North Korea began preparations for the third world? (Russian military expert). There will be no peace in Ukraine

Photos from open sources

In recent years, the Russian and foreign press have so often and confidently talked about the impending World War III that we have even ceased to be horrified by this prospect. They got used to it and seem to be mentally prepared. As someone noted, if in the first half of the last century the world was tired of wars, then in the first half of the present century the world is tired of peace.

The other day, the American private intelligence and analytical company Stratfor (an acronym for Strategic Forecasting Inc.), sometimes called the shadow CIA, busily analyzed the Pentagon's ability to quickly deploy troops to future theaters of war in Europe and East Asia. The conclusion is disappointing: not yet.

“If the United States faces competing great powers in any kind of armed conflict, it will have to move its troops quickly over vast distances, since the forward deployment of American forces in Europe and the western Pacific will not be enough to stand up to Russia and China on its own.”

Well-developed US military transport aircraft can transport no more than five thousand soldiers and several hundred tanks. This means that 90 percent of the marines, equipment and army equipment will have to be sent on ships across the oceans.

“At the same time, Russia and China will naturally try to intercept US troops on the high seas before they arrive at their destination. Russian submarines are once again showing an increase in activity in the North Atlantic, while the Chinese fleet sends ships deep into the Pacific Ocean, and its forces increase every year. In addition, new technologies could make slow US transport ships even more vulnerable to attack. The development of ever-increasing range cruise missiles, anti-ship ballistic missiles and hypersonic weapons could enable Russian and Chinese forces to fire on US transport ships from vast distances, especially in the presence of sophisticated satellite constellations.”

Apparently, the Pentagon will not be able to solve the logistical problems in the next ten years, so the Third World War is postponed. Stratfor talks about it in his own way - with a claim to detached objectivity, but regret is still felt. For a war with the great powers, according to American analysts, is only a matter of time. You just need to be better prepared to win.

"As the United States prepares for the looming showdown with Russia and China, logistical issues will naturally take center stage in the minds of the nation's military planners."

There are two reasons for optimism. First, we are talking about a war without the use of nuclear weapons, the old fashioned way. Secondly, in the voluminous report-forecast for 2019 in eight parts, which I recommend reading (the fifth is devoted to us, but the rest are also interesting), a clash between Russia and the United States is not planned next year.

Of course, after mastering the Stratfor materials, I had many questions. Even if you do not pay attention to funny claims like Navalny's influence on our internal political processes, "a hybrid war against Western countries and Western-oriented states" or insidious plans to attack the Baltic countries. Although, in my opinion, such lightly politicized arguments based on propaganda, not facts, reduce the value of any analytics. The main bewilderment is that American experts do not mention the practically inevitable escalation of a conventional war into a nuclear one.

But this is obvious - neither Russia nor the United States will allow a loss. Just imagine that our Aerospace Forces, one by one, are sinking ships with manpower and armored vehicles that have headed across the Atlantic to Europe. Or, one after another, they destroy aircraft carrier strike groups located in different regions of the world's oceans. Even today it is possible, and in ten years even more so. Surely the Pentagon generals will not respond by pushing buttons to launch ballistic missiles?

I lack a realistic view of geopolitics. And it includes not only knowledge of physical geography or the characteristics of numerous countries and regions mentioned in the review, but also such a component as the instinct for the preservation of mankind and its desire to eliminate the danger of total destruction. What was revealed to the world half a century ago.

Nevertheless, Stratfor analytics is good only because we can discuss it - find strengths and weaknesses, errors and inaccuracies. Or, on the contrary, to recognize the correctness of the experts who have done a titanic work. It is also in the report, of course, it is absurd to deny it.

Pavel Shipilin

& Drums of the Third World War rumble louder and louder in the West. “Poland has confirmed negotiations on the deployment of American military warehouses for heavy military equipment on its territory, Reuters reports, citing a statement by the head of the country's Ministry of Defense, Tomasz Semoniak. Later, the same was reported in the Ministry of Defense of Lithuania. On Saturday, the New York Times wrote about the Pentagon's planned deployment of tanks and other heavy military equipment in Eastern Europe.

Semonyak spoke about his trip to the United States: “During negotiations in Washington in May, I was assured that a decision (on the deployment of military depots) would be made soon. This is another step to increase the American presence in Poland and the region.”

Also, according to TASS, Semonyak said: “We have long been striving for the widest possible military presence in Poland and on the entire eastern flank of NATO. The United States is preparing a set of various actions, among which the deployment of heavy weapons in Poland and other countries is extremely important. Relocating soldiers is relatively easy, but it would be nice if the equipment was closer to the territory of the potential threat.”

Why did I bold the last sentence? Especially for naive people who laughed for a long time from "five tanks in Lithuania" or "a hundred paratroopers in Estonia." It is simply a matter of misunderstanding the essence of the process.

I apologize to the professional military if I make a mistake in terminology, but I believe there will be no particularly serious mistakes - the main thing is the essence of the phenomenon, and not the name accepted in the textbooks. Of course, if one of the professionals will correct in essence, I will be grateful.

The world war is a competition of organizational structures. The initial task is not the mass transfer of heavy equipment, but the deployment of headquarters and the preparation of conditions for the mass deployment of troops. The question is not "how much?", but"where" And How?".

This includes a whole range of activities - familiarizing commanding officers with the terrain in which they will have to fight, organizing premises for future barracks and hospitals, determining places for storing ammunition and parking equipment, information training for the local population - people are taught that armored vehicles roaming the roads are becoming commonplace background, there is a "dehumanization" of the enemy in the media and the preparation of public opinion for the inevitability of the Third World War. Etc. etc. etc.

In fact, the beginning of the first phase of preparations for the Third World War with Russia was officially announced in January 2015.

At the same time, the need to eliminate potential enemy bridgeheads became obvious: & The Balts themselves chose the role of a bridgehead for aggression. Their curator Victoria Nuland openly called the border with Russia the front line yesterday. No one is hiding anything anymore, and only we are in the combat pose of an ostrich. It was clearly said - the front line. Do we have to wait for candy to fly in from the front line? Or is it more reasonable to move the front line away from their industrial and administrative centers? The question is rhetorical. Will we make it? It’s also a rhetorical question – we won’t do it.”

Let me remind you of only a few events known to us that have occurred since that moment:

Drop by drop, drop by drop, and each individual message seems not so significant. What most observers don't realize is that this is exactly how World War III is being prepared - people see individual streams, but don't see the big river into which they merge. That's how it's intended.

If the first part can be conditionally called "Creating the infrastructure of the Third World War", the formation of the skeleton, now the beginning of the second stage has been announced - the massive saturation of ready-made structures with equipment and ammunition.

Of course, the number of transferred tanks, guns, missiles and shells in official reports will again be underestimated by an order of magnitude - information about the transfer of five to ten to twenty tanks, self-propelled guns, armored personnel carriers will periodically begin to slip. And many Russian citizens will cackle merrily over each such message. It would not occur to them to evaluate not each message separately, but the totality of these messages for a certain period of time. Therefore, the real meaning will elude them. And the meaning is simple - the military skeleton is rapidly overgrown with meat.

At the same time, it is not necessary to transfer a huge number of personnel immediately - this can be done at the very last moment, at least a few hours before the start of the Third World War. The main thing is that there are headquarters ready to receive troops and places for their deployment, and equipment and ammunition are already in place. Everything is ready - it remains only to put the tankers in the tanks and put the gunners to the guns.

That's the imminent completion of this second stage is now announced. It's just that the number of troops already deployed is so great that some official explanation must be given to this, because the enemy (that is, we), to put it mildly, is beginning to pay attention to it.

So the stage of feints is over - the time has come to openly admit the fact of the mass transfer of equipment to the Russian borders. At the same time, the imminent start of deliveries of lethal weapons to Ukraine was announced - the Southwestern flank of NATO and its backbone in the face of the Armed Forces of Ukraine was formed and entered, de facto, under the American command. Now you can saturate with weapons.

The military skeleton is overgrown with meat before our eyes.

That is why I so often said that we needed to destroy the Kyiv junta much earlier - on the already created military skeleton, even if it seems frail, muscles can be built up quickly. If the Dnieper was between us and NATO, the situation would be the same. But now the enemy troops are standing near Kharkov, as in 1942 - this is completely different. And they are not only near Kharkov - the troops of the American coalition are concentrated along our entire border from Norway to Georgia, and the operational situation is much more dangerous than on the eve of June 22, 1941. Unlike Hitler, the Americans have ALREADY occupied Ukraine and the Baltic States - without firing a shot, without losing a single soldier. That is why the Armed Forces of Ukraine pose such a danger to us. Certainly not by themselves, taken separately. They are part of the & legions of NATO "- according to a statement, by the way, by Putin himself.

It is very hard for me to believe that our president and his advisers have ever seriously allowed "the split between the US and Europe", the spontaneous &fall of the junta" and other nonsense. Most likely, it was a deliberate stuffing, which was happily picked up by Fritzmorgen, Starikov, Politrash and others like them (I don’t want to characterize these people, because the Lord ordered us to be meek and gentle).

“They want to drag us into the Third World War in Ukraine. » If they want, they will be “drawn in” in 15 minutes. But they will do it exactly when it is convenient for them, when they themselves are ready. “We will not let ourselves be drawn into the Third World War” is a primitive explanation for the general public of the apparent inaction of the authorities in response to the frank preparations for an attack on Russia. But the authorities have not been idle, they have been doing something all this year. At least militarily, she definitely did. Russia sacrificed quality by allowing NATO to create a shock fist far beyond the Dnieper. Despite the fact that we already have a front from Norway to Georgia. What did we get in return? For what was such a huge piece of territory sacrificed, the population - that is, the mobilization resource, military-industrial complex enterprises - the same Yuzhmash, for the sake of which we allowed the enemy to move the Southwestern Front hundreds of kilometers to the east? What did you get in return?

Let us recall the famous TASS message of June 13, 1941, which said that we have excellent relations with Germany, the pact is respected, the rest is "false and provocative rumors." What was it? Zrada chi slander?

In fact, Stalin knew perfectly well that Germany was preparing an attack and could decide on it. The addressee of the message was not Hitler, and not the bewildered Soviet people, but US President Roosevelt. Since it was known for sure that the Americans decided to support the USSR in the event of a German attack. Or Germany - in the event of an attack by the USSR. And Stalin said to Roosevelt - we don't even think about it. If anything starts, then the aggressor is Hitler.

Maybe now China is the same addressee?

Maybe the goal of sacrificing a strategically important territory is the loyalty of the allies in the CSTO, BRICS, SCO? Maybe we have developed some kind of superweapon this year? Anything is possible, of course. But who prevented us from doing all this, having a border along the Dnieper? Many questions.

Perhaps there are simple and convincing explanations for all this. But we won't know the truth soon. And we will only find out if we win the Third World War. If we lose, history will be written for us by the same beings who wrote it for the Indians living on the reservation. So you don’t even have to think about it - we will win, we have no other choice.

The Village learned from Pavel Felgenhauer, an independent military expert and Novaya Gazeta columnist, what problems and difficulties the Russian armed forces face, why the main threat to the country is concentrated in Central Asia, and why Russian politicians regularly threaten to destroy the United States.

On the modernization of the armed forces

“Last spring, we all saw “polite people” – it turned out that the Russian armed forces, from which you do not expect anything good, can suddenly look modern and efficient. Is it really?

- Do not confuse weapons, equipment and discipline. Polite, following orders, soldiers may be armed with bows and clubs.

At the same time, forces armed with modern weapons can also be a horde. These are not directly related things.
Yes, there are well-trained units in Russia. A certain level of discipline in our armed forces has always been maintained - it cannot be said that they have ever turned into a crowd of marauding bandits (although this has also happened in history). At the same time, the armed forces as a whole remain backward and unprepared for modern warfare. A rearmament program until 2020 has been adopted, which means that the current armed forces are outdated. There were serious attempts to modernize them, but so far no great success has been achieved, which is shown by the fighting in the Donbass, where they are fighting the same way as 50 years ago.
This does not mean that it is impossible to fight like that - it is possible, especially if your opponent is exactly the same. But it is better not to encounter the modern armed forces of the West on the battlefield, otherwise there will be horns and legs.

- What is the percentage of modernized units in the Russian armed forces, how many “polite people” are there?

- "Polite people" - this is just special forces, which occupied the Simferopol airport. They are disciplined and quite well prepared. Yes, they were strikingly different from the Cossacks and robbers in various camouflage: earlier, during the Chechen wars, our special forces looked different, because people bought their own equipment and uniforms. In Crimea, everyone was dressed in the same type of "figure" (type of camouflage. - Approx. ed.), and therefore it was immediately clear who they were and where they came from. But the weapons and equipment of the soldiers still did not correspond to the modern level. They have the wrong weapons, the wrong armor, the wrong means of communication.
Nothing fundamentally has changed. We don’t make modern small arms, we don’t make normal cartridges, they don’t make artillery shells for a long time - they shoot with old ones. There is no normal mass sniper rifle, and there are no snipers either. There are a handful of specialists in the FSB - they have foreign weapons and bullets. We managed to buy something abroad, but partially and in very small quantities.

Our tanks are rubbish, everyone knows this, and therefore fundamentally new tanks are being created - the Armata platform. Soviet tank building has reached a dead end, it is difficult to admit this for many reasons, but everyone understood this very well. Our tanks are willingly bought only by those countries where there are no birth problems.

In the Donbass, our equipment is fighting on both sides and it burns like a candle.
Our aviation cannot effectively support infantry units - at least at night and in bad weather. We have problems with modern aircraft engines, a growing backlog. With aviation electronics problems, we never made a good modern radar. Radars are created in different countries, but components are produced in one place - in the USA. For example, there is a part for an active phased array antenna, it is made only by Raytheon Americans. We bought it, but it won't work anymore. And with its manufacture does not work.

Have you heard of GPS aiming? Artillery fire is controlled by a computer using the GPS coordinates of the target, which were tracked by the drone in the sky. I have seen this personally on the Lebanese border during the 2006 war, when an Israeli battery hit southern Lebanon. In this way, it is possible to conduct high-precision fire with ordinary cheap shells. But in Russia there is no such thing, and we do not know how to do it. Also, we can't use GPS, so we've pumped a lot of money into GLONASS. In general, the problems are serious.
Although we launched a screwdriver production of Forpost drones under an Israeli license, in fact this is a twenty-year-old IAI Searcher.
With their help, we can somehow coordinate the fire of multiple launch rocket systems. This made it possible to defeat the southern grouping of Ukrainian troops near Ilovaisk and Saur-Mohyla at the end of August 2014. But actually, these drones are in a million countries, and Georgia already had them during the 2008 war. That is, in fact, we have armed forces at the level of Pakistan. Of course they have nuclear weapons, missiles, submarines. True, how many of them are really suitable in the event of a nuclear war, no one really knows, but they will not specifically check.

All major upgrades in Russian history have relied on Western technology, access to which will now be difficult. It is not clear whether something can be seriously achieved. In the military sphere, prices are rising all the time, and now strong inflation will begin. For the same money, it will be possible to buy five times less than planned, and some things will not be able to be done at all. Every year, Russia made military purchases in the United States for one and a half to two billion dollars. These are not only components, but also high-precision machines. The whole world is switching to 3D printing of high-precision parts and complex profiles from powdered metals. And we still haven’t learned how to use digital processing machines, and Uncle Vasya is finishing everything with files. Well, where will the modern armed forces come from then? They are not modern either. It's more of an appearance.

There is a famous saying of Churchill: "Russia is not as strong as you fear, and not as weak as you hope." Things were not so bad with the armed forces before, things are not so good now.

- And who launched the modernization process in the Russian army - the disgraced Anatoly Serdyukov or Sergei Shoigu?

- The Armed Forces were modernized by the former Chief of the General Staff Nikolai Makarov. Serdyukov did not get involved in all these matters, but he agreed to carry out reforms and gave Makarov the opportunity to act radically. After the arrival of Shoigu in 2012, a rollback began. There are no new reforms; partially dismantle what they have done. Under Shoigu, the situation became much worse than it was under Serdyukov.

Under Serdyukov, they took up the most important thing - military education. Military education in Russia is an absolutely nightmarish thing. And when you turn badly educated officers into badly educated generals, a big disaster happens. Russia in general is a very provincial country, which is aloof from world progress, and especially in the armed forces. The Russian military has been isolated since tsarist times. They frankly do not understand what modern war is. They know that there are new technical things, gadgets, but they missed all the revolutions in military affairs. They are still taught on the Second World War, it is still an example of everything.

“However, the Crimean events were called an example of a modern hybrid war.

“It’s a hoax, a scarecrow. There was no war in the Crimea, because no one offered armed resistance. Of course, there were certain logistical problems, but they were quite solvable, since the fleet was nearby. Operations to strengthen the protection of the fleet were prepared in advance, additional forces were secretly caught up there, although there were already marines there. When you do not resist, it's always easier.

- Is it possible now a large-scale clash in the spirit of 50 years ago?

- Of course available. It's just that usually, when a modern army clashes with a non-modern one, it looks like a confrontation between the Spaniards and the Indians. Or Zulus with spears against the British with machine guns. Large masses fail: during the invasion of Iraq in 2003, Saddam Hussein's gigantic army was completely useless. Yes, an outdated army can fight defensive battles in small groups, as Hezbollah did well during the Second Lebanon War. But sitting on the defensive is impossible to win. And when you, like in a shooting range, are hit with high-precision weapons and hit not in the area, but in the right place, you cannot attack. It gets demoralizing very quickly. It is impossible to endure, people just drop their equipment and run.

About threats

- Military doctrine is a document of indirect action. When the liberal constitution was being written in 1993, they added a rule that Russia should have a military doctrine and that it should be an open document. And since it is an open document, no one takes it seriously - the doctrine has always been treated with disdain. I once asked one of the chiefs of the General Staff how he used this doctrine. He replied that he did not use it in any way, because the paper was too hard.
Military doctrine is, in fact, a big press release, a reflection of some real things in a crooked mirror. But in real planning it is not used. There are documents of direct action - these are the Defense Plan and the Plan for the Use of the Armed Forces. Previously, they could not even be mentioned, now you can. But it is pointless to talk about them, because they have the highest degree of secrecy - OB.
Talking about plans according to military doctrine is like talking about Russia according to the constitution. We have a wonderful constitution, a lot of things are written in it.
So what?

Is a clash with NATO possible under the current conditions?

Yes, we are preparing for this, otherwise what is the rearmament program for? That kind of money was thrown at her. Chief of the General Staff Valery Gerasimov openly said that our armed forces were preparing for a world war. It's almost inevitable.

- And at what time?

— I think by 2025. The rearmament program was launched with the expectation that after 2020 you need to be ready either for a world war or a series of major regional conflicts - the so-called resource wars.
Our policy is based on what will work Malthusian trap - Malthusian trap. There will be a terrible global crisis, a lack of resources, and therefore the role of Russia will increase, but along with it, risks will also increase. The whole world can attack us to take away natural resources in our large territory and in the Arctic. And we will try to somehow repel this attack from all sides.

The main enemy is, of course, the United States. To a lesser extent, China. A defense perimeter, which includes Ukraine, must be built. The loss of Ukraine is a breakthrough of the perimeter, we find ourselves absolutely defenseless in the face of a deadly threat. Therefore, Ukraine must be kept by any means.
The main problem that all the military now agrees with is that the events in Ukraine started at the wrong time, we did not have time to rearm. It would be better if this happened in 2018-2020.

How is NATO responding to this?

“Now they see us as a very obvious threat. A couple of weeks ago there was a meeting of defense ministers, and they adopted a program: they will prepare for war with Russia. All countries voted, including Hungary and Greece. There are serious concrete measures. The Baltic states seem to NATO the most dangerous direction, so a European Rapid Reaction Corps is being created with headquarters in Poland.

For the time being, the Europeans are ready to field 30,000 soldiers, and these units will be dispersed among the nation-states, but the headquarters will be permanent. They will also create six additional headquarters along the eastern edge of NATO in order to coordinate incoming reinforcements with local forces. At the peak of the operation in Afghanistan, there were 140,000 soldiers; here, together with the Americans, there could be the same number.

Nobody canceled the Chinese threat, but it looks unlikely.

It takes a month and a half to gather strength. We are talking about increasing combat readiness: the time was considered peaceful, combat readiness was low, now the opposite is true. War is a complex logistical and technological challenge, and the military is different from calling a taxi through an app. I ordered it and it arrived in five minutes - it doesn’t work with them like that. We are talking about days, days, weeks and months. Promotion of large masses of people requires great effort and preparation. Bringing the armed forces to a high degree of combat readiness is very expensive, and it is also impossible to keep it on it for a long time.

- If the Russian army and NATO units clash, will it be like the confrontation between the Indians and the Spaniards?

- Yes. Different countries have different levels of weapons and training, but they are more or less trained to act together. This is the essence of NATO - to teach everyone the same command language, to standardize calibers and equipment. Of course, European forces are weaker than American ones, but they can act together with them. In the event of a conflict in the Baltics, neutral Swedes and Finns will also join NATO.
Of course, the Americans outnumber our forces in a conventional sense. Without the use of nuclear weapons, there is no chance.

Is a conflict with China possible? A million Chinese soldiers on the border with the Amur - is it just a scarecrow?

“It doesn't look like the Chinese are preparing for this. All their main studies were made in case of a confrontation with the United States in the event of the capture of Taiwan. There is no point in fighting with us. In Soviet times, the Far East had a real defense system and a lot of troops, but now there are almost none there. Nobody canceled the Chinese threat, but it looks unlikely.

Is ISIS a threat to Russia?

— There is a potentially unstable situation in Central Asia, especially in Uzbekistan. It is not clear what will happen when President Islam Karimov, who has no heirs, dies. A poor, monstrously oppressed population, a significant part of which are Muslims. In Soviet times, Islam was suppressed quite nicely everywhere, but it remained in the Ferghana Valley. There is the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU) - Salafi militants, absolute hardcore. Their bases were located in Afghanistan, but in 2001 the Americans came and drove them to Waziristan, and all this time they were operating there. In the summer of 2014, there was an attack on the Karachi airport - this is just the IMU.

They are well-trained, hard-nosed Islamic militants who have been hit by American drones. The IMU even recognized the caliph of the Islamic State, and he appointed their leader as his emir for Central Asia. That is, the IMU is, in fact, a branch of ISIS. So far, however, ISIS is drawing people from all parts of the world into its conflict in the Middle East, but I don't think the IMU will join it. They will not deal with Afghanistan either, they will leave it to the Pashtuns, but they are ready to enter Uzbekistan if destabilization begins there. An Islamic revolution may take place in Uzbekistan, as in Egypt. But Uzbekistan differs from Egypt in that there is no Egyptian army there - it is a large and serious force. And the Uzbek army is not large and not serious. She will not be able to slam the Islamists.

Destabilization in Central Asia is the most real and significant of the threats. These are tens of millions of refugees, the loss of Baikonur and strategic facilities such as the Sary-Shagan test site and the Window facility on the Pyanj, the loss of which is irreparable. This is the end of manned astronautics. We will cease to be a space power. If Uzbekistan falls, and we are tied up in Ukraine, then we will have big problems with a war on two fronts.

- Recently, three Russian spies were detained in New York. What does this say about the work of Russian intelligence?

- Nothing unusual. This happens from time to time, but when there was a period of friendship with the West, both we and they solved such issues behind the scenes. Now all rubbish goes to the public.

About the new Cold War

What about Russian nuclear weapons? Last year, a new National Defense Control Center was opened on Frunzenskaya Embankment in Moscow. Our politicians regularly threaten to wipe the US off the face of the earth. And at the same time, it has recently become known that the last satellite of the ballistic missile launch detection system has fallen.

- We seem to have nuclear forces, but no one will check how rusted they are. There were times when the missiles simply failed.

In the early warning system - a missile attack warning system - a lot of money has recently been invested in order to bring it to life. They changed the entire computer network: it could not be modernized piece by piece, only created anew. The system was created in the 1970s on the basis of Soviet copies of IBM mainframes, fully entered into operation in the 1980s. Input was made on punched cards, and ten scenarios of nuclear war were prepared in advance. A really very old system - of course, this had to be changed, and therefore we launched our Skynet. Everything is secret; It is not known how long it took to prepare. Most likely, foreign components were used. Let's see how well all this will work - the replacement is fraught with failures and errors.
The fact that we no longer have a satellite flight means that the time to decide on an evacuation is reduced. The Americans have 45-50 minutes to decide on the evacuation of senior leadership. They board helicopters and then use the flying command post. We also have helicopters for evacuation, but in Moscow there are problems with air vents: fiber optics are strung everywhere between tall buildings. On Frunzenskaya Embankment, a platform was made on the water, where there are no wires interfering with the flight.
One replacement satellite should be launched in the summer. If it is lost, it will be very difficult to make a new one, because everything was created on foreign components. Recently, all serious satellites have been made on French platforms. 90% of components are foreign.

- Dmitry Rogozin said directly that the United States can destroy up to 90% of our nuclear potential in just a couple of hours. Is it so?

- The United States has not yet worked out Russia as an enemy, although now they are considering us in this capacity with great joy. It is beneficial for the US military and the military-industrial complex to have Russia instead of ISIS as an enemy. Why nuclear submarines against ISIS? Russia as an enemy is also much better than China: its nuclear triad is weaker than ours. The generals who now lead the US military began serving during the Cold War. They are familiar and understandable.

Threats of nuclear war are nothing new. It's a Cold War tactic, all of this has established terms that have simply been forgotten. This is brinkmanship - "balancing on the brink of war." The term was coined by John Foster Dulles, who was Secretary of State under Eisenhower in the 1950s. One side is threatening nuclear war, and since this is MAD (mutual assured destruction), the other side will give in to back away from the brink of conflict.
The master of this policy was Putin's great friend, Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, who very well, with the help of this balancing act, outflanked our people during the "Doomsday War" in the Middle East in 1973. For several days he explained to the Soviet leadership that his boss Richard Nixon was a crazy anti-communist, constantly drinking whiskey (which, in general, is true) and ready to press the nuclear button. It worked: we retreated and significantly lost our influence in the Middle East.
During the Cold War, this technique was actively used by the West, because in the conventional sense they were weaker than the Warsaw Pact, and in the nuclear sense they were superior. Now it's the other way around. In a conventional sense, Russia is much weaker, both qualitatively and quantitatively. Therefore, we are left with only nuclear deterrence. Nuclear weapons cannot be used, otherwise Russia will be nothing but ashes, and therefore we will threaten to use them, encouraging the West to make concessions and compromises in order to avoid the worst.

This is a time-tested tactic, just like proxy wars. What is now in Donbass is a proxy war, like Vietnam, Afghanistan and the Middle East conflict. The Cold War is back, and so are the tactics of the Cold War. Moreover, there are people who began their service in the 1970s and remember all this very well. Like Putin.

“There will be an unstable truce, and then another escalation in late spring or early summer. Now all parties need an operational pause. The winter campaign time ends, then the summer campaign time will begin. Russia's goal is clear - to regain control over Ukraine. Russia is interested not in Debaltseve, but in Kyiv. And until the goal is reached, the conflict will continue. Proxy wars can go on for decades. No one will allow Ukraine to be a Western ally so that American and German tanks and missiles stand near Poltava.

There will be no foreign peacekeepers in the Donbass, this has been clear for a long time, and the current Ukrainian regime will not let Russians in there. In addition, they are not fundamentally different from OSCE observers, they have a mandate only for self-defense, and even then they prefer to surrender, it’s more reliable: most likely, you will survive. Our peacekeepers fought in 2008, but in principle, peacekeepers do not fight, but patrol the demilitarized zone. They do not force peace, but only observe.

- How will the events in Ukraine affect the Russian conscription?

- The crisis of 2008 helped to solve the problem with the recruitment of the US armed forces, and our military is now expressing the hope that due to unemployment it will be easier to hire contract soldiers. People who are desperate because of the crisis will go to sign up for the war. Whether it will be so or not, I don’t know, especially since we still haven’t created a normal recruiting system and don’t even fully understand what it is. Therefore, we have big problems with the contract and a lot of turnover. Therefore, yes, until Ukraine can do without conscripts, who are rewritten as contract soldiers retroactively. The duration of the service will not be increased now, although it is difficult to say what will happen by next autumn. Everything depends on the situation.

- In general, there will be no peace?

- Not yet. A peaceful resolution of the conflict is not yet in sight.

Fronts 3 World

January 4th, 5:00 am

War is a constant of human history: people instinctively divide into “us” and “them”, and if our sympathies are open to the former and mutual assistance is the norm (parochial altruism), then we tend to dehumanize and tear the latter apart. It was in this that Konrad Lorenz once saw a similarity between people and rats: both are touchingly caring towards members of their flock and equally merciless towards members of the other (the German Lorenz, who fought on the Eastern Front, knew this firsthand). Xenophobia is an ancient, dark instinct sewn into our brains by evolution. We have enthusiastically killed each other in the past (average male mortality in inter-tribal conflicts was a fantastic 24-35%, total military losses of the order of 15% of the population), we are doing this now and, no doubt, we will do in the future.

It is difficult to disagree with the hero of the Blood Meridian: “What difference does it make what people think about the war ... War is and will be. You might as well ask what people think of a stone. There has always been war. She was even before man, the war was waiting for him. The main craft was waiting for its main performer. So it was and so it will be. That's right, and nothing else."

The question is not whether or not there will be a war, but only in time and place. Of course, any accurate prediction of them is always doubtful, since geopolitics is a game, a dance of leviathans, in which there is always a place for both emotions and fatal miscalculations. Nevertheless, it is quite possible to try to point out the objective side of the game, which defines a finite set of possible events and outcomes.

War always requires significant funds, so it is useful to make the first approach to the topic from this side. The "defense" spending statistics give us a possible list of the main actors:

(collapse)

The main geopolitical intrigue of the first half of the 21st century is undoubtedly associated with the rise of China (and the SEA region as a whole) and the stagnation of the collective West. The changing balance of power calls into question the dominance of the United States and Europe over the world.

This is not only a matter of power, the simplest analysis shows that there are simply no resources in the world to maintain the “way of life” (consumption) of another Europe/America. Either the ascending Dragon will leave the majority of its population in poverty, refuse growth and, thereby, influence, in favor of the Empire of Good, which is completely unimaginable. Either the latter will voluntarily give up its world "leadership", which is even less imaginable.

The “shale revolution” and the illusions associated with it put aside resource contradictions for some time, but already in the 2020s (plus/minus five years) its limitations will become apparent and we can expect their aggravation. In order to somehow evaluate the time frame, as the upper limit of the “revolution”, one can take the optimistic scenario presented by Goldman Sachs for shale oil production (LTO) in North Dakota, which predicts production growth until 2023.

The lower limit of the “shale revolution” can be estimated from the results of an analysis done by Canadian geologist David Hughes (see report November 19, 2013). According to his forecasts, the growth of light tight oil production at the largest fields will continue until 2016. It can be assumed that the difference in estimates between investment bank and Hughes analysts is largely due to the prospects for deeper layers (“Three Forks”) and tighter drilling (transition from 320 to 160 acres). The moment of truth for the American "shale" will be 2015-2017, when it becomes clear what scenario the production will follow.

Actually, in the interval from 2016 to 2023, we can expect the peak of the production of "shale oil" in the United States. By the way, given that it was the growth of American production that determined the small increase in production on a global scale, there is a chance that the global oil peak will fall precisely on this period (see an interesting post on the topic).

When unconventional LTO production reaches its maximum and its gradual decline begins, the US will once again face the need to increase oil imports - and here they will be in for an unpleasant surprise. Even now, with a decrease in production to the largest consumers - Europe, the USA and Japan - the price of oil remains stably high due to the growth in demand from China and India. In other words, the unclaimed volumes of oil due to economic problems and growth (in the case of America) of its own production have already found new consumers. Returning these volumes to former consumers, if necessary, will be problematic: oil is a basic resource for economic growth. Thus, even if the conflict between the US and China does not develop into an open clash for geopolitical reasons until 2016-2023, then after this date, economic and resource factors will already work for the war.

Preparations for war are already in full swing. The President of the United States announced the "Pacific turn", the States are rapidly building missile defense against China. According to Pentagon chief L. Panetta, by 2020 the US Navy will redeploy forces, changing the current balance of 50% to 50% between the Pacific Ocean and the Atlantic to a ratio of approximately 60% to 40%. This redeployment will include six aircraft carriers, most cruisers, destroyers, warships and submarines. It was also stated that the reduction in defense spending will not come at the expense of the Asia-Pacific region. In addition, America is clearly going to fight China to the last Japanese: despite the problems in the economy, Japan is increasing funding for the "self-defense forces" by 2.6%, in the future - by 5%. China is not far behind: according to IHS Global Insight, its military budget will double between 2011 and 2015, exceeding the total military spending of all other Asia-Pacific countries. Realizing that the likely conflict will be predominantly maritime (that is, a grandiose clash of fleets for control of the straits and communications), the Chinese are building a fleet at an accelerated pace. In the past two years alone, China has built 17 Type-056 corvettes, 4 Type-052D missile destroyers, 8 Type-054 frigates, and commissioned its first aircraft carrier, the CV-16 Liao Ning.

(An interesting literary description of a possible collision can be found in J. M. Greer - see parts one, two, three, four, five).

Communications is an obvious weak point. Oil from the Middle East (2.9 mbd) and Africa (1.3 mbd) enters China and Southeast Asia as a whole by sea, passing through the narrow Strait of Malacca. Closing this "bottleneck" is guaranteed to stop the Chinese economy. Literally. (To achieve this goal, the States plan to deploy four ships of the "near sea zone" at the base in Singapore).

Another hotbed of tension is organically linked to the previous one: the Middle East has been and remains the main source of energy for modern industrial civilization. Until recently, the dominance of the United States in this part of the world was undeniable. The first crack in its foundation appeared as a result of the revolution in Iran in 1978-1979, when the American protege and main ally was swept away by a wave of popular anger. But everything changed dramatically thanks to the ill-fated Iraqi company. By eliminating Saddam's Iraq, the Americans unwittingly made Iran the dominant force in the region. Moreover, by handing over the reins of government to the Shiite majority, they actually contributed to the creation of the Syria-Iraq-Iran alliance.

The war with Assad at the hands of the Islamists was for the United States a continuation of other means of the campaign against Iran, which had already been started by supporting Saddam in the war of 1980-1988. It is no secret that at the beginning of the 2000s, the Persians were in line for "democratization" immediately after Iraq, and only the severity of the occupation of the latter gave them a decade to respite. The situation in Syria until the last moment was on the brink, but it seems that it was decided in favor of the government. Believing in the miracle of the “shale revolution” and the imminent oil abundance, the Americans apparently decided that a military confrontation with Iran was too costly and started negotiations on the nuclear program with the prospect of completely lifting sanctions and normalizing relations. More recently, such a turn of events was almost unthinkable, since it means the birth of a local superpower in a region that is key from an energy point of view. The Americans, of course, do not leave the region, but the main burden of "containment" of Iran will fall on the shoulders of their regional allies: Saudi Arabia and Israel.

As a consequence, the division of the Islamic world into Sunnis and Shiites is now more than ever ready to turn into a front line. The energy of destruction accumulated in the social structure of the Middle East due to demography (the exit from the "Malthusian trap" led to an increase in the proportion of young people in the population and its concentration in cities, and this against the backdrop of an increase in the level of education, which is critical for political mobilization - see for example structural- A. Korotaev’s demographic analysis of the reasons for what is happening in Egypt or this analysis of the Syrian catastrophe) will be used mostly within the Islamic world to weaken the pole of power independent of the Empire of Good in the face of Iran.

If you look at the map of the distribution of religious trends in the Middle East, we can assume that the main events of this conflict theater of war of World War III will unfold in Iraq, between a Shiite majority backed by Iran and a Sunni minority backed by Saudi Arabia. It is also impossible to rule out the scenario of America's direct aggression towards Iran after 2020 in the wake of the destruction of "shale" illusions, but it seems to me unlikely due to the fact that this war cannot be simple and quick, which means it will bind the States in this region (and untie the hands of China in Southeast Asia).

Our country, obviously, does not stand aside from the crisis that is rolling over the world system. As in many other cases, passive non-intervention is a priori a losing strategy: if you do not try to determine your own future, then someone else will determine it.

The fact that we are actively preparing for a possible global war is no longer a secret to anyone. Just a cursory glance at the expenditures of the federal budget of the Russian Federation under the section "national defense" is enough:

In 2016, military spending will increase by 63% compared to 2013 and will amount to 3.418 trillion rubles. At the same time, simple explanations that, they say, our incomes are growing and therefore military spending is growing can be safely thrown away - they are growing not only in absolute terms, but growing and their share in the budget. In 2013, 2.098 trillion rubles are planned for national defense in the federal budget ( 15,7% in the overall cost structure). In 2014, this item is planned to be increased by 21.9% to the level of the previous year - up to 2.558 trillion rubles ( 18,6% expenses), in 2015 - by 22.5% - up to 3.134 trillion rubles ( 21,2% expenses), and in 2016 - by another 9.1% - up to 3.418 trillion rubles ( 22% of the total budget expenditures). Even panicky budget cuts against the backdrop of a slowdown in the economy eventually bypassed military spending: all the parameters of the state armaments program until 2020 have been preserved, both in quantity and in terms of time. The State Defense Order-2013 is impressive.

By 2017, the number of contract professionals, the core of the new army, should be 425 thousand people, and the number of new equipment 48%. By 2020, 10 brigades of Iskander missile systems, 600 aircraft (60 of which are the latest T-50s), 1,000 helicopters, 56 S-400 air defense battalions, 100 ships of various types and 28 submarines should be delivered to the army. In the near future, the entire line of armored vehicles will be updated based on the results of R&D "Armata", "Kurganets", "Boomerang".

Role of Russia in World War III is a consequence of its position in the space of power relations, given by the distribution of economic power, the size and capabilities of the military apparatus, the “soft power” of controlled media, etc., which is a consequence of a fundamental event: the defeat in the Cold War and the collapse in the early 90s. As a result of those years, the country dropped out of the major leagues. Even after the successful period of the "zero" and "tenth" years for us, the struggle for "world leadership", for world hegemony, is clearly beyond the boundaries of our capabilities: when the President in his message to the Federal Assembly says that " we do not claim the title of some kind of superpower, understood as a claim to world or regional hegemony This should be taken as a statement of fact. Therefore, in fact, it is not so important for us who wins in the end - China or the United States. It doesn't matter who takes first place in the host competition when our task is to be our own hosts.

So Russia's strategy is to maintain a balance of power(in the politically correct language of diplomats this is called "multipolarity") and, as a result, "containment" of the existing hegemon, the United States. Russia is a balancing country in the system of power relations of modern geopolitics. In the current situation, when the States are ready to fight to the end for their “exclusivity”, this means supporting alternative poles of power: Venezuela, China, Iran and, as a result, Syria (although in the latter case other reasons obviously overlap: Tartus, military contracts, desire to punish for Libya). Tomorrow, if China wins, exactly the same strategy will be used against it. Its contours are already visible in the extensive military-technical cooperation with Vietnam and India.

If these premises are correct, then our country will certainly be drawn into the coming conflict. The only question is the form of participation and the depth of involvement. Based on the assumption that (1) the main goal of the United States will be China as the only contender for the hegemon, and (2) nuclear parity will not be violated in the foreseeable future, there are not many options for aggression against Russia. A direct strike from Europe or the Far East is unlikely, it is much easier to imagine a proxy war bearded freedom fighters, for the benefit of the States, this is already a familiar course of action. The main directions of impact are also quite predictable: the North Caucasus and Central Asia.

But the Caucasus is a played card: the militants are dispersed and cannot claim to unite and seize a foothold (like Benghazi in Libya or Aleppo in Syria). In addition, there is no such important success factor as a loyal adjacent territory, where you can retreat to regroup, receive reinforcements and ammunition (Turkey's role in the Syrian conflict). Terrorist activity alone is not enough to take Russia out of the global power equation. In general, the Caucasus Mountains, the Black and Caspian Seas are an important geographical and geopolitical frontier, covering the south of the country from unpleasant surprises.

Another thing is Central Asia, where Afghanistan is nearby, from which the Americans “leave” in 2014. How many years will it take for the Taliban to hang Najibul Karzai and reach the border with Tajikistan, where numerous supporters of the Islamic Renaissance Party will be waiting for them with brotherly greetings? In turn, Tajikistan provides direct access to the Fergana Valley, the most densely populated and problematic part of Central Asia, where the Islamic Movement of Turkestan operates underground.

Auguste Comte, who coined the word sociology, once wrote that demography is fate. The UN data on the population of Central Asia clearly distinguish Uzbekistan and Tajikistan from others: if the first is the leader in absolute population growth (from 20.5 million people in 1990 to 27.7 million people in 2010), then the second is the leader in growth rates (from 5.3 million people in 1990 to 7.6 million people in 2010), showing no signs of approaching the “demographic transition”. In this, both countries resemble Afghanistan that has been burning for many years. In turn, the demographic profile of Kazakhstan differs significantly from that of its neighbors and is closest to that of Russia.

In terms of the economy in Central Asia, two countries stand out against the general bleak background - Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan. According to the World Bank, GDP per capita in Kazakhstan from 2000 to 2012 increased 9.7 times and amounted to 11.9 thousand dollars, in Turkmenistan it increased 10 times and amounted to 6.5 thousand dollars.

The reason for such an uneven development of countries that were in close starting positions in the early 1990s lies on the surface: both Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan are major suppliers of energy resources to the world market (data from BP "Statistical Review of World Energy 2013").

However, the mining potential is far from exhausted. Kazakhstan's largest project in the oil and gas industry is the development of the giant Kashagan field in the Northern Caspian, whose reserves are estimated at 6.4 billion tons of oil. In 2015, it is planned to produce up to 14.9 million tons and 65.23 million tons - by 2020. Turkmenistan's largest project is the development of the giant Galkynysh field (Renaissance, formerly known as Southern Iolotan-Osman). According to the results of the re-audit, the British company Gaffney, Cline & Associates called this field the second largest in the world after the Iranian South Pars, estimating its reserves at 13.1-21.2 trillion. cube m. As a result, the republic ranks fourth in the world in terms of gas reserves, after Russia, Iran and Qatar. At the peak of its capabilities, it will be able to produce up to 30 billion cubic meters. m. of natural gas per year.

It can be seen that countries with intensive demographic and economic growth do not match: an exception could be Uzbekistan, whose gas export potential is about 10 billion cubic meters. m., but its GDP per capita is closer to Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan than to Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan. At the same time, Uzbekistan reduces the balance of oil production and consumption to zero largely due to a decrease in consumption - from 8.2 million tons in 2003 to 3.9 million tons in 2012, which is not at all a sign of well-being. Economic growth in Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan has barely kept pace with demographic growth, which is increasing the proportion of young people in the population structure and making these countries a weak link in Central Asia's defense against chaos rolling in from the south. The export of young male labor to Russia is partly solving the problem, but the current slowdown in the country's economy and future problems associated with the depletion of oil reserves and the development of increasingly hard-to-reach fields (and, accordingly, a decrease in budget revenues), will lead to a decrease in demand for foreign labor strength. Any more or less serious economic crisis in Russia will return millions of young migrant workers to their homeland, where no one is waiting for them.

In addition, pipelines and gas pipelines are traditionally an important component of the overall situation in Central Asia. Now, between Turkmenistan and China, two strings of a gas pipeline with a capacity of 30 billion cubic meters have been laid. m. per year, which was put into operation in 2009-2010. The construction of the third line of the Turkmenistan-Uzbekistan-Kazakhstan-China gas pipeline was launched in 2012 and will be completed in 2014-2015. This will increase its power to 55 billion cubic meters m. in year. To understand the importance of this route: the total gas consumption in China in 2012 according to BP was 143.8 billion cubic meters m. Thus, on the one hand, China is a beneficiary of stability in Central Asia and will work together with Russia to solve the “problem of 2014”, on the other hand, the United States has an additional powerful incentive to chaoticize the region in the form of depriving China of access to natural gas. (We should also mention the gas pipeline to Russia "Central Asia - Center" and the gas pipeline "East-West", which runs from large Turkmen fields to the coast of the Caspian Sea and will be an integral part of the Trans-Caspian gas pipeline, if one is built. Its construction was started in 2010 and is planned to be completed in 2015. The design capacity of the gas pipeline is 30 billion cubic meters per year.
Russian front of the Third World defense against the offensive of the jihadist international from the south. Economic and demographic factors and proximity to Afghanistan make these countries vulnerable to Syrian-type aggression. If the local population begins to en masse stand up under the green banners of radical Islam and join foreign fighters, then several thousand Russian soldiers of the 201st military base will most likely not be able to turn the tide - just as they could not if they were in Syria. The situation is aggravated by the fact that the two most likely candidates for such aggression - Tajikistan and Uzbekistan - are separated by water and energy problems and are hostile to each other, which reduces the likelihood of a collective response.

Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan will become the centers of stability: if Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan flare up with blue flames, then South Kazakhstan will become the last line of defense, and the last “natural frontier” will be the long sparsely populated steppes between North and South Kazakhstan, whose transport routes can be easily controlled (it is impossible to defend the Russian-Kazakh border).

Actually, nothing new, we have already met huge spaces as the last line of defense more than once in our history. "Russian Wall / Line" often took the form of a "Russian road":

P.S. The last World War took place against the background of the growth of the energy potential of mankind, and the following years were remembered as the "glorious 30 years" due to the high rates of post-war recovery and economic growth. We are now at the end of the oil age, and a new conflict of this magnitude will require a huge amount of effort and resources to be directed to the most unproductive areas of human activity and, thereby, will only reduce - perhaps fatally - the chances of civilization to make an "energy transition" without an intermediate collapse. In this war, the one who will be as far as possible from the world fire will win.

are thundering louder and louder in the West. "Poland confirmed negotiations on the deployment of American military warehouses for heavy military equipment on its territory, Reuters reports with reference to the statement of the head of the country's Ministry of Defense, Tomasz Semoniak. Later, the same was reported by the Lithuanian Ministry of Defense. On Saturday, the New York Times wrote about the Pentagon's planned deployment of tanks and other heavy military equipment in Eastern Europe.

Semoniak spoke about his trip to the US: "During the talks in Washington in May, I was assured that a decision (on the deployment of military depots) would be made soon. This is another step to increase the American presence in Poland and the region."

Also, according to TASS, Semonyak said: "We have long been striving for the widest possible military presence in Poland and on the entire eastern flank of NATO. The United States is preparing a set of various actions, among which the deployment of a heavy one in Poland and other countries is extremely important.. Relocating soldiers is relatively easy, but it would be nice if the equipment was closer to the area of potential threat."

Why did I bold the last sentence? Especially for naive people who laughed for a long time with "five tanks in Lithuania" or "a hundred paratroopers in Estonia." It is simply a matter of misunderstanding the essence of the process.

In fact, the beginning of the first phase of preparations for the Third World War with Russia was officially announced in January 2015.

At the same time, the need to eliminate potential enemy bridgeheads became obvious: “The Balts themselves chose the role of a bridgehead for aggression. Their curator Victoria Nuland openly called the border with Russia the front line yesterday. No one is hiding anything anymore, and only we are in the combat pose of an ostrich. It was clearly said - the front line. Do we have to wait for candy to fly in from the front line? Or is it more reasonable to move the front line away from their industrial and administrative centers? The question is rhetorical. Will we make it? It’s also a rhetorical question – we won’t do it.”

Let me remind you of only a few events known to us that have occurred since that moment:

February 24: Narva, columns of American armored vehicles go on exercises to the Russian-Estonian border;

March 6: Elements of the 3rd Infantry Division, the most combat-ready unit of the US Army that took Baghdad in 2003, arrive in Latvia;

March 10: transfer of American armored vehicles to Latvia, plus another column of American armored vehicles on the Latvian road, but from a different batch (not sandy), plus the transfer of Abrams to Lithuania;

March 25: US begins military exercises in Romania and Bulgaria... Czechs are scared: US preparations for an attack on Russia are approaching the point of no return;

March 28: Polish hotels received an order to prepare for the reception of military personnel and for conversion into hospitals and headquarters ... The United States transferred a motorized infantry regiment to the Romanian-Ukrainian border;

May 25: More than 100 NATO aircraft practice an attack on Russia in World War III from Finland, Sweden and Norway.

If the first part can be conditionally called "Creating the infrastructure of the Third World War", the formation of the skeleton, now the second stage has been announced - the mass saturation of ready-made structures with equipment and ammunition.

The military skeleton is overgrown with meat before our eyes.

That is why I so often said that we needed to destroy the Kyiv junta much earlier - on the already created military skeleton, even if it seems frail, muscles can be built up quickly. If the Dnieper was between us and NATO, the situation would be the same. But now the enemy troops are standing near Kharkov, as in 1942 - this is completely different. And they are not only near Kharkov - the troops of the American coalition are concentrated along our entire border from Norway to Georgia, and the operational situation is much more dangerous than on the eve of June 22, 1941. Unlike Hitler, the Americans have ALREADY occupied Ukraine and the Baltic States - without firing a shot, without losing a single soldier. That is why the Armed Forces of Ukraine pose such a danger to us. Certainly not by themselves, taken separately. They are part of the "NATO legions" - according to the statement, by the way, of Putin himself.

It is very hard for me to believe that our president and his advisers have ever seriously allowed a “split between the US and Europe”, a spontaneous “fall of the junta” and other nonsense. Most likely, it was a deliberate stuffing, which was happily picked up by Fritzmorgen, Starikov, Politrash and others like them (I don’t want to characterize these people, because the Lord ordered us to be meek and gentle).

"They want to drag us into the Third World War in Ukraine..." If they want to, they will be "dragged" in 15 minutes. But they will do it exactly when it is convenient for them, when they themselves are ready. "We will not let ourselves be drawn into the Third World War" is a primitive explanation for the general public of the apparent inaction of the authorities in response to the frank preparations for an attack on Russia. But the authorities were not inactive - they were doing something all this year. At least militarily, she definitely did. Russia sacrificed quality by allowing NATO to create a shock fist far beyond the Dnieper. Despite the fact that we already have a front from Norway to Georgia. What did we get in return? For what was such a huge piece of territory sacrificed, the population - that is, the mobilization resource, military-industrial complex enterprises - the same Yuzhmash, for the sake of which we allowed the enemy to move the Southwestern Front hundreds of kilometers to the east? What did you get in return?

Let us recall the famous TASS message of June 13, 1941, which said that we have excellent relations with Germany, the pact is respected, the rest is “false and provocative rumors.” What was it? Zrada chi slander?

Maybe now China is the same addressee?

Maybe the goal of sacrificing a strategically important territory is the loyalty of the allies in the CSTO, BRICS,? Maybe we have developed some kind of superweapon this year? Anything is possible, of course. But who prevented us from doing all this, having a border along the Dnieper? Many questions.