According to the historian, the impetus for the start of the war was "the idea of punishing the neighboring country": "In general, the idea of punishing the country is absolutely unconstructive and absolutely immoral. But after the assassination of the Archduke, Austria-Hungary declared that it would certainly punish. to another country, for some reason - it still exists.
Just like today, Germany did not sit on the sidelines: "She was the engine, she approved the actions of Austria-Hungary," Chubaryan recalled. And, of course, what would a world war be without Crimea? According to the historian, Russia entered the war not so much because of the desire to help its Slav brothers, but because of the Crimea - the Russian Empire was frightened by "Germany's desire for the Black Sea straits."
At the same time, all of the above countries were sure that they would fight very little. "We did not think that there would be such a big war, but one of the bloodiest conflicts of the 20th century arose, the historian stated. "And today we need to understand what local interests can lead to."
The United States entered the war later than everyone else - they lost only a hundred people (for comparison, Europe - 10 million), "and they have an economic boom after that as usual."
Alexander Gorbunov, Deputy Director for Research at the State Borodino Military Historical Museum-Reserve, recalled that the war led to the destruction of four monarchies, and the Russian monarch suffered the most, who was shot at all - by the way, on July 17.
Professor Georgy Malinetsky points out that these very stagnant royal political elites sat in their places for too long, so they had to be changed in such a bloody way. A similar situation developed with scientific and technological progress: "There is a need to write off one technological mode and introduce another."
However, there are some differences - according to the historian, a hundred years ago, Russia was a more significant player in world politics: "Today, Russia is supported by 32% of the population in the world, 39% are treated badly, while the United States supports 62%. Therefore, now, when we go to the Third World War, we are in a very difficult situation - we fell under the influence of the myth that the world is multi-polar. In fact, this is not so, for 20 years the United States spent more on weapons than the whole world put together ... And Russia was ready the first world is better than the third ... "
Malinetsky recalls that if 10 million died on the battlefields of the First World War, then about 50 million died from the post-war epidemic of the Spanish flu: “If we start a war, we must be prepared for unexpected consequences. Russia is now only 2% of the world's population, 2 9% of the global gross product, and if we touch on armaments, then without nuclear weapons, the ratio of Russia's power to NATO countries is 1 to 60. We must listen to historians so as not to repeat the mistakes that were made by the elite on the eve of the First World War.
Domestic political scientists predict a blow to Russia from Central Asia in 2015. But it turned out ahead of schedule, and not from the side of Central Asia, but from the side of Ukraine: "Events in Ukraine are developing like an avalanche. The Americans are in a hurry, they are losing influence, they are following the path of late Rome, and we must hope for the best, but count on the worst," Malinetsky stated.
According to him, the task of the United States is to destroy the European Union: "So we are rapidly moving towards the Third World War. And if we look at technological shifts, the coincidence is fantastic."
Doctor of Political Sciences Sergei Chernyakhovsky, on the contrary, believes that Russia is now in a situation in which Germany was already after the defeat in the First World War: “Russia has annexed a third of the territory. It turned out to be morally humiliated, they are trying to impose some kind of repentance on us. debts, everything that was taken from her is territories, zones of influence, money. To prevent the outbreak of the Third World War, other countries must give it to her voluntarily, "the political scientist threatened.
From the report of Russian scientists - members of the Academy of Military Sciences and the Russian Academy of Sciences V. Aladin, V. Kovalev, S. Malkov and G. Malinetsky.
One of the authors of the concept of “leadership cycles”, the American political scientist J. Modelsky, argues that war “justifies and legitimizes the international system of statuses, at the top of which are the great powers; in turn, the status system sees war as a means of self-preservation.
Within the framework of this approach, the global processes that take place in the system of the modern world inevitably lead to significant transformations of its status structure, which consists of three basic elements: the center, the semi-periphery and the periphery. These changes can be seen as a potential source of large-scale military conflicts.
The systemic crisis, combining the imbalance of the pirating financial system with the exhaustion of the economic growth model based on credit stimulation of consumption, brought the Western countries, led by the United States, to the line of strategic resource hunger, thereby increasing the risk of military resolution of competitive contradictions. The situation is aggravated by the spiritual crisis of the modern West, which at one time, succumbing to mercantile passion, exchanged the Bible for a code of human rights and freedoms, eventually depleting its spiritual resource to the last limit.
Recently, the thesis that today's world is on the eve of large-scale geopolitical and technological shifts has been actively discussed. The world is going through a phase of "great upheavals" in the world evolutionary cycle, which began in the 1980s and is expected to end by the middle of the 21st century.
The world-system is expected to grow in economic, political and social instability, which, according to experts, will lead to a second wave of the global economic crisis. This stage of the crisis can become a historical milestone in the development of the world political system. At the same time, destabilization of the world financial, economic and political system is expected, which will give rise to an unprecedented increase in social, as well as domestic and foreign political tension in most countries of the world.
The second wave of the crisis will put the main players of the G20 in front of the need to find alternatives to the weakening dollar, optimize the mechanisms for regulating financial markets, balance the conditions of international trade, and look for ways to stabilize food prices.
Political and financial-economic crises of 2013 - 2014 can become a prelude to the dramatic events of the alleged third, final part (2014 - 2018) of the "great upheavals". These events may be determined by the uncontrolled and unpredictable disintegration of the current geopolitical and social structures. Thus, between 2012 and 2018 the world may witness major geopolitical transformations.
According to RAS experts, the result of the current financial and economic crisis will inevitably be a radical change in the alignment of forces on the political map of the world. The sole military-political dominance of the United States in the world, as well as their world economic leadership, which lasted a whole century, is coming to an end. The US has failed the test of monopolarity, having exhausted itself with continuous wars in the Middle East in the last decade. The US today does not have enough resources to remain a world leader. "The role of the United States as a superpower is ending," says German Federal Finance Minister P. Steinbrock.
Real multipolarity implies a more balanced international distribution of wealth, as well as the transformation of international institutions - the UN, the IMF, the World Bank and others. Especially outdated are the global institutions for managing the world economy - the IMF, the World Bank, etc. Today, the interests of the United States and Western Europe predominate in them, and the interests of countries with rapidly developing economies are poorly represented. Recently, even the IMF itself, at its regular annual session in 2011, admitted that the “Washington Consensus” had finally collapsed and called for the creation of a global economy in which there would be less risks and uncertainty, the financial sector would be regulated by the state, and incomes and benefits would be distributed according to justice.
... the masters of the modern global world are mentally structured and very small subjective political formations based on the foundations of Protestant mental-dogmatic thinking. They are able, unlike everyone else, to carry out design functions in geopolitics, while pursuing an anti-Christian policy both in the post-Christian world and beyond.
The United States as a state has existed for a little more than two centuries and makes up a very small part of the world's population. But as a real mental formation they rely on their unified truths. a priori which they dogmatically prescribe to all other states of the world.
…the operators of the power of the unipolar world and the elite of the “golden billion” aggressively, consistently and totally affirm their values and standards in the process of globalization as obligatory requirements for the whole world as an indispensable condition for their leadership. They act, in the words of A.S. Panarin, in the spirit of messianic self-confidence, dogmatically repressive, totalitarian methods. They do not stop at the threat of the use of military force and its actual use. Suffice it to recall the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945, the three million Vietnamese who died as a result of American aggression in the 60s and 70s of the twentieth century. Let's also not forget about the numerous coups d'état organized by the US intelligence services, finally, about the bombing of Yugoslavia with its subsequent dismemberment, the destruction of Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, about the hidden but real aggression against Syria.
In order to understand and predict the global processes taking place in the world, it is necessary to remember the dogma underlying the national strategy of the United States - the dogma of unacceptability for America to lose world leadership. As the analysis of American declarative documents shows, the leadership in the world geopolitical hierarchy is considered by the American ruling regime and the political elite as a necessary condition for the country's prosperity and development in the 21st century.
The results of mathematical modeling of geopolitical dynamics, which was carried out by analysts of the Academy of Military Sciences together with the Russian Academy of Sciences, allow us to conclude that a victorious war, and, moreover, necessarily “conventional” is practically the only US tool to neutralize the risk of losing geopolitical leadership.
At the same time, we must understand that leadership as such has a purely pragmatic character for the weakening world hegemon in the American way. First of all, it is necessary to ensure the consumer interests of the "golden billion", that is, it is directly or indirectly directed against the rest of humanity. Global leadership is a kind of and fairly reliable certificate for the right to undivided ownership, disposal and use of all the resources of the planet.
The way to maintain dominance by initiating a large-scale armed conflict has long been known in political theory and practice. Based on this, the following regularity can be postulated: a cardinal change in the geopolitical configuration of the world, including the possibility of changing the leader, is realized only with corresponding radical changes in the geopolitical qualities of the leading countries of the world. Large-scale war just leads, as history shows, to such changes. There is, of course, a "cold" way to neutralize geopolitical opponents, similar to what happened with the Soviet Union. Development and "finishing" of such technology continues even now in the framework of the so-called "Arab spring". But it cannot yet be considered as universal, since, for example, it is not yet applicable to China, Iran, etc.
interesting to note , that the United States has already used the military method of cardinal geopolitical rise at least three times. As the analysis of the political configuration of the world after two world wars shows, the United States has always received significant geopolitical benefits as a result, raising its status, changing the “geopolitical distance” between the world leader or other contenders in its favor.
Thus, as a result of the First World War, the United States reduced the geopolitical gap from the then leader, the British Empire, by almost a third. Moreover, it is interesting to note a kind of paradox, identified quantitatively, and quite consistent with the conclusions of historians - the United States turned out to be the only state, which eventually increased their geopolitical status compared to its pre-war level.
World War II “helped” the United States, against the backdrop of a weakened Europe and the devastated Soviet Union, to become a world leader, and the subsequent collapse of the USSR, rightly called a geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th century, saved, however, only for a while, from a dangerous ideological and geopolitical enemy.
However, this gave the United States only a brief reprieve, as almost instantly, by historical standards, a new challenger, a new geopolitical rival, China emerged. At the same time, China, in our opinion, is dangerous not so much as a contender for leadership, but as a contender for consumption of world resources that is above the norm, from the point of view of the United States, which objectively creates problems for the “golden billion”. The possibility of neutralizing these problems with the rapidly developing PRC, provides, as already noted, only war. At the same time, the essence of the American approach lies in the fact that it is not the applicant himself who is attacked, but another state, the choice of which is determined by the "price of the issue."
Thus, if at one time, with the help of Yugoslavia, Iraq and Afghanistan, the Americans tried to solve smaller economic and “sub-geopolitical” problems, then with this “big stake”, an appropriate “big partner” will be needed. According to military analysts, it is Iran, together with non-Arab Shiite forces such as Hezbollah in Lebanon, and Syria that is most suitable for the role of such an “involuntary partner” in a new redistribution of resources, which, of course, is implemented at their expense.
The redistribution process has already started. At present, as a result of the "Arab spring" provoked and controlled by America, conditions have been formed to unite the states of the Islamic world into a new "Arab caliphate", replacing their leaders with new American proteges. In addition to maintaining control over the world's oil and gas treasury, armed by the West and based on Islamic fundamentalism, an alliance of like-minded Muslim states is designed to protect the American economy and, in general, US energy interests in the East and Africa. The question arises - "from whom"? According to experts, primarily from the steadily growing economic and military power of China.
In light of the foregoing, the next logical step for the United States is to remove the last obstacle to the implementation of plans to maintain American dominance. These obstacles are Syria and Iran. The "peaceful" way to overthrow the leadership of the Islamic Republic of Iran, as you know, failed. Therefore, as military analysts note, the same scenario will be applied to it as in Iraq and Afghanistan, despite the fact that today the United States cannot even withdraw troops from there without human and material losses.
It is expected that in addition to the economic, an important result of the alleged victory of America in the "big war" will be the implementation of the "New Greater Middle East" project. This project should cause very serious damage not only to China, but also to Russia. Plans to "reformat" the Middle East have already been announced in America in connection with the publication of the so-called "Peters Map" in the Armed Forces Journal.
As follows from the published materials, Russia and China are "expelled" from the Mediterranean and the Middle East, Russia is cut off from the South Caucasus and Central Asia, and China is deprived of the last strategic energy supplier.
The “New Greater Middle East” excludes peaceful prospects for Russia, the possibility of any relatively “calm” development, since the unstable South Caucasus, which is under the external control of the United States, will become a zone of constant tension and a “detonator” for the “explosion” of the North Caucasus. And since in this case the main destabilizing role will be played by Islamic fundamentalism, other subjects of the Russian Federation will also fall into the “kill zone”.
Today, China is actively "working" to crowd out the dollar, and the share of the dollar in China's foreign exchange reserves is steadily declining. In April 2011, the Central Bank of China informed about the complete rejection of the dollar in international settlements. It is clear that such a blow to the American system of economic dominance cannot go unanswered.
Iran is also "working" tirelessly in the direction of crowding out the dollar. In July 2011, the Iranian International Petroleum Exchange was launched. On it, the settlement of transactions is carried out only in euros and Emirati dirhams. At the same time, negotiations are underway with China on organizing the supply of Chinese goods in exchange for Iranian oil. Thus, it becomes possible to circumvent sanctions against Iran. The President of Iran announced plans to reach $100 billion of bilateral trade between Iran and China. Under these conditions, the US efforts to organize the international isolation of Iran lose all meaning.
These trends, unacceptable for the United States, are apparently irreversible and are capable of causing a sharp reaction, up to the organization of a "forceful" counteraction to emerging challenges and threats. According to experts, the deliberate undermining of stability in the countries of the Middle East and the Maghreb is the result of active actions by the United States, which can count on the fact that the destroyed infrastructure of the countries of the region will require huge dollar injections. revival of the USA.
Thus, it becomes clear that the strategy being implemented by America to maintain world leadership in a changing world is already beginning to move into real politics “from a position of strength”, where the way out of the crisis of the debt economy of the “paper dollar” is seen , including in the "zeroing" of the debt accounts of the "bubble" of empty wealth. For this, a “big war” becomes necessary, as a result of which the winner, as in his time at Bretton Woods, expects to dictate his terms to the rest of the world. The will to wage war for America, viewed from a perspective, is the will to govern after the war.
In this regard, the following should be noted.
Shortly before the outbreak of World War II, the German writer Thomas Mann perspicaciously noted that war is "just an escape from the problems of peacetime." The French prose writer Romain Rolland also spoke in his tone: “Only bankrupt states resort to war as a last resort. War is the last trump card of a lost and desperate player, a disgusting speculation of swindlers and swindlers…”.
US President D. Eisenhower owns a statement that characterizes the essence of American policy to this day: "We will achieve peace, even if we have to fight for this." Naturally, he had in mind a peace that suits America. At the same time, it is impossible not to understand that this rhetoric is intended only for one thing - to justify the possibility of waging wars in the modern world.
The wars "for world peace" that the United States is unleashing are an indication of the inability of the American political system to resolve a bunch of acute problems associated with the impending collapse of the dollar as the world's reserve currency and the collapse of the American financial pyramid.
On June 9, 2012, the Penultimate Director of the Strategic Planning Division of the US State Department, A.M. According to data, in addition to the fact that a crushing blow will be dealt to the economies of Europe and Russia, the US plan provides for the consistent implementation of the following military-political actions:
- The physical liquidation of President B. Assad, followed by the organization in Syria of the massacre of Christians, Allavites, Druze, representatives of other faiths and small national groups.
- A preemptive strike against Hezbollah in Lebanon with the organization of a provocation against Iran and the launch of the process of physical destruction of Christians and Copts.
- Preparation and conduct of the military operation "Great Thunderstorm" against Iran.
In addition to this, the evangelical Zionist hawks from Washington are actively appearing on American television ostensibly with Bible prophecies and calling on the US to support the "King of the North" (Israel) in the coming Armageddon against the "King of the South" (Iran). They believe that a victorious war against Iran and Syria will give the West the opportunity to impose a "divinely sanctioned" New World Order, taking into account the interests of the NATO-OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) empire.
Obviously, we are talking, first of all, about the unleashing of the "Great War" in the Near and Middle East, the beginning of which was being prepared by the events of the so-called. "Arab spring".
There is no doubt that the Americans have been carefully and pragmatically preparing the space for a "Great War" in the Middle East for a long time. In this regard, it can be assumed with a high degree of certainty that the "Big War" is coming. The most important issue remains the degree of involvement and the form of Russia's participation in it. The participation itself is beyond doubt and it is already becoming obvious that we are being “led” to the “Great War” consistently and purposefully.
That is why today all decisions of the country's leadership in the political, economic, social and military-technical spheres must be considered "through a conceptual lens", which can provide early recognition of the realities of the coming "Great War" and the possibility of designing a worthy place for Russia in the post-war world order.
The expert and analytical community is actively discussing the set of "nested" goals, which, according to the "Planner" of the "Great War", can be realized only as a result of its unleashing.
The first group includes a number of fairly obvious, "lying on the surface" goals:
- divert the attention of the Western population from the negative processes of the global crisis, switch it to the image of the “global” enemy constructed by political technologists;
- writing off huge public debts to the maximum;
- to avoid the “rolling down” of the USA in 1932, to revive the economy, to create conditions for development “from scratch”;
- maintain a financial system based on the "Washington Consensus" and extend the existence of the Fed as a global issuer after 2012;
- ensure America's dominance in the World System.
The second group includes the "taboo" and therefore not publicly discussed goal - providing a strategic perspective for Israel. The Jewish state in its present form can only sustainably exist in conditions of permanent confrontation with the Islamic world. It has a "victorious" advantage in the military-technical sphere, is distinguished by a high level of corporate subjectivity and, as a result, a higher quality of "human material". Israel is still able to defeat almost any Arab coalition. The monopoly possession of nuclear weapons in the region gives it a certain guarantee against the accidents of war and acts as an effective deterrent against the large-scale use of military force by a possible coalition of states in the region.
Today, Israel is more than ever interested in unleashing a "Great War" in order to:
- to confirm and permanently consolidate, as a result of a victorious war, their highest possible status, both in the regional and global political context;
- exclude the decline or complete cessation of financial support from the West and, first of all, the United States, which accounts for 22% of Israel's foreign trade and another $ 3.71 billion of direct gratuitous financial assistance caused by the global economic crisis;
- denuclearize Iran and thereby maintain a monopoly on the possession of nuclear weapons in the region.
The third most nested and most hidden goal is to launch the mechanisms of "reincarnation" of the colonial system in the 21st century format.
In this regard, it is worth recalling that the Western world developed intensively within the framework of the colonial system for more than five centuries. And only in the second half of the 20th century, after the end of the World War, as a result of the formation of a powerful center of power in the face of the USSR, conditions were created that ensured its collapse. Thus, the current post-colonial state of the World-system lasts a little more than half a century. The logic of the development of the Western economy predetermines the end of this period of material prosperity. As was shown above, the West in a market economy can exist stably only with the constant receipt of additional resources from outside. Thus, for such a system to succeed, it is necessary to have a controlled, politically subjectless colonial periphery from which cheap resources can be drawn.
Recent events, starting with the defeat of Yugoslavia, the capture of Iraq and Afghanistan, the adoption of a new NATO strategic concept, ending with the aggression against Libya and the expansion of the Arab Spring process, clearly show that a new colonization is in store for the periphery of the World System. This is already a geopolitical inevitability, since there are no strategic actors in the world capable of preventing this.
In the process of "new colonization" there should be a re-codification of international law with the final rejection of the principles of the Yalta-Potsdam system of political world order. The world is waiting for the destruction of the UN foundations, the elimination or significant reduction of the role of the institution of permanent members of the UN Security Council, the correction of the principle of sovereign equality of states, which in the new colonial World-system will contradict its basic principles. As part of the recodification, there will be a forced adaptation of international law to the consumer interests of the West. In the foreseeable future, it can be expected that "legal" occupation or colonization within "recognized" zones of influence will take the place of the declared principles of self-determination and "non-interference" in the internal affairs of other countries. Through the efforts of the West, the system of international state structure will again be introduced into international practice, in which real sovereignty will be retained only by the states that make up the "Core" of the World-system. The “states” of the periphery will be allowed to have sovereignty only to the extent that it does not interfere with the activities of transnational corporations under certain conditions.
In accordance with the ideas of Z. Brzezinski, the basis of the new World should be the "Big West" - the United States and the European Union, and the "Big East" - Japan, India, Turkey, Saudi Arabia. In the coming colonial world, Russia as a subject of world politics has no place. At the same time, they have been demanding from us for a long time - they say "we need to share." One gets the impression that the frankly predatory ideas of M. Albright and D. Cheney resonate with Russian liberals such as a well-known academician who publicly discusses the possibility of "joint" management of the resources of Siberia with the "world powers".
This scenario does not seem fantastic now, given the fact that the Russian Empire, of which the Russian Federation is the successor, in 1884 signed an international convention containing the "principle of effective occupation." It follows from this that if a country is not able to "effectively" manage its resources, then external management can be introduced in relation to it. At the end of the XIX century. this principle legitimized the colonial system, but in the 21st century it can become the current norm of international law and will be the formal basis for the “legitimacy” of depriving Russia of its sovereign rights to manage its own territories and resources.
Over the past two decades, the real instrument of new colonization, the NATO bloc, has been significantly expanded, modernized and tested in numerous military actions. For those who consider this statement alarmist and anti-Western, we refer to the new NATO strategic concept adopted in 2010. in Lisbon. … if you just read it carefully without “reset filters of awareness”, you can see that in modern conditions NATO is a geopolitical instrument for ensuring the functioning of the “center-colonial periphery” system, in which only the Western world can safely exist. This is the military-political and police functions of the alliance. In fact, NATO is the combined military and political power of the states of the Western world that make up the center of the World System, intended for new "crusades", which, as you know, were primarily economic enterprises. Therefore, the NATO military system, in accordance with the plans of its masters, will be regularly sent to various regions of the world - to ensure the uninterrupted supply of raw materials, energy carriers and solve punitive tasks.
At the same time, one of the few positive trends in the modern periphery of the World-system is the search for opportunities to "unite the weak around the strong against the strong." And here it is fundamentally important for the West to prevent the uncontrolled growth of any major raw material power with a geopolitical status. Thus, the West completely “does not notice” such nuclear states as Israel, which constantly destabilizes the situation in the Middle East, and unpredictable Pakistan, which cannot or does not want to exercise control over the activities of the Taliban military-terrorist organization on its territory. But oil and gas Iran - a member of the NPT with its ambitions for regional leadership - is for the West the primary object of forced "democratization". In this regard, the so-called "nuclear program" of Iran for the United States and its allies is just a "casus belli". Even if Iran completely abandons nuclear technology, this will not stop the West from planning to unleash a "Great War".
Iran, as an object of Western interests, acts as a kind of "foreground" of Russia, a blow to which will cause significant damage to its foreign and domestic interests.
In this regard, it is appropriate to recall Z. Brzezinski's well-known statement that in the 21st century America will develop against Russia, at the expense of Russia and on the ruins of Russia. It is obvious that one of the goals of the "Great War" is to block Russia's efforts to create the Eurasian Union - a potentially powerful world "player" and, in the long term, a strategic subject of geopolitics, which could formulate an alternative project not only for its own, but also for global development.
Speaking about alternative Projects or Scenarios of global development, it is necessary to remember that they are based on one or another spiritual imperative. Having a tendency to expansion, one or another scenario of globalization affects the mental and dogmatic foundation, values and traditions of the carriers of a different civilizational code. This, in turn, can give rise to religious and ethnic conflicts that lead to a change in the political landscape of the Western and Eastern worlds. The cultural isolation arising as a result of such processes inevitably causes political-psychological and national-cultural contradictions, the underlying causes of which are religious and dogmatic differences.
…globalism implies the entry of the world into a qualitatively new era associated with post-industrial society and postmodernity. The matrix of this model is the US political structure, its federalism and liberal democracy, the spiritual foundations of which are based on a specific form of Protestantism - unitarism, which is close in its dogmatic content to Judaism. According to European researchers A. Negri and M. Hardt, the American "revolutionary project" means the gradual loss of ethnic, social, cultural, racial, religious identity and requires an even more accelerated transformation of "peoples" and "nations" into a quantitative cosmopolitan majority. But even if we ignore such a “revolutionary” position, the very American global strategy, called by the authors “Empire”, is based on the fact that it does not recognize any political sovereignty for any collective entity - be it an ethnic group, a class, a people or a nation.
... the history of interaction with the West, and above all with the United States, shows that it is realistic to build relationships with them, based on such a concept as "partners" - criminal short-sightedness. As C. Doyle used to say through the mouth of S. Holmes, since you, Watson, will deal not with the criminal world, but with British politicians, then do not believe a single word they say.
The history of the "Great Wars" teaches that the side that enters into it at the final stage can get the maximum advantage in the coming "Great War". With a high probability, she will be among the winners. In the light of the foregoing, one cannot but agree with B. Borisov's opinion that the creation of a geopolitical configuration similar to the Eurasian Union will make it possible to delay Russia's direct entry into the war. This can be achieved through a multiple increase in coalition power and the creation of buffer border zones, tk. fighting in them, according to the experience of past wars, may not spread to the territory of the metropolis, and this is a key foreign policy task ...
Causes and origins of a new world war
"Materialistic" basis: economic and military reasons
Economic reasons. World crude oil reserves are mostly under the Islamic Middle East and OPEC countries. The industrialized world needs energy, but not only that generated by power plants. To an even greater extent, he needs liquid fuel: for aviation - only from oil, and for vehicles - mainly from oil. Since the 20th century, the whole world has been forced to buy oil from Middle Eastern countries, spending hundreds of billions of dollars. According to Hugh Fitzgerald, since 1973 alone, the Islamic OPEC countries have earned 12 trillion (!) Dollars in oil.
There is no hope that in the foreseeable future it will be possible to eliminate or significantly reduce the consumption of petroleum products, since this would require revolutionary discoveries in science and technology, which are not even visible on the horizon. (The energy density of gasoline is 100 times that of the best modern batteries or capacitors.) As Dr. Robert Zubrin points out, we finance the war against ourselves by spending more on payments to our enemies than on our own defense industry. He calls for the most urgent measures to be taken to produce our own fuel based on alcohols from our abundant fossils and waste. But even if this plan were to work tomorrow, the cost of alcohol fuel can only compete with oil if the price of oil is over $50 per barrel. This will create a ceiling (still high) on OPEC-driven prices, but will by no means dry up the financial flow that feeds them.
Thus, the Islamic countries of the Middle East are blackmailing the entire Western world. A victorious war against these countries could eliminate this blackmail. In the past, the mere fact of blackmailing a key vital resource would have been sufficient for a full-scale war.
A unique opportunity to deal a death blow to Islam was lost on the eve of the tragic attack on us on 9/11/2001. As early as 9/12/2001, a nuclear attack on Mecca and Medina should have been carried out, which would have made it possible to end Islam with little blood, and get peace for the next 1000 years.
In addition, in earlier eras there was a clear understanding that trading with one's neighbors (especially with potential enemies) is not necessarily a blessing. Acquisition of vital resources from the enemy in huge quantities for money (and not through barter) means strengthening the military power of the enemy and assisting him in arms and equipment.
Alas, it is this false doctrine of unlimited trade that has now become dominant. Trade anything and anyone: including strategic raw materials bought from a mortal enemy, as trading supposedly provides a solution to all problems. But in this case, it is a suicidal decision, since it has led to an unprecedented enrichment of the enemies aimed at our destruction, giving them weapons and levers of influence that they never dreamed of in history.
military reasons. In previous eras, even a small military advantage on one side served as a serious incentive to start a war ("diplomacy by other means"). But the military superiority of the West is so great that the West could destroy the Islamic opponents entirely (if that was the goal), or selectively at its discretion. There has never been an imbalance of this magnitude before, and it is unlikely to last long.
Although capable of destroying the enemy, the West, however, does not have sufficient resources to implement the so-called "humane war" paradigm. According to this paradigm, it is required to reconstruct and establish freedom and democracy in the occupied territories, in the same way that America did so successfully with the defeated countries after the 2nd World War. An outstanding representative of such a school of thought is Anatoly Sharansky, who wrote in his latest book that supposedly there is no such people who would not want freedom (achieved in the countries of the Western world). Such thinking is both utopian and erroneous, but it still prevails among the ruling elite, paralyzing the will to self-preservation and survival.
The idea of a full-scale war is also put on hold in view of the unusual defeatism, leftism and Marxism that has gripped Western countries (as well as for other reasons discussed below). However, postponing the war and strengthening the enemies will only make it bloodier in the future.
Proliferation of nuclear weapons to Islamic countries: Pakistan, Iran. The Pakistani regime is very fragile. The periphery of the country is not controlled, giving shelter to Al-Qaeda units and possibly Bin Laden himself. However, Pakistan is still considered an ally in the war on terror (a euphemism for Islam) and therefore cannot be invaded. The spread of nuclear weapons to the Islamic world could be stopped by a full-scale war, and at the same time get rid of the center of al-Qaeda.
Socio-spiritual catastrophe of "Eurabia" and the entire Western world
In the countries of Western Europe, Islam acts as a "peaceful" invader invited by the masters themselves, having already reached 10% or more in some of them. This is an unprecedented influx of hostile aliens (piranhas) in history, unwilling and unable to assimilate. They are, in fact, external enemies launched into the house and become internal enemies. "Eurabia" is faced with the need to send back about 30 million Islamic immigrants (of which some have already formally become citizens). Such decisions are (still) an absolute taboo in democratic societies. Only war can resolve this dilemma.
The impracticable social programs of the "dying" Western Europe, that is, sluggish work and welfare from the cradle to the grave, completely spoiled the citizens of these countries. The birth rate below the replacement level further exacerbates the impossibility of fulfilling the social obligations assumed by the states. Of course, the voluntary renunciation of benefits by democratic means is completely out of the question. It is not possible to close the state feeders (unless a war starts...)
The West has entered the post-Christian era, functioning on the last vestiges of the spiritual past (Rabbi Daniel Lapin). These remnants dry up with each new generation. As a result, Western Europeans not only lost pride in their own great culture, but began to slavishly extol the "culture" of the newcomers. The ruling elites are afflicted with a suicidal disease of self-flagellation, insecurity, and defeatism, which has spurred the rise of treacherous leftist elements. Only by imposing martial law can this infection be ended.
Christianity is fleeing - even in the countries of its birth. For example, Catholicism, still the most numerous denomination of Christianity ("holy sea"), voluntarily yields its positions under the pressure of unorganized, but extremely impudent Islamic "guests" - and not just anywhere, but in the countries of its recent prosperity. Thus, France, the "beloved daughter of the Church", or Spain - both once deeply Catholic countries, have turned into socialist dens of atheism, and compete in servility to the claims of their Islamic "shock groups". Even Italy, the home of the Vatican, is on the same path of defeatism and humiliation. The pope hardly dares to say something critical about Islam, even in a whisper. And the head of the Anglican Church, the Archbishop of Canterbury, as well as the royal family (bearing the title "Defender of the [Christian] faith"!) Turned into accomplices of Islam. Jens Orbak, one of Sweden's ministers, said: "We must be open and tolerant of Islam and Muslims, because when we become a minority (!), they will be just as tolerant of us." (That is, a policy aimed at making the Swedes a minority in their own country is completely normal for him, and the Swedes should not even interfere with this!). Such a global betrayal of one's own traditions and faith has not yet taken place in history.
Christianity has become so lost that Christians have "forgotten" their age-old dream of freeing the holy places where Jesus lived and preached from the Islamic ("Palestinian") presence, or at least claim ownership of Bethlehem and Christianity's holiest church in it. After all, since the restoration of Israel, these holy places could be declared Christian enclaves under the protection of Israel (and Israel made such proposals, alas, remained unanswered).
In the United States, almost 100% Christian since its inception, and still 90% Christian, the churches are not yet empty (as in Eurabia). Freedom of religion (Jewish-Christian, of course) is guaranteed by the Constitution. However, under the pressure of leftist propaganda, this fundamental right has been eroded. Instead, a Soviet-style doctrine about the alleged separation of church and state was established "de facto", although not formally legalized. Now this "separation" has reached caricature forms, turning into the expulsion of Christianity from public life (in public schools and universities completely). But this "separation" somehow does not affect Islam. And how do Christians react to this? Still in the 90% majority, they behave like a beaten wife, timidly blathering here and there that they too have rights, and asking not to remove their religious symbols. Only war could revive the patriotism and preoccupation of Christianity with losing its position in its own home.
The unwillingness to "be fruitful and multiply" (and generally create a family) is also a consequence of the post-Christian era. The birth rate of Europeans is now about 1.5, while in the Islamic families of Eurabia this value reaches 3-5 (2.1 is necessary for reproduction). This factor of 1.5 in itself is equivalent to the demographic suicide of peoples. A similar situation occurs in Canada and Australia. (However, in the US, the birth rate is still close to 2.1). To move away from self-destructive hedonism and return to traditional Judeo-Christian values, a big shake-up is needed, and war can serve as such a shake-up.
Psychological causes of enemies
The "crazy" oil money "broken off" by the Middle East is perceived by it not only as an unprecedented success, but also as a sign given by Allah himself. Indeed, until the 20th century, no one paid attention to these countries, whose economy of carpets and camels, and whose tribal culture did not come out of the medieval period. The unexpected influx of fantastic money gave them confidence in their "mission" (the Islamization of the whole world and the restoration of the Caliphate). This influx doubled their obsession with jihad against infidels all over the world. He recreated the atmosphere of hysteria, fanaticism, expansionism, readiness to die for the "cause" and wage war at any cost without taking into account any "earthly" considerations. And all this is happening in the 1.2 billion Islamic sector of the world, and in the growing Islamic sector of the Western world. They are eager to fight, they yearn for a global war against the infidels.
The civilized unwillingness of the (complacent and fat) West to get involved in wars is perceived by them as obvious weakness, which is confirmed by the decadence and lack of self-confidence of the West, characteristic of recent decades. The West for them is an adversary that is begging to be conquered at this fateful moment, unique for them, when the influx of unexpected money coincided with the "senile disease of the leftism" of the West (Yuri Okunev). Islam simply cannot afford to miss such an opportune moment for its final war.
The impossibility of isolation from Western influences in the age of the Internet and mass communication is a particularly annoying factor for Islam. And although the West does not conduct any directed propaganda of its ideas among Islamic countries, the information that comes to them in a free stream seems to be subversive, threatening, and disgusting. It undermines their foundations, demonstrating that it was the "infidels" who achieved success in material life, and not Muslims. Western realities such as elected and accountable government, freedom of the press, equality and respect for women threaten the very foundations of Islamic society.
On the other hand, the post-religious West exhibits the ugly features of decadence, such as the normalization, encouragement and legal protection (!) of sexual perversion, and the promotion of sexual promiscuity in general. It's really disgusting. Citizens of Western countries are at least aware that all this filth comes as a "load" in a package that also contains great things: freedom, science, masterpieces of art, wonderful entertainment. Muslims are not impressed by Mozart, Rembrandt, Einstein or the Beatles. All that they perceive from the Western package of "values" is only one "load": Hollywood dirty tricks and decadent corruption. Therefore, they will fight to the death so that their daughters do not turn into whores, and their sons do not "open their arms" to "embrace" "diversity" and "alternative" lifestyles.
The role of other "big players"
Russia, China, India. Islam poses a threat to Russia as well, but it is moving towards a confrontation with the West, not with Islam. Russia supported such countries as Iraq (under S. Hussein), Syria, Iran - and this despite the humiliation and horrors of the Islamic attacks in Beslan and in the Moscow theater! Belief in "one's own special way" and endemic hatred of the West (especially Israel) make it impossible to even think of being on the same side with them. Therefore, Russia, along with Islam, is concerned only with gaining something from the geopolitical situation and the arms trade with Islamic enemies.
China is not concerned with Islam at all. Just like Russia, it only seeks to take advantage of the looming global conflict for its own purposes. Its growing economy and demand for oil are pushing up the price of oil, and infiltrating (if not "merging") with the US economy is its weapon of blackmail.
India is sandwiched between two fanatical Islamic neighbors (Pakistan is nuclear) who incite the Indian Islamic minority and the Islamic separatists of Kashmir. But the Indian government is still undecided, whether because of weakness or under the influence of Islamic money.
If Russia and China took a pro-Western stance, the situation would be simplified. And so, by playing games of "containment" and interfering wherever possible, they paralyze the (already close to zero) determination of the West to get involved in a war to protect civilization. War, in the end, will happen anyway, but it will cost more.
Israel as an outpost and a pariah: the approach of the apocalyptic war. Since its resurrection in 1948, Israel - an outpost of the West - has been under constant attack from its Islamic neighbors. The West, however, is not famous for its desire to defend its outposts, trying to buy peace for itself, but getting war at a higher price (W. Churchill). This is how the West betrayed Poland and the Baltic States to Hitler and Stalin, and betrayed Czechoslovakia (twice!): first to Hitler, and then to the Soviets. Note: unlike Israel, Poland and Czechoslovakia were, so to speak, normal "members of the club."
In theory, Israel would seem to be an ideal object of support for the West, and an ally in the joint struggle against Islamic enemies. After all, Israel is also an ideal case for a successful national liberation movement (Zionism); and moreover, God himself bequeathed to protect Israel, whose fate and well-being are of fundamental importance in both Judaism and Christianity. However, neither the socialists of the world want to see it in this light. Not Christians (with the exception of American Evangelicals and some other denominations of Zionist Christians). Not even the Israelis themselves are victims of the same senile disease of leftism that has swallowed up the West.
Islam is a threat to the very existence of the entire West. But the entire West is still big enough, and Israel is barely visible on the map. As the front line of the West, Israel is not only the most vulnerable link: it is a link whose every second existence is at stake in the literal sense of the word. Well, "Eurabia" not only never bothered to lend a helping hand to Israel at critical moments in its military history. Eurabia and her intellectual elite (including some Jews) have never concealed that they would have preferred the defeat of Israel - this unfortunate "mistake" of the past.
Now, when the confrontation with Islam is getting sharper, Israel has unwittingly found itself in the role of a possible trigger for a large-scale conflict. But strange as it may seem, it looks as if the victory over Islam is not the most important thing for the West and America. The most important thing is that among the motives for the war there should not be (God forbid) anything that looks like protecting the interests of Israel. So again and again Israel is thrown to the wolves to delay the inevitable. And when this inevitable finally happens, the war will prove to be prophetic, truly apocalyptic in proportion.
A low-intensity war is already happening now: in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as in a number of other places where Islamic groups are waging jihad against "infidels" in their own or neighboring countries. On a larger time scale, the Islamic Middle East has been fighting for the destruction of Israel for 60 years, and on a larger scale, it is Islam's 1300-year war for world domination.
The relatively "peaceful" period after the last World War (more than 60 years) was somewhat "prolonged".
Sir Winston Churchill's foresight back in 1899 is startling:
"What a curse that Mohameddism (Islam) imposes on its adherents! Along with the rabid fanaticism, which is dangerous both in humans and in dogs, they also have this fearful fatalistic apathy. This effect can be traced in many countries. sloppy farming systems, sluggish commerce, and insecure property rights exist wherever the followers of the "Prophet" live and rule.
Degraded voluptuousness deprives their lives of refinement and grace, dignity and holiness. The mere fact that, according to the law of Mohammed, every woman must belong to a man as absolute property (girl, wife or concubine) delays the abolition of slavery until the time when Islam ceases to be a powerful force governing people.
Individual Muslims may exhibit excellent qualities, but the influence of this religion paralyzes the social development of those who follow it. There is no greater retrograde power in the world! Far from dying, Islam is a militant and expanding religion. They have already penetrated into central Africa, recruiting fearless warriors at every turn. And if Christianity had not been in alliance with science (with science against which it had fought so long and in vain), Western European civilization would have fallen in the same way that Roman civilization once fell.
It is amazing how Sir Winston was able to see Islam as a threat when the British Empire was still in all its splendor (and the sun never set on it), and the Islamic world should have seemed rather dying, since no one was still concerned with oil. What a cruel irony it is that it is Great Britain that has become the most striking example of voluntary slavery (dhimi) and vile servility to its insatiable Islamic piranhas!
Religious reason for future war
Rabbi Lapin traces the reasons for the opposition and the inevitability of war with Islam, starting from the time of Abraham. However, in modern times, the most significant religious reason for a future war (the least significant in the eyes of modern political elites) is, of course, the liberation of Jerusalem in 1967 as a result of Israel's victorious 6-day war. This moment should have been a key moment in the history of Judaism and Christianity: after thousands of years of prayer, one of the main biblical goals has been achieved. Since 1967, this is no longer a pipe dream, whose embodiment is only in the hands of the Lord. Since 1967, the Temple Mount has belonged to the jurisdiction of the Israeli government, that is, the sphere of influence of the entire Western (Christian) world. From now on, therefore, the task of rebuilding the Third Temple is exclusively in human hands, as never before. Never before has the Jewish-Christian community of the world had the opportunity to make a feasible decision in the direction of the implementation of the plan of the Lord, that is, to actually restore the Third Temple, creating the prerequisite for the appearance of the Messiah (the appearance of the second or first).
Unfortunately, neither the Israeli government of 1967, nor the Western (nominally Christian) governments of that time, nor the modern ones, are yet ready to accept a decision entirely in their power. How long?..
Of course, the reasons listed above do not allow us to accurately predict the date of a full-scale war: whether it will happen in a few months, or years, or decades. Some of these symptoms are sharpening before our eyes, such as the strikes in France (they take away the feeder), the riots of the Islamic "youth", or the growing chaos in Pakistan. On the other hand, there are some signs of the awakening of Eurabia. It is like the planetary movement of tectonic plates: it cannot be stopped and it causes unpredictable catastrophic earthquakes. Unpredictable but inevitable.
Alexander Gofen
Igor Pshenichnikov, expert of the Russian Institute for Strategic Studies (RISI): Reading the so-called analytics performed by American political scientists, one comes to the conclusion that the American establishment is stubbornly and persistently preparing the public opinion of their country and the whole world for the "inevitability" of a global war. Moreover, hiding behind the opinions and scientific conclusions of "eggheads" from political science, this very establishment is programming the universal consciousness in such a way that the third world war will happen already in the coming year. Robert Farley, a lecturer at the Patterson School of Diplomacy and International Trade at the University of Kentucky, published an article in The National Interest with the characteristic title "Five places where the third world war could start in 2018". One headline is enough to make the reader go cold with horror. Nonsense, paranoia? No. An accurate calculation aimed at justifying in the eyes of "all progressive mankind" the future possible "active measures" of the US military far beyond the borders of the United States. And the main thing is to show that the armed conflicts “planned” by the Americans, if they break out, will not be the fault of the United States, but the fault of the other side, or, at best, due to “objective reality”, which cannot lead to anything other than a third world.
Five Dangerous Regions
So, where, according to an analyst from the University of Kentucky, in 2018, the third world war can begin?
The first region is North Korea.
"North Korea's success in developing ballistic missiles, combined with the diplomatic inexperience of the Trump administration, has created an extremely dangerous situation that could easily lead to a miscalculation by either side and a possible war that could affect Japan and China," writes Farley.
The second region is Taiwan. Farley cites "recent aggressive statements by Chinese military and diplomatic representatives." This, in his opinion, "indicates that at least some in China believe that the military balance has shifted in their favor." And this, they say, can push China to seize Taiwan. And as a result, there was "uncertainty that could lead to destructive conflict."
The third region is Ukraine. Farley's fantasies run wild here. He writes that “Putin may seize the chance to seize even larger chunks of the country (Ukraine)… A serious incursion of Russian troops into Ukraine… could threaten to drag Europe and the US into conflict with Moscow.”
The fourth region is the southern flank of NATO, or Turkey. The American analyst laments that “Relations between the United States and Turkey have practically collapsed over the past year against the background of the fact that there is a significant rapprochement between Ankara and Moscow ...
Turkey's alienation from the EU and the US, which is manifested in Turkey's acquisition of new Russian military equipment, could herald a significant shift in the regional balance of power." Farley writes that "Turkey's change in diplomatic orientation could have unpredictable consequences." War, in other words.
And the fifth region is the Middle East. “As the civil war in Syria draws to a close,” adds Farley, “the focus has shifted to the confrontation between Iran and Saudi Arabia… The Trump administration, recognizing much of the victory of the Assad regime in Syria, is redirecting its efforts in the region to fighting Iran.”
"Our response to Chamberlain"
Let's see where the United States can really "bomb", and where they only scare with war. The points.
First. As for the hysterical cries from Washington about the threat of a strike from Pyongyang, this is nothing more than a performance. No one will bomb North Korea. And whoever claims the opposite, most likely, goes on about the conductors of this performance, not understanding the essence. It's not about North Korea and not about its missiles, but about those missile defense systems that the United States, under the pretext of fighting the DPRK, deployed in South Korea, making them the Far Eastern segment of its global missile defense system. And the goals of the American missile defense systems are primarily not in the DPRK, but in Russia and China. Of course, the possibility of a US attack on the DPRK cannot be completely ruled out, but it is very small.
Second. Speaking about the danger of China's invasion of Taiwan, R. Farley himself points out that it is "probably premature" to believe that the Chinese leadership is inclined towards this. So why put a shadow on the wattle fence?
Third. Yes, the conflict in eastern Ukraine is dangerous. But it is dangerous, first of all, because not Moscow, but Kyiv, pushed by the States, can brew large-scale military operations in the Donbass. What there are clear signs today. Washington needs a project called "Independent Ukraine" only if Ukraine behaves like an enemy of Russia, like a kind of irritant at the borders of Russia.
The existence of Ukraine with a Russian-friendly government and population simply does not make sense for the West. Therefore, there will be no peace in Ukraine as long as Poroshenko and others like him rule there. At the same time, no one will touch Russia under any circumstances. The arms are short. And it will cost you more. The states understand this. And "a serious invasion of Russian troops into Ukraine" is not planned. Why crush a rotten barn with a tank? It will fall apart on its own.
Fifth. But Iran, most likely, may be attacked if one of the powerful players does not stop the United States. Iran is regarded by Israel as its main threat and as the main enemy. The Israeli leadership proceeds from the assumption that Tehran may possess nuclear weapons and their means of delivery. The Israelis have no proof, but they want to rule out even the slightest possibility of a strike against Israel. Trump, unlike Obama, is Israel's closest ally. He is heavily influenced by the pro-Israel lobby in his country, which is pushing him to "finally solve" the Iranian issue. And the “solution” process has already started. In recent months, there has been a powerful information and diplomatic attack by the United States on Iran. Similarly, the United States once worked on Iraq on the eve of the invasion of this country. And, judging by the way the Israelis pushed through Trump's decision to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, it can be said with confidence that Trump will not back down from the Iranian issue.
War with limited consequences
But what kind of war does Trump want, be it Iran or somewhere else?
The whole world today is unbalanced and explosive. And no one needs to prove that any armed conflict in the current hot spots potentially threatens to turn into a conflict on a global scale. But to say that the third world war may flare up in 2018 is already like a planned informational “artillery preparation”.
To understand why Americans do this, one must answer the ancient question: who benefits from this? Yes, you need to reason in primitive categories: profitable - unprofitable. Because we are dealing with a community of characters on the other side of the Atlantic, who themselves argue exclusively in these categories. They need a lot of money for power. And a lot of power - for the sake of money.
Who, besides the United States, can benefit from a big war? Nobody. And the United States needs it in order to regain the role of world hegemon slipping through their fingers, which they have been trying to play for the last 25 years. Russia is demonstrating that it will not live according to this scenario. China is cautiously demonstrating the same. Many other countries would like to loudly declare similar things, but their actual lack of sovereignty as a result of their complete financial and political subordination to Washington makes them silent. But one way or another, they look at the example of Russia.
The United States wants to declare who is the boss in the house, and loudly hit the table, or rather, some country. Washington has something to hit. Everyone else, except Russia and China, has nothing to answer. Therefore, the calculation is that everyone else, figuratively speaking, will close their ears after the hegemon strikes somewhere. Well, there your hands are already free - make "America Great Again" in any way you please. The main thing is that everyone else was silent.
But the question arises: is it possible to remain a hegemon after a real World War, which, most likely, will not be conventional? Can America be made great again if there is no America? Or does someone in the US believe that Russia or China will not be able to respond? Probably, those who make decisions in the United States still have common sense: they realize that there will be no winners in the third world. Hence, the conclusion: our "partners" do not really want a global conflict.
They want some kind of war with limited consequences. A war of such magnitude that it does not escalate into a third world war. The United States seems to be saying: we will fight a little here and there, maybe we will kill someone, but we ourselves do not want to die in the fire of a global nuclear fire. We will show our strength - and you tremble.
Owning the whole world is the main idea
Isn't this what the new US security strategy, which President Trump recently introduced, is talking about? From this document it clearly follows that the aspect of US military power is given a leading place not only in the foreign policy course, but in all other areas identified as priorities.
The author of an analytical article in The National Interest concludes that “the world remains extremely dangerous. The diplomatic turmoil of the Trump administration has only exacerbated this danger, creating global uncertainty about US intentions and capabilities.” Farley seems to be criticizing Trump? Don't believe.
Trump, who appears to be under attack by the American establishment, is in reality a part of that establishment himself. Different clans of American "elites" are different oligarchic and ideological (and even spiritual and philosophical) groups. But they are all united and obsessed with one idea inherent only to them: to own the whole world and enrich themselves at its expense. They won't settle for anything less. And in this they are united.
Therefore, the national security strategy proposed by Trump and the mantra-like articles of the “ideologically opposite” Robert Farley absolutely echo each other. Trump and the liberal establishment attacking him have a common denominator and serve the same purpose: to ensure that the United States has unconditional superiority over the entire world by force of arms. And for the sake of this, everyone is intimidated by the possibility of its use.
In fact, Farley is not writing about the danger of a third world war. His article and similar opuses of other American "political scientists" are a poorly hidden threat to the whole world (and The National Interest is read all over the world) in the sense that the United States is ready to use weapons against the disobedient. And no one, they say, needs to twitch if you don’t want everything to turn into a third world war.
Not everyone is an idiot
This could be the point. But an assessment of how the "masterminds" in the United States accustom the public to the idea of the "inevitability" of a global war would be incomplete without examples of the characteristic reaction of ordinary Americans to such horror stories. At the end of the article by the “analyst” from Kentucky on the website of The National Interest, there are responses from readers. Here is the very first of them: “In all these places, the US has shown that they are still showing aggression... In all these places, the US has spilled the cup of war… If the US had kept its nose out of these places, the threat of a third world war would have been much less...” As they say, no comment.
The opinion expressed in this material is the author's and may not coincide with the opinion of the editors.
A survey was conducted in nine Western countries, including the US, Germany, France and the UK, which showed that the majority of the inhabitants of these countries believe that a third world war could begin in the near future.
How will the war between Russia and NATO end?
According to The Independent, citing data from a YouGov survey, among Americans surveyed, 64% believe that a world war cannot be avoided, 15% believe in a peaceful settlement. In the UK, 61% of respondents predict a third world war, 19% hold a diametrically opposite opinion.
Residents of the Nordic countries are reluctant to believe in the threat of a new world war: only 39% of Danes believe that this can really happen.
Most of all, according to sociologists, residents of the United States and France are concerned about the prospect of a possible third world war. The poll also showed that 71% of Britons and 59% of Americans fear Russia. The majority of French people (81%) named terrorism as their main fear.
The survey was conducted among 9,000 residents of Western countries.
It should be noted that in connection with tense relations and an abundance of regional conflicts, more and more often one hears about the imminent start of the Third World War. But is this war really that likely? And will NATO, led by the United States, decide on direct aggression against the Russian Federation? Common sense still says no. And it's not just the presence of nuclear weapons.
In the article "US-NATO: military superiority" we wrote that the US and its European and Asian allies have much more military equipment and assets than Russia and China combined. Does this mean that America and its allies will win the world war? The answer is no. If we do the unimaginable and let another world war break out, there will be no winners, everyone on the planet will lose. And that's why.
Recall that NATO is better armed than Russia. The combined population of the 28 states that make up the North Atlantic Alliance is three times that of Russia, plus their budgets are many times greater than the budget of the country they consider their enemy.
With a roughly 10 to 1 superiority in military courts and roughly 3 to 1 in the air, Mr. Putin may have no choice but to resort to nuclear weapons. The third world war will not be a repetition of previous world wars - it will turn into fast and dirty in a short time.
Russia can quickly land a deadly or near-death blow on NATO's European allies. Even if the Americans support them, they will not be troops on the borders. While the armed forces of Russia, despite the fact that in general it is inferior in military equipment and means, are well-equipped in order to quickly mobilize and defend their country.
Russia's allies should also be remembered, including Iran, Syria and, last but not least, China. Yes, Israel will side with NATO to try to destroy Iran, Hezbollah and Syria. China will support Russia...
But wait, we are forgetting a number of important factors that must be considered in this scenario before any such war begins.
The situation in the world economy is different from that which was on the eve of World War II. In fact, it is almost the opposite . At the beginning of that war, the debts of the United States and Europe were small, they increased significantly by its end. If a world war breaks out, it will quickly lead to worldwide bankruptcy and send the global economy into depression.
Many people seem to think that America can fight another war with impunity, in addition to the other two. But these two wars have already significantly contributed to the increase in the national debt to 18.1 trillion dollars.
The wars with Iraq and Afghanistan were insignificant compared to the possible scenario of the Third World War. The cost of fully mobilizing US military forces abroad would send the federal budget deficit skyrocketing. The United States is already being followed on the heels of the debtor countries of Europe, whose public debt to GDP in 2014 reached 106 percent.
One has to ask, how would the US government pay the huge Pentagon bills? It is worth remembering here that China, which US politicians publicly view as an enemy, is helping to finance US debt. He does this by buying up Treasuries and maintaining a positive trade balance with America.
Will China continue to accumulate US debt in the event of a world war? No. Do Americans think that the Chinese are so stupid and gullible? This funding will immediately stop. Given this harsh reality, how will America finance its participation in World War III?
In the event of a full-scale war, Congress will face cuts in social security and other programs to protect the poor, social programs, as well as tax increases. And in America, there are already 50 million people on food stamps, many of them in low-paying or part-time jobs; a demographic crisis unfolds.
