Ideal scenario
The empire's favorite occupation is to find a weak country, organize subversive activities against it, accuse it of violating human rights, impose economic actions, initiate riots and start intervention in defense of “democracy”, “freedom” and “self-determination”. But this is just a political recipe. Consider now what I call the American method of warfare.
During the Cold War, the acquisition of weapons, doctrines, planning and training - all were aimed at conducting military operations in a large conventional (conventional) war against the Soviet Union. We proceeded from a clear understanding that it would quickly develop into a nuclear one. Putting this aspect aside, I would describe the “ordinary dimension” of such a war as “heavy”. Based on the use of large formations (divisions, brigades), a large number tanks and artillery, such a war requires tremendous logistical efforts on both sides. The battlefield is huge, along the front it stretches for hundreds of kilometers. Defense at the tactical, operational and strategic levels is organized at two, and where possible at three levels. It is appropriate to recall that the second strategic echelon of the USSR in Europe was in Ukraine (which is why both sides of the civil war going on there have no shortage of weapons).
With the collapse of the USSR, the threat of such a war disappeared overnight. And then the operation in the Persian Gulf became a big “farewell party” for the United States and NATO, after which the era of “heavy wars” was a thing of the past. At that time, American strategists, mainly from the forces of special operations, developed a concept that I call "cheap war." It works like this. First, the CIA finances, equips and trains some local "rebels" (if necessary, they can be imported from abroad). Then, special US forces are deployed to the “rebels” and equipped with advanced air control equipment (to support helicopters and aircraft for striking at the enemy). Finally, place enough aviation inside the war zone and around it (on aircraft carriers, in neighboring countries or even on captured runways) for round-the-clock support of military operations. The goal is simple - to provide "friendly insurgents" superiority in firepower. Repeat this a sufficient number of times and you will get an easy, cheap and quick victory over a completely suppressed enemy. This basic approach can be strengthened by various “additives” - such as supplying “rebels” with advanced weapons (anti-tank missiles, night vision systems, communications equipment, etc.), as well as the importation of a certain amount of manpower from the United States or allied countries, including mercenaries, in order to “take care” of specially protected targets.
And while many among the American military are skeptical of such an approach, the dominance of people from the special forces in command and some individual successes in the “cheap war” made it extremely popular with politicians and propagandists. But the most attractive thing about this technique is that American losses were reduced while conducting such a war, and the possibility of a “plausible denial” of US involvement (in case the situation turned out to be a failure) increased. And, of course, the "ghosts" in the three-letter agency adore such wars. But in the early-developed euphoria of “American invincibility”, many lose sight of the fact that the “cheap war” is based on three very risky assumptions.
First and most important. The calculation is based on the fact that the enemy is deeply demoralized and considers the resistance pointless, since even if the already deployed US forces are limited in size and capacity, the Americans will no doubt, if necessary, transfer more, and so on until the resistance is Is broken.
The second. They proceed from the fact that the United States can provide superiority in the air over the entire space of hostilities. Americans, however, do not like to provide direct support from the air, if there is a possibility that they will be brought down by enemy aircraft or missiles.
Third. For this type of war, it is necessary to have local insurgents who can be used as infantry to actually occupy and control the territory.
Hezbollah, Lebanon, 2006
The United States did not officially participate in that war. But the Israeli armed forces are about the same. Hezbollah used excellent tactics, was well prepared for action on the ground, possessed a Russian anti-tank weaponsable to destroy even the most advanced Israeli tanks. The main result of that war was that for the first time in the Middle East, the very small and relatively weak forces of the Arabs showed no fear of the supposedly invincible Tsakhal.
The “holy victory” won by the “Party of Allah” in 2006 is now repeated in Syria, Afghanistan, Yemen, Iraq and everywhere else. Fear of the “sole superpower” is no longer there, it was replaced by a fervent desire to continue the endless list of defeats of the Anglo-Zionists and their occupying forces. In the Arab world, heads of state are afraid of Americans, but not peoples.
Hezbollah’s “discovery” —the strategy of victory in confronting a superior opponent — is not to defend against its attacks, but to not provide it with “convenient” goals. Simply put, camouflage tent is better than a bunker, or, if you like, "if you can be found, then you can be killed." Or more academic: "Do not compete in superiority with the enemy - make it superior to his superiority."
The main weapon of the Anglo-Zionists is not the nuclear bomb and not the aircraft carrier, but the propaganda machine, which for decades persuaded people all over the world that the US is invincible, that their weapons are better, like soldiers, tactics, etc. In fact, it turns out that this is a complete bullshit - in fact, the US military does not stand close to their counterparts in the world of propaganda When was the last time the US military defeated an enemy capable of meaningful resistance? In the Pacific in World War II?
Russian Armed Forces, Syria, 2015
The Russians sent very small forces and means to Syria, but they did not just defeat the “Islamic State” (banned in the Russian Federation), but fundamentally changed the nature of the political context of the war. Simply put, their presence did not only significantly complicate the American invasion, they did not allow the United States to unleash its favorite “cheap war” against the Syrians.
The problem for Americans is in their risk matrix. If the Air Force and the US Navy decided to take control of Syrian airspace, it could, by virtue of its numerical superiority. But the risk matrix includes not only the Russian military capabilities, but also the political consequences of establishing a no-fly zone over Syria. It would not just lead to further escalation of the already completely illegal American intervention. It would be necessary to consistently suppress Syrian (and, possibly, Russian) air defense weapons. And this is what the White House - at the moment - would not want to do. Especially when it is completely unclear what can be achieved by such a risky operation. As a result, the Americans, like the Israelis, strike here and there, but in reality their actions are essentially meaningless.
Moreover. The Russians are now playing in the American manner and supplying the Syrians with advanced airspace controls, especially in key areas. Artillery spotters and strike systems are deployed, including the MLRS and heavy howitzers, which provide fire superiority to government forces. Paradoxically, but now it is the Russians who are waging a “cheap war”, preventing the Americans and their allies from doing the same.
Who is next? Venezuela?
The United States has always had problems with their local "allies" (i.e. puppets). Some were quite good (South Koreans), others worse (Contras in Nicaragua), but on the whole, every use of local people carries an inevitable risk - they often have their own interests distinct from American ones. And the "allies" very quickly realize that if they depend on the Americans, then they depend on them. Add to this the fact that Americans are not famous for their knowledge of other cultures (just look at how few foreign languages are among them), and you will understand why US intelligence will find out about the problem too late to get the situation right. No amount of new-fashioned technological things will replace strong professional intelligence. The reality is that Americans, as a rule, have no clue about the environment in which they conduct their operations. The failure of the United States in Syria (in Libya, in Ukraine) is a great illustration of this.Knowing some doctrinal and operational weaknesses of the American “cheap war”, we will try to make a list of potential target countries. If my estimates are correct, then the only candidate is Venezuela. However, to be successful, American intervention requires a realistic strategy (the US armed forces are already overly thinly spread over the surface of the planet, and the last thing the empire needs is to get bogged down in another senseless, useless and losing war a la Afghanistan) . I put the Venezuelan opposition an uncertain “yes” for its ability to be “boots on the ground,” especially if there is support from Colombia. But the pro-American locals in Venezuela do not even come close to the regular armed forces (which, I believe, will oppose the US intervention). And there are also various left-wing guerrilla groups that tolerated the rule of Chavez and Maduro, but kept their weapons with them "just in case." Moreover, there is a problem of terrain. It would be easy - under an optimistic scenario - to take Caracas. But to conduct operations throughout the country is both difficult and dangerous. After all, there is the problem of retaining power. Americans love quick victories, and Latin American partisans have argued many times that they can fight for decades. For all these reasons, although I think the United States is able to invade Venezuela and make a mess there, I still don’t see how they can put the new regime in power and take control of the whole country.
What is supported by the dollar?
For the US, the dilemma is simple - the cold war is long over. Post-cold war is also over. And it is abundantly clear that the US military needs complete reform, which is nonetheless impossible for political reasons. The current US military is a bizarre result of the Cold War, many years of waging “cheap wars” and failed interventions. It will take decades for the Americans to reform, if they go for it. There will be false starts and mistakes. In the meantime, it will take years for the United States only to make at least a simple decision to embark on reforms. Now only kindergarten propaganda is heard: “We are number one, nobody is ahead of us!”. I do not exclude that a truly catastrophic embarrassment will be needed in order for the US military establishment to look into the eyes of reality and begin to act. Until this happens, the US forces will decline to impose their dominance on those countries that refuse to surrender under their threats and sanctions.
So, is Venezuela next? I hope no. And in fact, I think not. But if yes, then it will be a hell of a mess with huge destruction and losses with very small acquisitions. Anglo-Zionists have been hitting for decades, going beyond their real capabilities. And the world is becoming aware of this. Defeating Iran or the DPRK is clearly beyond the real military capabilities of the United States. Attacking Russia or China is tantamount to suicide.
However, Ukraine remains. I think that the United States can transfer some lethal weapons to the Kiev junta or organize training camps in Western Ukraine. But that's all. None of this will lead to real change (except that it will anger the Russians). The era of the “cheap wars” is over, and the world is different. As a result, the era of major American military interventions also comes to an end. If necessary, Washington, of course, will be able to find some country the size of Grenada or Panama, and with triumph to beat it.
This new reality immediately raises the question of how and how the US dollar will be reinforced, because until now only the US military power really supported it.