superpower that in the twentieth century could limit the collective West, in 1991 gave up Iraq and the Arab countries, in 1994 - left Eastern Europe, in 1999 - gave up Yugoslavia, in 2001 - surrendered the ABM Treaty, in 2004 – accepted the expansion of NATO, and color revolutions in Georgia and Ukraine with the prospect of the latter’s membership in NATO. After the admission of the Baltic republics, Ukraine and Georgia to NATO, Russia would lose control over the Baltic and Black Seas and return to pre-Petrine times. Positional areas of the American missile defense system in Poland and Romania removed the issue of nuclear deterrence, and control over gas pipelines through Ukraine and Poland deprived Russia of income and influence in Europe. In principle, the game was played brilliantly, and no one perceived Putin’s statement in 2007 at the Munich Security Conference about the beginning of CONFRONTATION as anything other than pathetic eccentricity.
Here you can pause to listen to accusations of love for conspiracy theories. Talk about the randomness of coincidences, the lack of connections between cozy European cafes, the murder of Kadafi, support for ISIS (an organization banned in Russia - editor's note), NATO missile destroyers in the Black Sea, the boycott of the Sochi Olympics due to the oppression of gays, the suspension of athletes from the Olympics in Rio because of meldonium and the introduction of economic sanctions for the downed Malaysian Boeing. So, if you were hit on the back of the head, poked in the side with a knife, had your pockets picked out and were detained for harassing the attackers, know that all this has only one thing in common - you yourself, and look for the reason in yourself.
CONFRONTATION (beginning)
We must pay tribute to our Western partners; they are deploying geopolitical parties professionally, having more than 200 years of experience in such matters. Already in 2008, simultaneously with the beginning of the global economic crisis, which hit Russia’s weak economy harder than the West, a war with Georgia began. The war, on the one hand, confirmed the bet on Medvedev’s indecisiveness and the outdated support of the Russian army, and on the other, it sounded the first alarm bell: for the first time since 1979, Russia confidently used its troops on the territory of another state (the Afghan syndrome has been overcome) and the old truth was confirmed: strategic and the operational-strategic planning and preparation of the theater of military operations by the Russian General Staff places Russia in the major league.
Many of my friends were indignant that our tanks did not take Tbilisi and accused the Commander-in-Chief of indecisiveness. The “pure” souls were indignant that we did not immediately give up and repent. In fact, the active phase of the confrontation has begun. Russia began to accustom the West to its harsh reaction, but against the backdrop of old weapons and the rapid end of hostilities after NATO’s shout, it did not give reason for serious concerns.
Then there was the death of Kadafi and the collapse of Libya, in response to the castling of Medvedev and Putin. The incredible corruption scandal with Serdyukov, which shielded from the attention of Western military analysts tens of billions of dollars of investment in R&D for new weapons. Russia is accelerating the creation of special operations forces. In 2013, it intervened together with China in the Syrian conflict and removed and destroyed chemical weapons. The result is the prevention of a NATO invasion of Syria. The confrontation is beginning to move away from Russian territory, the world is getting used to Russia’s independence in the Middle East. But Russia's forces are still weak, and the West is reacting moderately.
The attack on the Sochi Olympics is intensifying; it could raise the national self-awareness and self-confidence of Russians. The color revolution in Kyiv, planned for the 2015 elections, is abruptly postponed to the end of 2013. The heads of all Western powers are boycotting the Sochi Olympics (in defense of gays, the environment, in the fight against corruption and against the genocide of the Circassian people). The confrontation is moving to the borders of Russia. The coup d'état in Kyiv moves the CONFRONTATION into the next phase.
CONFRONTATION (moderate escalation)
The plot is proposed to be simple. Habitually provoked “popular” demonstrations on Maidan Nezalezhnosti (Tahrir Square, Bolotnaya Square, in Aleppo, etc.) for everything good against everything bad. Acute political crisis. Russia, taught by the experience of Gorbachev (he was verbally promised non-expansion of NATO to the East), fixes the settlement of the crisis with the signing of an agreement by the three foreign ministers of Poland, Germany and Sweden. The next day, the agreement was violated without any responsibility from the signatory countries. There are four years left before 20 NATO countries verbally accuse Russia of “highly likely” using military gas in Britain.
Hall Gardner, a famous American geostrategist in his book “Crimea, Global Rivalry, and the Revenge of History” (2015) provides interesting discussions of Henry Kissinger, Paul Nietzsche, Senator Lugar and other Cold War masters who throughout the 90s warned the Western establishment against expansion NATO and ignoring Russian interests. It is interesting that the issue of Crimea was raised back in 1994, and was formulated as the “internationalization” of the Russian city of Sevastopol and the Black Sea, that is, giving them not a national, but an international status under the control of NATO-EU and Russia. Later they decided to exclude Russia from this group. For those “pure” in soul and thought, let me explain that NATO control over the Black Sea was planned from the beginning of the 90s. The only question is that the security forces, who realistically assessed the cost of the war with Russia, proposed to take its interests into account, while the liberals preferred to do without Russia.
The coup in Kyiv, as an escalation of the CONFRONTATION, took place during the Olympics in Sochi (the war in Georgia during the Olympics in Beijing). Russia has only just begun to concentrate, and Hillary Clinton has already proactively announced that Putin, like Hitler, is using the Olympics to disguise military plans. (Four years remain until Boris Johnson declares that Putin “highly likely” used military gas in Britain on the eve of the 2018 World Cup in order to cover up his war plans like Hitler.)
Russia, as befits a military superpower with major league traditions, avoided a double trap. On the one hand, Russia did not agree to a large-scale invasion, which would have led to great economic, political and human costs and would have given NATO carte blanche for a massive military response. Many of my “hot” compatriots still criticize Putin for his indecisiveness and refusal to rush a tank to the Dnieper. My other compatriots, “pure” in soul and thought... in short, are also not happy.
On the other hand, Russia took away a key asset in this phase of the CONFRONTATION, the prize for which the scenario was developed - the Crimean Peninsula - an unsinkable aircraft carrier that allows it to control the Middle East, Eastern Mediterranean, Eastern Europe and part of Southern and Western Europe. The fact that the game was played was confirmed by Kissinger’s visit to Moscow (we will return to him more than once), who in an interview with the world’s media stated that the reunification of Crimea with Russia is an unpleasant fact, but an accomplished one, and we must begin to build new relations taking into account Russia’s interests.
The West, as a professional player with more than 200 years of experience in geopolitical struggle, threw in home preparations: they bombed the eastern regions of Ukraine to force Russia to officially send in troops, dropped Boeing to impose economic sanctions, tore up all defense contracts between Ukraine and Russia, rearmed the fleet and Russian transport aviation were critically dependent on these contracts. (We will return to the rearmament of the navy and air force when discussing the principle of Big Ships).
At this stage, the parties were solving their problems. The West, still underestimating the power and determination of Russia, has the initiative, but is trying to return Russia to a unipolar stall with a minimum of costs, especially military ones. Russia is trying to reduce its financial and technological-industrial rearmament base. Neither the speed nor the scale of rearmament are realized by either Western military analysts or Russian defense enthusiasts. Russia, first of all, is buying strategic time; the later the West decides to take radical military measures, the better. The basics of strategy require you to accept battles only where and when it is most beneficial to you.
The greatest shock (strategic suprise, in military terminology) in the West is caused by: a) the bloodless, ultra-effective taking of Crimea under control (even active critics of Putin among my friends admitted that such effectiveness deprives them of any arguments), and this requires a recalculation of NATO losses in the clash with such an opponent; b) the inability of NATO intelligence to reveal the timing, targets, routes and forces of the Russian operation, and this in the context of global control over the movements of every person, phone or car; c) the emergence in Russia of so many new electronic warfare systems, the use of which is not described even in the theoretical developments of NATO armies. A 1970s reconnaissance aircraft in the Black Sea disables all electronic fire control systems of a missile destroyer, part of a global missile defense system. Russia buys for another four years.
CONFRONTATION (struggle for initiative)
Russia, as a country with a great strategic tradition, understands that by giving the initiative to the enemy and allowing confrontation to unfold at its borders, it will inevitably lose. In the best traditions of Scipio Africanus, Russia is shifting the focus of the confrontation to the Middle East, gradually seizing the initiative.
Brief results of Syria for CONFRONTATION. Russia can hit targets with precision +/- 3-10 meters from a distance of 2,500 km. This was shown on all world TV channels, including the countries over which the cruise missiles flew. This requires another recalculation of NATO losses from the clash with Russia. Television is needed for Western voters, including businesses, to assess the cost of the war with the “rusty gas station.” Russia has dozens of sea-based cruise missile carriers and hundreds of airborne ones. And all of them, over two years in Syria, attacked real targets. More than 50,000 military personnel have gained experience of real war in modern conditions on foreign territory, previously only NATO troops in Iraq and Afghanistan had this experience.
All generals up to the division commander passed through Syria. Almost all combat aviation pilots have gained real experience in the use of modern weapons. Hundreds of new weapons have undergone real testing. Russian submarines in the Mediterranean Sea are evading any escorts of NATO ships and launching cruise missile attacks from under the water. Long-range aviation from Russian airfields along air corridors over Iran and Iraq with cruise missiles hit targets deep in Syria. From 10 to 20 thousand soldiers of Russian special operations troops took part in the liberation of the cities. Almost no one flies over Syria without Russian permission. Of the 59 cruise missiles launched into Syria from US guided missile destroyers, half have disappeared.
So. For two years, attention was transferred from the borders of Russia, from Ukraine and Kaliningrad to Syria. Russia has retrained and rearmed its army in real combat conditions with minimal losses to itself. Just imagine that the same thing would have to be done, God forbid, in the war for Donbass. The West, expecting that Russia is about to break itself, is just transferring its armored divisions to Poland. The elections of Trump (actually Hillary Clinton) and Putin complete the balance of power for the transition to the acute phase of the confrontation.
CONFRONTATION near Eastern Ghouta (the acute phase begins)
My thinking compatriots might have gotten the impression that I was only interested in the military confrontation, and not in such pressing issues of the economy, the export of high-tech products and the development of Russian industry. Not at all. It is these questions that occupy me every day, but unlike my “well-read” compatriots, who have been leading us through the desert of their reasoning for forty years now, I do not believe that economic changes in such a large world power as Russia can be planned in geopolitical and geo-economic vacuum. Simply put, the shopkeeper who traded near the walls of the Moscow Kremlin may not have cared about standing on the Ugra River, but the end of tribute payments to the Horde will affect the Russian economy. What kind of Horde is this: steppe or Atlantic? I do not care.
The acute phase of confrontation between Russia and the collective West, a sort of Euro-Horde, that has begun is precisely interesting because of the geopolitical and geo-economic fork in the road at which the world finds itself.
So. The West is no longer shy. The West is ready to “punish” (for what, choose for yourself: meldonium, gays, Stalin, Crimea, Boeing, the Arctic...). The stakes are very high. There is no money in the Horde, debts have exceeded 100% of the Horde's GDP. It is necessary, as in the previous 200 years, to collect tribute. The tribute paid by Russia thirty years ago has ended. Russia behaves inappropriately, not only does it not pay itself, but it also begins to interfere with the collection of tribute from others. Many nations perked up, and rumors spread that maybe Genghis Khan in Washington and Brussels was not real. This cannot be forgiven and the time has come to gather a large army.
Pretext.
It would be interesting in the future to study the importance of the archetype of chemical poisoning in the collective Anglo-Saxon and European unconscious, but for the mobilization of the taxpayer - it acts instantly and flawlessly.
A months-long campaign to “expose” state support for doping in Russian sports “proved” to taxpayers that all Russians use chemicals. Not in combat yet. But attempts to plant chemical weapons in Aleppo, Ghouta and other cities were quickly stopped by Russia either by demonstrating sources from the rebels, or by offering chemical expertise to the international commission on chemical weapons. This situation needed to change dramatically. Raise the temperature and deprive Russia of its arguments.
A few days before the Skripal case, the British authorities informed that Assad had already used or was about to use (underline as appropriate) chemical weapons (old news), which were supplied to him by the North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un (fresh news). Even the Western media, accustomed to everything, could not digest this news. That's why Skripal comes onto the scene. It's set in Britain, so she doesn't have to prove anything. Russia's call to involve the Chemical Weapons Commission, to provide chemical formulas or any facts, is dismissed as ridiculous. Russian diplomats from twenty NATO countries are being expelled for using military gases on the territory of one of the NATO countries. Practically in the language of professionals, this is a “casus belli”, an event that can cause a declaration of war. We are separated from war only by “highly likely” and Russia’s 10,000 nuclear warheads.
Standing place.
Most likely it will be Syria. Whether it will be Eastern Ghouta, the Golan Heights or oil fields on the border with Iraq is unimportant. The entire theater of military conflict may stretch from Kaliningrad to North Korea, but the most intense actions, in my opinion, will unfold in Syria around our military bases. Since 2002 after the invasion of Afghanistan and 2003 after the invasion of Iraq, taxpayers, voters and television viewers have become accustomed to the possibility of the use of means of armed struggle in this region that would be perceived as the “end of the world” in civilized countries. Massive missile and air strikes, the struggle for air supremacy, the use of electronic warfare, operational-tactical missiles, strikes from ships and submarines, and so on.
Concentration of forces.
Dozens of NATO missile ships, submarines, plus one or two aircraft carrier groups, that's from 600 to 1,000 cruise missiles. From one or two hundred to a thousand attack aircraft. One or two expeditionary groups of 3,000 marines each. Several thousand special forces soldiers from NATO countries, 20-30 thousand Arab fighters and a contingent of NATO troops in Iraq. In principle, the classic intervention of NATO troops of the last 20-25 years with a predictable victorious result. But there is one peculiarity - Russian expeditionary forces. More about them a little later.
NOW ABOUT THE MAIN THING. What did Russia gain by postponing the confrontation for ten years from 2007 to 2018?
FIRST. Place of the battle.
In 2007, this would have been the territory of Russia or the countries of the former USSR with a Russian-speaking population. In 2008 it was Georgia. If Russia fails, this will mean the loss of military bases in Abkhazia and South Ossetia, the removal of the Russian fleet from Sevastopol, and the crisis around Kaliningrad. Few people know that in the event of NATO intervention in the war with Georgia, the Russian General Staff planned to break through a land corridor to Kaliningrad; it is separated from the territory of Belarus by a strip of land of 120 km, and this is military operations in the Baltic states. In 2014, this was supposed to be the territory of Crimea and Eastern Ukraine, where in the event of hostilities, Russians on both sides were supposed to die, Russian cities and infrastructure within the zone of Russian economic interests were destroyed. Let me remind you that from 1941 to 1944 the war took place on our territory and, while destroying the Nazis, our army destroyed our cities, factories, and roads. Many missed the recent phrase of the Commander-in-Chief of the Russian Armed Forces that Russia will no longer allow hostilities on its territory.
Attempts in 2014-2015 by bombing Donbass to officially drag Russia into the war on the territory of its cultural, economic and political interests ended in the Ilovaisk and Debaltsevo cauldrons and the signing of the Minsk agreements. NATO armies do not fight effectively enough in ground battles and are afraid of losses, so they always field armies of barbarians (local liberated population) in their place. In Ukraine, NATO received an army of 200 thousand people hostile to Russia. Regardless of the results of the clashes, Russians died on both sides and social discord grew. Despite the fact that Russia quickly stopped the fighting in Ukraine, we still suffered damage. The political elites of Belarus and Kazakhstan tensed. It was urgently necessary to change the location of the acute confrontation with the collective West.
The Syrian campaign, no matter how well-read compatriots tried to calculate its significance in new trams for Yekaterinburg or Pskov, saved Russia and the Russian world from huge losses. It is impossible to even imagine how Russia would strike with 26 cruise missiles on the suburbs of Mariupol, and not on militant bases near Palmyra. How Russian special forces would hone their skills for quickly liberating cities not in Aleppo, but in, God forbid, Odessa. The Russian army received the opportunity for two years to conduct a hidden/unofficial, but direct confrontation with special forces of the United States, Britain, France, Germany, and NATO aircraft and air defense systems. In two years, Russia was able to retrain and rearm more than 50,000 soldiers of the Syrian army, which will allow reducing Russian losses in ground battles in a future conflict. And Syrian and Iranian fighters will fight against Arab rebels armed by NATO countries on Syrian soil.
SECOND. Allies, public opinion and political consequences.
When we habitually repeat the phrase that Russia has no allies, we mean eternal and unconditional. After all, Russia is doing well with situational allies in Syria. During the Syrian campaign, Russia was able to prepare for the future theater of military operations. Iran was already involved in the conflict and shares with Syria the brunt of casualties among ground forces. The population of Iran is 70 million people and this is comparable to the mobresources of Poland and Ukraine combined. If Russia loses and Syria falls, Iran is the next candidate for “democratic” intervention, so separate negotiations are almost excluded. Turkey is the owner of the largest NATO ground army in Europe, the holder of NATO nuclear weapons at the Incerlik air base.
Over the course of two years in Syria, Russia managed, albeit temporarily, to transform Turkey from the tip of NATO’s spear on the Black Sea into a neutral buffer on the left flank. Even in 2003, Turkey did not give NATO planes an air corridor to bomb Iraq, and after the coup attempt in Turkey, the Incerlik air base was blocked and the United States was withdrawing its planes from there. Last week, Turkey promised to bomb those areas of Syria into which France suddenly decided to send its special forces. Russia was able to find common interests between Turkey and Iran, improve relations with Iraq and Saudi Arabia, and receive support from Egypt and Qatar, from whose territory the United States is urgently withdrawing its second most important air base in the region.
So, if the fighting in Donbass strained Russia’s relations even with its usual allies, two years of war in Syria opened many new doors for Moscow in the region. Russia won this round against NATO with a clean score.
THIRD. The quality and quantity of weapons, combat experience, novelty.
All the weapons systems I listed above, which NATO countries concentrated for intervention in Syria, they could also have used ten years ago. In 2007, Russia either did not have many modern weapons systems at all, or they were in small quantities. In 2018, in Syria (or a two-hour flight from Syria), Russia concentrated one and a half to two dozen carriers of sea-launched cruise missiles, from several dozen to one and a half hundred carriers of air-launched cruise missiles with a destruction radius of up to 2,500 kilometers or more. Several dozen installations of coastal anti-ship missile systems with supersonic weapons. At the air base in Syria and two hours' flight from it, from several dozen to one and a half hundred aircraft are grouped: fighters, reconnaissance aircraft, flying radars, bombers, anti-submarine aircraft and helicopters.
The skies over the region are controlled by two to four S-400 divisions, an unknown number of Russian and Syrian S-300 divisions (several Israeli Air Force aircraft were shot down by S-200 systems), and an unknown number of Pantsir-S1, Tor-M1 and M-2 air defense systems. Taken together, this grouping of air defense systems is capable of causing irreparable damage to an air group of several hundred NATO aircraft. An unknown parameter for NATO remains the quantity and quality of electronic warfare systems, capable of knocking cruise missiles off course (by changing their coordinates in navigation systems), aircraft and even missile destroyers, capable of disabling the control systems of aircraft and ships, even damaging the electronics, capable of blocking everything enemy communications systems within a radius of 300 to 3,000 kilometers, capable of blinding military reconnaissance and communications satellites, and finally making electronically “invisible” both individual aircraft and objects, and entire military units.
In 2018, Russia created a grouping of forces in Syria that, in many respects, the Soviet Union could not have created. (Without the United States, all European countries taken together cannot create such a grouping.)
FOURTH. Other theaters of war, strategic flanks, the possibility of using nuclear weapons.
Many “well-read” compatriots can cite the figures of the armaments of NATO countries or the size of their GDP (a very funny argument, how tens of trillions of dollars of debt of European countries make them powerful fighters) to show that while Russia has gathered all its forces in Syria, NATO countries or, as It is customary to say that the entire world community will attack Russia “everywhere” and punish it “everywhere” too.
Here it is necessary to explain what Russia has done over the past four years in Crimea and Kaliningrad. It is impossible to attack Russia everywhere. If even one non-nuclear NATO missile falls on one Russian civilian infrastructure facility, Russia receives the moral right to immediately respond with a strike on the civilian infrastructure of Europe (America is far away and will have to use strategic forces). One strike on a major airport, logistics hub, reservoir or gas pipeline will bring economic collapse to Europe's largest countries unseen since World War II.
A five- to 10-minute flight delay at Frankfurt or Heathrow in London typically results in weeks of air travel convulsions in Europe. The immediate removal of Frankfurt Airport from the European transport network is not only unthinkable as an event, but also unthinkable in terms of its economic consequences. Therefore, “well-read” people in the West know that first it is necessary to deprive Russia of the opportunity to respond with force, and to do this so effectively that the only choice is negotiations and surrendering positions.
NATO armies cannot attack Russia everywhere, since NATO tanks cannot be transported by rail. They are wider than railway platforms and will cling to any oncoming trains. NATO tanks weigh more than 60 tons each and most small and medium-sized bridges in Europe will not support them. NATO does not maintain the Soviet standard for vehicle height of four meters, which means their equipment will not be able to pass under the arches of bridges, aqueducts, interchanges, and so on. This leaves one option for moving armored divisions in Europe - along federal highways.
The redeployment of one such division from Germany to Poland showed that: a) German roads are not enough for such movements; b) traveling 500-600 kilometers along the highway reduces the service life of tanks in the event of hostilities; c) German, Czech, Slovak voters, roughly speaking, are shitting their pants, realizing that Russian tanks may come here after the American ones; d) and finally, although the American occupation of European countries and, especially, Germany has not stopped since 1945, there is no clause in the interstate agreements of European countries that allows American tanks to freely cross their borders, and even along federal highways.
Finally, those facts for the sake of which I made this excursion into the history of land powers. The NATO army is the army of the great naval powers of America and Britain, and therefore all of their striking power, including land, is delivered either by sea or by air. For any decent attack on Russia, especially with control of territories, they need well-equipped deep-sea ports. Attention, in the Baltic and Black Seas. In the Baltic Sea these are the Baltic ports. This is why there is such a desire to accept them into NATO, and not because 8,000 of their soldiers will strengthen the US defense. Hence the struggle between Hitler and Stalin for the Baltic states.
This is not dictatorial greed, but a struggle for the possibility or prevention of strategic landing operations. The Baltic states have to be abandoned as a springboard for strategic concentration against Russia; Russian tank divisions will take control of the Baltic ports faster than NATO sea transports leave Germany. I remember the joke of an American pilot who told a newcomer: “Don’t think that if you shot down all the Russian planes in the air, then when you arrive at your airfield, you won’t find that a Russian tankman is finishing your breakfast.” German ports are also not suitable, as we found out earlier. That leaves Poland and its ports, always open to NATO. But there are two troubles here: Kaliningrad and Iskander. It was no coincidence that Kaliningrad was not returned to Germany, but it was also not transferred to republican subordination to either the Balts or the Belarusians, unlike Sevastopol, which had to be urgently returned.
So, the deployment in Kaliningrad of Iskander-M operational-tactical missile systems with a range of 500 km (some Western experts say 1,500 or even 2,500, but who will believe them) makes it possible to unload American and British transports with armored vehicles in the ports of Poland practically meaningless. For the defense of Kaliningrad itself, S-400 air defense systems, “Bal” and “Bastion” coastal missile systems and many other modern equipment have been added. In addition, Caliber cruise missiles (those in Syria, under television cameras for reliable observations, were launched at a distance of 1,500 km or more) are deployed on ships, submarines and aircraft of the Baltic Fleet, in order to be able to hit targets in British ports from there.
Russia covered the second strategic flank, the Southern, with the help of an unsinkable aircraft carrier of the Crimean Peninsula. The landing of NATO transport personnel in the Black Sea is impossible today. The ports of the Crimean peninsula are lost to them; attempts to create naval bases in Odessa are rather provocative in nature. Even NATO guided missile destroyers enter the Black Sea with great caution. If hostilities break out, even the passage of individual American ships through the Bosphorus will be impossible. Dozens of “Bal” and “Bastion” anti-ship systems, dozens of cruise missiles from ships, submarines and aircraft, a self-sufficient (that is, capable of solving its tasks without additional help) air defense group, fighter aircraft and ground forces of 50 thousand or more people make trying to punish Russia “everywhere” is extremely costly.
I will stop those who want to remember about the Ukrainian national battalions with a few messages. Three new divisions formed in the Rostov region, specifically to resolve the Ukrainian issue, a recreated (the only one in the world) shock tank army, and formations of the Southern Military District, nicknamed in Donbass as the “North Wind” - solve not only the issue of national battalions, but also the transfer authorities in Ukraine to another government within 7-14 days. So, the closest ports for the landing of NATO expeditionary forces are in Romania and tanks cannot quickly reach Russia or even the Dnieper along their roads.
The picture on the southern strategic flank is completed by the naval base in Tartus and the Khmeimim air base, which should make it difficult for NATO forces to even approach the Bosporus. Tu-22M bombers (from Crimean airfields) and ships with Caliber missiles are sweeping Southern Europe to the ports of France.
CONFRONTATION (When, Where and What to expect?)
When I started this article, I didn’t even think about dragging it out so much, but communication with people close to me showed me that modern educated citizens do not have much knowledge about the world around us and therefore their judgments about today’s events are childishly naive.
In general, modern man is characterized by boundless pride. All events happen around him, for him or against him. He has finite knowledge of everything that happens and can instantly issue an absolute judgment.
What is interesting is the inability of most thinking people to recognize themselves within the process of history. Not 100, 200 or five hundred years after the event, but here and now as the historical process unfolds. If France, in the 200 years that have passed since the time of Napoleon, already calls itself the Fifth Republic, and does not consider the experiment of Robespierre and Danton to be a failure. If Napoleon, who closed the French “Red Project”, and then lost the war for hegemony in the world to the Anglo-Saxons and was sent into exile by them on the island of St. Helena, is part of continuous French history.
If the restoration that followed and the “Paris Commune”, along with the collaborationist France of Vichy and the proud France of De Gaulle, are one country, and not five or six. So why is my Russia today not the Fifth Russian Republic, including the governments of Kerensky, Lenin-Stalin, Khrushchev-Brezhnev, Gorbachev, Yeltsin, and now Putin? Why is the death of a significant part of the civilian population in a mandatory civil war after the revolution of Cromwell, the “sans-culottes”, the “Confederate-Confederates” or the Chinese “Long March” - this is part of the historical process, where the bourgeois revolution is necessarily followed by a bloody, fratricidal civil war. And only in the heads of my compatriots the Russian project never continues, and every decade they want to close something, then open it again.
For me, the “red project” of the Second Russian Republic did not die along with the Third and Fourth Republics. For the historical process that created an alternative way of existing in industrial society for the first time after the British Industrial Revolution cannot die due to the conceptual and passionary pause of one or two generations. China, which the Red Project allowed to become the first economy in the world, cannot be erased from the historical map. And in the near future, this is my vision, the world will see an alliance between China and Russia, similar to the partnership between the USA and Britain in the 20th century, where financial power was already on the side of America, and ideology and passion were provided by Britain.
This historical process, I, perhaps mistakenly, intellectual pride is also characteristic of me, and I observe in the CONFRONTATION near Eastern Ghouta. Standing at Eastern Ghouta would undermine one fundamental principle of the Anglo-Saxon, and if you count Spain and Portugal, European project, which has been going on for 500 years. This is the principle of Big Ships. Without detracting from the scientific, technical and social achievements of Europe, its inability to create one big nation and powerful belligerence left only one development option - the acquisition of significant resource injections from overseas territories. Traveling overland required great expense and the need to fight the land armies of other peoples.
Technologies for building large ships made it possible to safely approach the borders of target countries; 85% of the world's trading capitals are historically located on the coast. Take or exchange (underline as appropriate), with the support of the firepower of the ships, the necessary resources and safely leave for the sea. The likelihood of retaliatory land campaigns by the Aztecs, Egyptians, Indians or Polynesians in Europe is zero. The only competitors can only be other Europeans: the Spaniards, the Portuguese, the Dutch, the French who were late to share the pie, and the Germans who woke up at the end of the 19th century. After the overthrow of Napoleon, attempts to limit Anglo-Saxon dominance on world trade routes ceased. World currency, world trade are becoming Anglo-Saxon. They are provided first by steamships, then by battleships and battleships, and finally by aircraft carriers.
The navy of Britain, and then the United States, at its peak in size exceeds the total displacement of all other fleets in the world. All wars, whether military or trade, are profitable for the Anglo-Saxons. No one can cause adequate destruction on the territory of Britain or the United States without destroying their fleet, no one can defeat them in a trade war, since 80-85% of world supplies go by sea, through the straits controlled by the Anglo-Saxons: Suez, Panama, Malacca , Gibraltar, Kiel, etc. Super incomes are invested in science and technology, primarily defense; dominance in the military field must be unconditional, especially at sea, and then in the air and space. Land warfare technologies are of a secondary nature. Technological leadership under the guise of military power allows you to set the desired exchange rates for your goods for the resources of the barbarians, directly or through the stock market.
The main principle is Big ships. Twelve aircraft carrier groups with aircraft-carrying ships of 100,000 tons each and 60 aircraft on board, twelve expeditionary groups with helicopter carriers, landing ships and support ships, 54 missile destroyers with 50-60 cruise missiles each. A self-reinforcing feedback circle is formed: Large ships (a large number of large ships) - huge profits from control of world trade, huge profits - the ability to develop and build large ships.
Even before the coup in Kyiv, the Obama administration announced the beginning of containment of China, which, after 40 years of investment in it to create a counterweight to the Russian project, has reached the level of the beginning of a maritime confrontation. China has begun building aircraft carriers, dozens of destroyers, advanced fighter jets and ballistic anti-ship missile systems. Yes, the Chinese also announced the creation of an overland trade route to Europe. The Anglo-Saxons never lost sight of this and announced the creation of a new naval base in Australia, in addition to bases in Japan, South Korea and Diego Garcia. Obama announced a turn to the East. He said he didn’t want to be distracted by a “rusty gas station” with missiles after the events in Crimea, not out of malice, but because containing China had been in the works for a whole decade.
In 2015, the Russian Fifth Republic created an event that first puzzled the Anglo-Saxons, then slowed their plans, and now brought them to the brink of geopolitical catastrophe. On Putin's birthday, Russia launched 26 Caliber cruise missiles at targets in Syria. According to legend, this was a signal from the United States, whose aircraft carrier Theodore Roosevelt (26th President of the United States) was part of its air strike group off the coast of Syria. After the Russian salvo, the aircraft carrier left the Mediterranean Sea. This did not make much of an impression on non-professionals; the Americans and British have had such Tomahawk missiles for a long time.
This had a sobering effect on the professionals. Even during the Soviet era, Russia created cruise missiles, but they were heavy and expensive. The Americans knew that under the Short-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, Russia was prohibited from having land-based missiles with a range of 500 km to 5,500 km. Sea and air are allowed, but there are few carriers of large cruise missiles in Russia: 3-4 cruisers, several missile boats, a couple of dozen bombers. Against hundreds and even thousands of cruise missiles on NATO ships, this is not scary. And if the Russians want to increase the number of missiles, they will need to build big ships at a big cost. Economic sanctions and falling oil prices reliably blocked these attempts. (Breaking contracts with Ukraine blocked the construction of ships and transport aircraft.)
The surprise was that the Russians were able to make a cruise missile the size of a torpedo tube, and the country immediately received dozens of ships, missile boats and submarines carrying Caliber missiles. An even bigger surprise was the launch of SLCMs from boats with a displacement of 900 tons, that is, an American destroyer with a displacement of 75,000 tons and costing 1.5-2 billion dollars can sink a Russian boat worth 50-100 million dollars. This is the first violation of the Big Ships principle. Now, in order to sink 50 missile destroyers, you need to launch 150-200 cruise missiles from twenty boats, the cost of which is equal to one destroyer.
In March 2018, the President of Russia announced a second event, which explains why the message was postponed for several months, and perhaps why we were able to vote in the elections before the active conflict in Syria. Hypersonic missiles. It doesn’t matter what they are called, “Dagger”, “Zircon” or even the slower “Brahmos-Onyx”, as well as Kh-101 cruise missiles, etc. The main idea is one rocket - one ship. A hypersonic missile, even without the warhead exploding, splits a destroyer in half and causes irreversible damage to an aircraft carrier.
Two hypersonic missiles split an aircraft carrier in half. There is currently no protection against them. The missiles have a range of 1,000 km or more and are fired from aircraft carriers outside the range of aviation. The Commander-in-Chief of the Russian Armed Forces was in such a hurry to announce the deployment of the Kinzhal systems to the troops of the Southern District so that NATO had time to rethink its plans. Ten such missiles mean the guaranteed sinking of ten missile destroyers. And the size of the economy has nothing to do with it; the United States, in principle, cannot again build 10 destroyers or aircraft carriers faster than Russia produces 10 hypersonic missiles.
WHEN?
I pray that never, but the hysteria with the Skripal case speaks of extreme time pressure. Every extra month allows Russia to increase its arsenal of hypersonic and cruise missiles. The statement by Chief of the General Staff Gerasimov that in the event of an attack by Russian military personnel in Syria, Russia will destroy not only missiles, but also the systems that launched them (ships, planes, submarines), was perceived by professionals unequivocally; Russia is ready for a collision without any “ highly likely.” Two dates are named: the inauguration of the President of the Russian Federation and the beginning of the World Cup. But a clash can begin at any moment with a terrorist attack, national disaster or man-made disaster in any corner of the world.
The main location is Syria. Russian troops in Syria, the only non-NATO expeditionary force in the world, must suffer moral or physical defeat followed by evacuation. The complete destruction of the group is an extreme case that could bring the parties to the brink of exchanging nuclear strikes.
Diversionary or diversionary strikes can be carried out in Ukraine against the Donbass, in Moldova against Transnistria, in the Baltic Sea against the location of Iskander missiles and air defense systems. One scenario involves starting the clash with a strike on North Korea in order to tie up China and prevent it from supporting Russia. In this regard, Kim Jong-un's visit to China is interesting, where it is possible that China will give security guarantees to North Korea in exchange for control over its nuclear weapons. Another point of aggravation could be Iran, which will be hit by Saudi Arabia and Israel, and then NATO countries will get involved.
WHAT TO EXPECT?
Soft option.
Still possible. Isolated skirmishes and the death of dozens of special forces on each side, the crash of one or two planes on each side (Israeli ones fall instead of American ones) do not count. Only salvoes of missiles from large ships and the death of large ships are important. If this does not happen, then Russia and NATO will save both face and resources, and formalize the collapse of the old order through political and economic crises of individual countries and unions. Hilary and the globalists lost the US elections ahead of schedule, and Trump, with the nationalist agenda, has to urgently finish off the other party. Brexit is also ahead of schedule and Britain is already sliding into a New World that it has not yet prepared for.
Medium hard option.
An exchange of blows in Syria will occur, perhaps, simultaneously with the offensive of the Ukrainian Armed Forces in Donbass under the guise of an incredibly hysterical campaign in the media and at the UN. The Skripal case is a gentle warm-up. We will soon learn the pretext from the media. God forbid, but it will either be the poisoning of tens of thousands of civilians in the Middle East with military gases or the explosion of a nuclear plant in Bushehr, after which NATO will be obliged to protect civilized countries from the regimes of bloody dictators... (the names of the dictators or the names of the regimes will be entered according to the situation.) For one or two weeks it will seem like a world war has begun. At the same time, gas supplies will continue, trade agreements will not be broken, and tourists from different countries will not be interned.
Only the ratio of the parties' losses will be important. Non-professionals do not know that so far there has been only one missile battle in the world between relatively equal parties. The Battle of the Falklands in 1982 between the Argentine Air Force and the British Navy. Despite the fact that Britain won the conflict, its losses in ships were unpredictably large. No amount of exercises or computer simulations can replace real combat. Losses will amount to billions of dollars per minute.
If NATO starts cautiously by launching 200-300 cruise missiles and a hundred or two fighter bombers, then the parties will have the opportunity to slow down the war, like the “Syrian incident.”
If NATO manages to suppress 30-50% of our air defense and electronic warfare, damage the runways of the air base, shoot down or bomb 15-20 of our aircraft on the ground, and at the same time lose no more than one or two large ships and 15-20 of our aircraft (with than it is desirable that the ships be French, Spanish or Dutch, and not American), then the parties can recognize NATO’s victory. Russia will stop covering the skies of Syria and Iran, and NATO will begin a ground operation to force Iran and Syria to peace and democracy.
If Russia manages to shoot down or electronically deflect 50-80% of cruise missiles, shoot down 40-50 aircraft and, most importantly, sink 5-6 large ships, losing no more than 20% of its air defense systems and aircraft, then the parties can recognize Russia’s victory. The West will say that overthrowing the Syrian and Iranian dictators is not worth the lives of Europeans. The war in Syria will end and preparations will be announced for elections to the new parliament of an indivisible Syria.
If NATO starts by launching 600-800 cruise missiles with the support of 400-500 aircraft, then it will not be possible to slow down the situation. Russia will have to respond by launching all hypersonic and supersonic missiles in the region. For reference, the Tomahawk SLCM flies 1000 km in 70-80 minutes, supersonic missiles Oniks, Granit, Kh-55, Kh-101 in 20-30 minutes, hypersonic Kinzhal in 7-8 minutes. That is, the fact that NATO strikes first will not protect it from a counter strike. In addition, within an hour, Russian strategic bombers with supersonic cruise missiles with a range of 2000 to 5000 km will be lifted from the territory of Russia, Crimea and possibly from Iranian airfields. Moreover, a significant part of NATO missiles will have to suppress Russian air defense and coastal missile systems, and Russian missiles should destroy missile ships and airfields in order to prevent or reduce to a minimum the possibility of a second salvo.
It is clear that NATO will try to deliver the first strike with Stealth aircraft, 19 B-2s and 184 F-22s, in order to prevent the Russian group from preparing a retaliatory strike, although Russian electronic warfare systems have been blocking satellite navigation and military communications in the region for two weeks now. Cyprus.
You might think this is a nightmare and a world war. Not necessary. After the Falklands conflict, Britain and Argentina did not declare war on each other and did not try to transfer it to other theaters of war.
An hour and a half after launching counter missile strikes, the sides, and possibly the whole world, which is not a fact, will learn about each other’s real losses. In a matter of tens of minutes, decisions will be made on whether or not to strike again. If one of the parties assesses its losses as catastrophic, then it will give a “stop signal” to the conflict in this region in the form of readiness to use nuclear weapons.
Depending on the size of the losses, a severe political crisis may break out for each side. Major world powers such as China and India may step in and demand that the conflict be stopped. The losing side will face a cascade of crises. In the event of a tie in terms of losses incurred, Russia will become the unofficial winner, because NATO will no longer be able to exert unilateral pressure on Russia's allies, partners, or economic clients.
High rigidity option.
NATO countries, relying on a large advantage in the size of the economy, on Russia's instability, or not believing in Russia's readiness to use nuclear weapons, continue a series of military actions along the entire perimeter of Russia. Invasion of Donbass by 100 thousand or more Ukrainian Armed Forces soldiers, 2-3 thousand advisers/special forces from the USA or Britain. At the same time, the announcement of the annexation of Moldova to Romania with the introduction of Romanian troops. Sending NATO transports to the Baltic states. At the request of President Poroshenko, the transfer of 20,000 “peacekeepers” from NATO countries. Russia's subsequent ground operation of 150,000 soldiers to push to the Dnieper, a landing in Odessa to break through a corridor in Transnistria, breaking through a corridor to Kaliningrad, taking control of the Baltic ports - within 5-7 days should bring the parties to the brink of using tactical nuclear weapons, and more importantly: cutting off gas and oil supplies, stopping the payment system and seizing the financial assets of the parties.
Next, Russia and NATO either declare a full-fledged war on each other (before this, since military operations were carried out on the territory of third countries, war was not declared) and this is another story, or military operations stop at the lines occupied by troops and a new Yalta or Potsdam conference is convened, which fixes areas of interest in the world. China, or the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and the Eurasian Union, at the invitation of Russia, can take part in the conference.
STANDING AT EASTERN GUTA
Every nation has some great stand in its history: on the Ugra, on the Rhone, on the Rubicon. No matter how small the barrier, it later turned out that it separated one era from another. And there was no longer any chance of returning to the previous order of things. When hundreds and thousands of years separate us from such a historical watershed, our consciousness easily imagines a majestic atmosphere on the eve of the event and the meaningful immersion of all participants in the unfolding plot. It is all the more difficult to imagine that you yourself are one step away from the theater, where actions will unfold that posterity will consider landmark. I would be sincerely glad to be wrong if the standoff near Eastern Ghouta turns out to be just one of the episodes in the fight against armed rebels.
What economic opportunities open up for Russia after standing at Eastern Ghouta, what joint actions of China and Russia to build a new order in Eurasia might look like, and how one can constructively take part in the development of the new economic space of Greater Eurasia - I will try to describe in the next article.
Mr. Trump almost took the path of resetting relations between the United States and the Russian Federation. He probably changed his mind after realizing how much this idea looked like plagiarism from Hillary Clinton and Michael McFaul. And now analysts are discussing not a reset, but a possible war: will there be a “direct conflict” between NATO and Russia?
An article by Dimitar Bechev, a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, was published on the channel's English-language website. The central question of the material: will Russia and NATO enter into conflict?
What should we call the current period of relations between Russia and the West? Cold War 2.0? Or some other way? Be that as it may, one thing is certain: relations between Russia and the West are at their lowest level since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991.
A reset of relations between the United States and the Russian Federation, actually promised by President Donald Trump, was already looming on the political horizon, but its possible offensive was interrupted by a scandal due to “Russian interference in the American elections” and a US missile strike “on the regime of Bashar al-Assad in Syria.”
Behind Trump loom the figures of Defense Secretary James Mattis and National Security Adviser Herbert McMaster. Skepticism towards Russia comes from them. But could this cold level of relations lead to direct conflict between Russia and NATO? This is the question the expert asks.
As the war in eastern Ukraine continues to subside, Vladimir Putin demonstrates his oratory skills.
In a statement on April 12, he promised to fight back against “color revolutions” in any of the post-Soviet countries within the framework of the Russian-led Collective Security Treaty Organization (which includes Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan). As before, Russia is ready to make deals with the West outside the “near abroad”, but insists that these foreign countries must remain outside Western interests.
From here it is clear to the expert: the line separating Russia from Western spheres of influence is an “annoying problem.” Why?
It turns out that the three Baltic states are afraid of becoming “victims of Russian aggression.” “Painful memories of their annexation in 1940 by the Soviets left a deep mark,” the author points out. Whether it is reasonable or not, the presence of Russian-speaking communities in these countries makes the Crimean precedent “painfully relevant” for Estonia and Latvia.
It is not surprising that these countries welcomed NATO's decision to increase the alliance's role. The organization moved from “reassurance” to “expanded frontline presence.” Not only has NATO developed contingency plans to counter a proposed Russian invasion, but it has also decided to send battalion teams to each of the three Baltic countries, as well as Poland. The deployment of a 4,000-strong contingent involving 16 member states is due to be completed by next month, with Germany in charge of forces in Lithuania, Canada in Latvia, Britain in Estonia and the United States in Poland.
In parallel, the Warsaw NATO summit, held in July 2016, gave the green light to the multinational brigade in Romania, which, in essence, is a platform for strengthening cooperation with Poland, Bulgaria, Turkey, Canada, the United States, the Netherlands and Germany.
At the same time, NATO does not necessarily correspond to Russia’s military capabilities over a huge territorial area from the Baltic to the Black Sea. The North Atlantic Alliance will need three times as many forces to repel a direct attack. Moreover, in Putin’s words, Russia has turned Crimea into a fortress. The buildup of naval and coastal defense forces, along with the deployment of strategic bombers and advanced anti-aircraft missiles, has strengthened Russia's superiority in the Black Sea, the analyst said.
However, NATO is signaling to Putin in every possible way: they say that if he crosses the line, he will receive an answer.
Many security experts are concerned that the current cold standoff could spiral out of control. Russia responded to the military strengthening of the West with “incursions into NATO airspace” in order to “intimidate” American and allied ships and aircraft in both the Baltics and the Black Sea. The author lists “the kidnapping of an Estonian border guard, the start of sudden exercises, practicing an invasion, or even a nuclear strike in the Baltic Sea.” The picture is complemented by the deployment of Iskander nuclear missiles in the Kaliningrad region, located between Lithuania and Poland.
Russia “grossly threatens” Finland and Sweden, pointing out the inadmissibility of abandoning neutrality in favor of joining NATO. Russia is also “putting pressure” on Belarus, trying to create an air base on its territory.
The author also imagines a “nightmare scenario” where some “minor incident,” such as civil unrest caused by the Russians in an Estonian border town, escalates into an insurgency, as in Eastern Ukraine. And then (God forbid) NATO moves on to a direct military clash with Russia.
Russian aggression has its limits, Bechev further notes. Fears of the Russian threat are generally “too exaggerated.” As Mark Galeotti of the Institute of International Relations in Prague noted, “Putin’s calculation seems to be that the scarier he is, the more political influence he has.”
Confrontation with NATO is being discussed within Russia, where most citizens today view the alliance as a threat to the country. Meanwhile, Putin is unable to intimidate NATO in Eastern Europe or even bargain with the West using the confrontation as a bargaining chip.
In addition, Moscow is again conducting a dialogue with the North Atlantic Alliance after a pause (a freeze in relations in March 2014). Last month, General Pyotr Pavel, who heads the NATO Military Committee, spoke with General Valery Gerasimov on the phone. There is a mechanism to avoid unwanted crises getting out of control.
According to the expert, Russia will continue to “probe NATO” in order to identify weaknesses and cracks in its defense. However, we must not forget that Russia today faces many restrictions. The economic crisis engulfing Russia has already led to a reduction in defense spending. The ambitious program to modernize the armed forces will “inevitably slow down,” the analyst is convinced.
Last but not least, 2018 will be an election year for Putin. He will “certainly win,” but will “fight hard,” wanting to “demonstrate” that the people’s enthusiasm for his leadership “has not weakened.” Russia comes into the spotlight when it acts in the arena of international politics, but, in truth, what is historically important is what happens within the country, in Russian society, the expert believes.
Let us remind you that tensions in relations between Russia and NATO are growing every day.
On April 18, the media reported that two American military aircraft and a NATO aircraft carried out reconnaissance flights near the borders of the Russian Federation in the Black and Barents Seas, as well as in the Baltic region. According to information from Western websites cited by , a US Navy P-8A Poseidon anti-submarine patrol aircraft took off from Sigonela airbase in Sicily and conducted reconnaissance southwest of Sevastopol.
The second was the US Air Force RC-135U strategic reconnaissance aircraft. It took off from Mildenhall airbase in the UK and flew near the maritime borders of the Murmansk region.
The third plane was NATO. The AWACS airborne early warning and guidance aircraft monitored the Kaliningrad region from the airspace of Lithuania and Poland.
In addition, the day before another reconnaissance flight near the southern coast of Crimea was carried out by a US Navy P-8A Poseidon anti-submarine patrol aircraft.
Plans to hold a seminar on the Spitsbergen archipelago through the NATO Parliamentary Assembly were called a provocation by the Russian Foreign Ministry. The corresponding statement appeared on the website of the Foreign Ministry.
According to Moscow, the states participating in the Spitsbergen Treaty of 1920 should be interested in preserving the principles of peace and good neighborliness in their territory. “In the context of NATO’s current policy of “containing” Russia, accompanied by unprecedented military preparations near the borders of our country, attempts to pull Spitsbergen “under the wing” of the military-political bloc and holding events there under its auspices do not correspond to the spirit of the treaty,” the commentary quotes.
The Foreign Ministry added that there are no problems in the Arctic region that would require the intervention of the North Atlantic Alliance to resolve. Diplomats are confident that the escalation of tension runs counter to the long-term interests of the states of the European north.
Previously, the media also reported that NATO was conducting interspecies maneuvers in Europe with a “pronounced” anti-Russian orientation. This refers to the “Summer Shield 14” exercise, which this time was organized in Latvia, where there is a factor of “social contradictions” in the form of the Russian-speaking population. The maneuvers began just a week after the alliance's combat battalions were largely deployed in the Baltic republics and Poland.
The Baltic countries still believe that the Russians can play out the “Crimean scenario” among them. And for this far-fetched reason, you can arm yourself and strengthen your defenses endlessly.
Of course, in the conditions of the Cold War and the arms race, the risk of a cold confrontation going into a hot phase increases every day. God forbid, as Mr. Bechev writes, that because of some provocation or incident, NATO moves to a direct military clash with Russia.
