"The NATO base in Ulyanovsk is a possible base for aggression"
And our government pretends that nothing has happened, and all this is “just like that, and for this we will still have money”
On this occasion, many assumptions have been made, both endorsing this very possibility, and contradictions condemning this decision. And it is interesting that officials encourage it. The head of the Russian Foreign Ministry, Sergey Lavrov, said that there is nothing terrible in this, it is as if our joint struggle against world terrorism. Even Rogozin, who seems to be a nationally oriented person, says that “no need to mourn,” only non-military goods — water, toilet paper — will be delivered through this transit center. And that they can have nothing to do with weapons, therefore, supposedly nothing wrong with that. Others speak of a logistics operation, they say, this is just a transportation, and our customs officers “do not sleep,” and we seem to earn it, like everyone else.
Even such patriotic patriots as Rutskoi believe that it is necessary to earn money on it, and to earn it well. Our deputies say that, too, nothing terrible, guys, all this is "not lethal." However, of course, public figures respected by our citizens and experts, such as A. Prokhanov, believe that this is a matter of national insult and that this simply should not be. The final decision was passed to the Duma, but it is obvious that she will “decide” what the authority will say to her. That is, in principle, we must accept the fact that the NATO base will still function on our territory. This, so to speak, is common and not very understandable to the majority of our citizens, the situation and rather emotional than its balanced assessment.
In this regard, I will allow myself to make several assessments from the point of view of a professional strategist, professional military and political scientist.
1. According to the fundamentals of the theory of war, the means of war is any means that leads to the realization of the goals of war. In this sense, even water is a means of war.
2. The next very important point is that there is a war in Afghanistan, and these means of war appear in the theater of war not as a result of some kind of transportation, but as a result of a strategic transport operation, which is conducted from the opposite continent through a system of states and national borders across the country’s territory is an ally in the area of almost unceasing hostilities.
I emphasize an important thing - this is the traffic flow from the rear to the front, to the area of hostilities. This means that all who participate in this chain are a party to the war. This is a fundamentally new state of affairs, which is fundamentally either silenced or, by some coincidence, is not evaluated by our political science, or by politicians, by anyone.
As soon as Russia joins the system of this strategic transport operation for the delivery of military goods to the theater of military operations, it becomes a party to the war. And by the side of that war, which we do not support, which is alien to us, and we do not have the right to participate in it. We are not in a state of war with Afghanistan, nor are we allies of NATO and the United States. Of course, in some ways, maybe we are partners, but not in this war.
However, it turns out that on our own initiative, we become a party to a war that we do not lead or support. It is important.
3. The next very important thing that should be understood is that for the first time in the entire existence of the Russian Federation, the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union, a point of military presence of the military-political bloc antagonistic to us is being created on the territory of Russia. That very NATO bloc, for which we are potential adversaries, who do not hide their hostility, to which the overwhelming majority of our citizens are hostile, and who by war spread their influence throughout the world, and today with our participation. NATO is not a partner to us and we perceive it in the popular mentality as a military alliance opposing us, that is, as a potential adversary regardless of the type of cargo they want to carry.
This means that today in the territory of Russia, in Ulyanovsk, on the Volga, a point of military presence of the military-political bloc antagonistic to us is being formed. This point of military presence will invariably have its infrastructure, its personnel and its own possibilities to influence the surrounding political nature, the landscape, and the entire political climate in general in Russia and even in Eurasia.
This is important to understand, since one of the essential and obligatory tasks that any state in the world is engaged in preparing for war is to prepare the theater of war, including by preparing the enemy’s territory for war, creating a system of political influence and military presence on its national territory . In particular, the United States is preparing theaters of war in several major ways. The first way is to prepare the system of your military presence in the future theater of war. They did it in Afghanistan, they did it in Kosovo, in Europe. Today, all of Eurasia is in the sphere of US influence, and it turns out to be connected with the system of their military presence.
In this system, the US military presence turned out to be Russia, while they do it as if within the peaceful framework of this transport commercial operation in Russia. It is very important to understand.
4. What is military infrastructure? This is like the very airfield, to which, for example, we sent our battalion to Kosovo, to Pristina. This is the point to which, when it is captured, they will land along a routed route, etc., the very landing divisions of the enemy, which we will have nothing to stop, since there is no army.
Thus, we create not only the point of military presence of our potential enemy, but also a possible springboard for its aggression.
5. The next point is also very important to understand. Russia has consistently lost its sovereignty.
How does this apply in this case? They say that we are participating in the fight against world terrorism, that there is nothing terrible here, and this, on the contrary, is good, since Russia has no levers of influence either on drug production or on drug traffic, while the United States seems to have such opportunities.
However, an analysis of the practice of relations with America leads to several conclusions.
First of all. Never, never, in all cases. history the West and, in particular, America never (except for several years of World War II, when we fought together with fascism and, as strategic allies, united our national potentials in the name of Victory) one kind gesture in the direction of Russia, except for words, not a single act useful for Russia and not a single act. Nothing.
That is, the talk "about the reboot, about the joint fight against world evil" has never led to anything. These conversations ended in unilateral concessions on the part of Russia to their Western partners, whether in favor of NATO or America, and always led to a deterioration in the general state of Russia's national security. This applies to all negotiations on strategic offensive arms, all negotiations on the reduction of nuclear weapons, etc.
Secondly. It must be said that the process of “falling into” Russia into the mainstream of the US national strategy, on the one hand, is logical, since Russia simply does not have its national strategy and is for America only a field, means and object of its own war for survival in the status of “perpetual manager the world "; on the other hand, such a course of “general orientation and dependence on the United States” is successive for the last thirty years of our national history, the basis of the political orientation of our entire political and economic establishment, and suits the entire “power vertical”.
6. This history also has its “cargo traffic”. We can trace the formation of cargo transportation to Afghanistan through Russia, which were first carried out by Russian transport aircraft in agreement with America at their expense, then American military transport aircraft began to do this simply by transit “through us”, and now the jumping point is formed with its base and Service personnel in Ulyanovsk.
This is a living example of how the very idea of an alien military presence is growing and being implemented; seemingly out of nothing, from their requests and our voluntary concessions to the “good American guys” and just three steps along this “roadmap of national betrayal”.
First step. It would seem that everything came up against the simple request of the Americans: guys, let's transport goods. And ours said yes. At your expense? Yes, we agree to pay.
The second step. Then after some time the Americans: but let us do it not on your planes, but on our planes? Our said: let us pay you? "We will pay".
The third step. The Americans said: now let us deal with our base of unloading, jumping and refueling, say, in Ulyanovsk. And our said: Come on. And "nothing happened, but they are already here and the world is applauding for them."
7. Russia has become not competitive, but simply "unprincipled and corrupt."
Of course, all this can be assessed differently, but it is obvious that each time it was accompanied by a direct surrender of strategic positions from Russia, and our government pretends that nothing happened and all this “just and we will still have money for that ". Everyone is happy, everyone laughs and "in the business." All political science pops revolve around this topic, all sorts of pseudo-analysts say it's okay, local politicians and businessmen have already counted profits.
And national politicians are sure that now in the West they will definitely be accepted as their own and, maybe, they will cancel the “Jackson-Vanik amendment”. And they will be able to report to their voters about this personal victory in the fulfillment of election promises and that this is their personal contribution to the “battle for Moscow”.
But what do we have in terms of strategy?
From the point of view of assessing the strategic situation, we see the triumph of one of the most recent strategic ideas of the West, which is that the United States buys state power, top politicians and the generals subject to the aggression of the country. The achievements of this strategic technique are obvious. By buying up the Iraqi generals in the bud, this led to the fact that the generals and even the Islamic Guards surrendered the country, personally surrendered Hussein, and then all these generals themselves were destroyed.
The same is done with us. We can trace a clear sequence when the results of buying up national elites at the root, which leads to facilitating the penetration of the United States even at the level of military presence inside independent Russia: surrendering strategic bases in Lourdes (Cuba) and Camrani (Vietnam), surrendering Yugoslavia and Kosovo, surrendering positions for Iran (cancellation of the already concluded contract for the supply of C-300), surrender of Libya are the stages of the “long way” of a series of our commanders-in-chief, every next of whom understood worse and worse what country and army they got o have to do with them.
8. We are moving to the camp of direct opponents of China.
Everything is explained to us by market, profit, jobs. But, nevertheless, the strategic situation for Russia is deteriorating, its authority falls and it becomes a party to the war, and speaking on the side of the United States, NATO and the so-called world community, which is clearly directed against China.
What is being done now transforms us not only as NATO allies, but also as an adversary and enemy of China, since the whole matter is conceived by the states that are strategic reformatting the Eurasian matrix in order to destroy their main competitors. Russia has almost ceased to be a competitor. And China, which still, of course, is only becoming strategically on a par with America.
Thus, we never received anything from America and now we will receive nothing for this business, except 20 millions of empty unsecured dollars. And we quarrel with China, with whom we have good relations. We, humiliating him with our ingratiating with the West, humiliate ourselves and lose our face.
9. Finally, one more thing. We do not believe Americans, and all their activities on our territory must be carefully controlled.
Where will the US and NATO aircraft fly? First, they fly through half of Russia to Ulyanovsk, then they sit down in Ulyanovsk, refuel and the other half of Russia from Ulyanovsk slip and follow to Afghanistan. We believe our American partners, what will happen? Of course, we do not believe! Suppose that an American military aircraft is flying and conducting reconnaissance, for example, a radar one (the crew may not even know that it has been installed on this board). They just take the signal, that is, they are scouting.
Suppose also that, for example, suddenly a bag or a box with some sensors may pop out of a window, a porthole or from some cavity of this plane, or some container may fall out of it and fall into the Volga. . And the river will be infected, maybe not today, but it is possible.
Or take negotiations via satellite with their command, or when they perceive different radio-electronic radiations, that is, they conduct reconnaissance along this strip of their spans, and in fact we are talking about military infrastructure facilities, military-industrial complex, nuclear stations, nuclear infrastructure facilities, etc.
This means that the process of this “NATO transit” itself must be controlled from the beginning to the end. And what is to control?
This means when they cross the border from the west, a pair of our fighters rise and lead them, watching these planes as far as Ulyanovsk, land them. When they rise from Ulyanovsk to the border with Afghanistan, our other couple rises and leads them there to our border. Air defense works on these airplanes and our radiolocation service, which controls and looks at the whole thing, so that no one deviates from the route, so that none of these aircraft fall out and fall on our territory, and this can only be visually observed.
Regarding the drug situation, I can say the following: the more Americans in Afghanistan, the more drug traffic. We know that it was the CIA that was selling drugs in Latin America and supplying weapons for the contras, that is, it was the main part of the drug traffic and with this money weapons were bought for Iranian militants.
I will give an example of how this might look in our case. Here they fly from Afghanistan through Russia, land in Ulyanovsk. On the way, they can drop containers with these drugs on parachutes anywhere, and therefore we must control them. For example, they landed in Ulyanovsk, which means that our best dogs in the world, which teach 2 mg of drugs anywhere, should be brought into these planes and look for drugs there. That is, check the aircraft for what they are carrying or loading. Imagine that they find this drug.
And this is a precedent - do you understand how this can be used?
Of course, for all "our efforts" - for the work of air defense, for the work of pilots of escort crews, for their kerosene, for the work of customs officers and dogs of drug control, and so on, the United States must pay. And they will gladly go for all of this, since they solve by spending empty dollars, which they can print for as long as necessary, and promises, their strategic military task.
In general, there are many different things that our people should know. Like those who make decisions, they need to know what this will lead to.
And all this surrender will lead only to the humiliation of our dignity, to our national weakening and to the continuation of the surrender of Russia.
This will never be perceived by our population and society as a positive event. Ultimately, this may lead to the degradation of the authority of the new Supreme Commander, who has not yet begun his activity, and to drive the last nail into the coffin of the acting Supreme Commander. And this will give us nothing in terms of military power or strategy.
10. That is, it turns out, Russia can now be bought. It is impossible to conquer Russia, it is impossible to defeat our people. But, it turns out, you can buy the very top, and he will already persuade all the people that, they say, “sleep well, the Russians”, nothing terrible happens. And our kind naive people will say - well, okay, we trust you.
But still, one wonders why March 4 was held elections, and two days later Serdyukov took the initiative that we would have a base in Ulyanovsk, and two days later Comrade Barack Obama congratulated Vladimir Putin on his victory? It seems to us that he simply does not understand what he plunges into before he begins to command. And this, after all, raises many unnecessary questions, including him as president, for whom the majority of the nation relies on him as his last hope.
On this occasion, many assumptions have been made, both endorsing this very possibility, and contradictions condemning this decision. And it is interesting that officials encourage it. The head of the Russian Foreign Ministry, Sergey Lavrov, said that there is nothing terrible in this, it is as if our joint struggle against world terrorism. Even Rogozin, who seems to be a nationally oriented person, says that “no need to mourn,” only non-military goods — water, toilet paper — will be delivered through this transit center. And that they can have nothing to do with weapons, therefore, supposedly nothing wrong with that. Others speak of a logistics operation, they say, this is just a transportation, and our customs officers “do not sleep,” and we seem to earn it, like everyone else.
Even such patriotic patriots as Rutskoi believe that it is necessary to earn money on it, and to earn it well. Our deputies say that, too, nothing terrible, guys, all this is "not lethal." However, of course, public figures respected by our citizens and experts, such as A. Prokhanov, believe that this is a matter of national insult and that this simply should not be. The final decision was passed to the Duma, but it is obvious that she will “decide” what the authority will say to her. That is, in principle, we must accept the fact that the NATO base will still function on our territory. This, so to speak, is common and not very understandable to the majority of our citizens, the situation and rather emotional than its balanced assessment.
In this regard, I will allow myself to make several assessments from the point of view of a professional strategist, professional military and political scientist.
1. According to the fundamentals of the theory of war, the means of war is any means that leads to the realization of the goals of war. In this sense, even water is a means of war.
2. The next very important point is that there is a war in Afghanistan, and these means of war appear in the theater of war not as a result of some kind of transportation, but as a result of a strategic transport operation, which is conducted from the opposite continent through a system of states and national borders across the country’s territory is an ally in the area of almost unceasing hostilities.
I emphasize an important thing - this is the traffic flow from the rear to the front, to the area of hostilities. This means that all who participate in this chain are a party to the war. This is a fundamentally new state of affairs, which is fundamentally either silenced or, by some coincidence, is not evaluated by our political science, or by politicians, by anyone.
As soon as Russia joins the system of this strategic transport operation for the delivery of military goods to the theater of military operations, it becomes a party to the war. And by the side of that war, which we do not support, which is alien to us, and we do not have the right to participate in it. We are not in a state of war with Afghanistan, nor are we allies of NATO and the United States. Of course, in some ways, maybe we are partners, but not in this war.
However, it turns out that on our own initiative, we become a party to a war that we do not lead or support. It is important.
3. The next very important thing that should be understood is that for the first time in the entire existence of the Russian Federation, the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union, a point of military presence of the military-political bloc antagonistic to us is being created on the territory of Russia. That very NATO bloc, for which we are potential adversaries, who do not hide their hostility, to which the overwhelming majority of our citizens are hostile, and who by war spread their influence throughout the world, and today with our participation. NATO is not a partner to us and we perceive it in the popular mentality as a military alliance opposing us, that is, as a potential adversary regardless of the type of cargo they want to carry.
This means that today in the territory of Russia, in Ulyanovsk, on the Volga, a point of military presence of the military-political bloc antagonistic to us is being formed. This point of military presence will invariably have its infrastructure, its personnel and its own possibilities to influence the surrounding political nature, the landscape, and the entire political climate in general in Russia and even in Eurasia.
This is important to understand, since one of the essential and obligatory tasks that any state in the world is engaged in preparing for war is to prepare the theater of war, including by preparing the enemy’s territory for war, creating a system of political influence and military presence on its national territory . In particular, the United States is preparing theaters of war in several major ways. The first way is to prepare the system of your military presence in the future theater of war. They did it in Afghanistan, they did it in Kosovo, in Europe. Today, all of Eurasia is in the sphere of US influence, and it turns out to be connected with the system of their military presence.
In this system, the US military presence turned out to be Russia, while they do it as if within the peaceful framework of this transport commercial operation in Russia. It is very important to understand.
4. What is military infrastructure? This is like the very airfield, to which, for example, we sent our battalion to Kosovo, to Pristina. This is the point to which, when it is captured, they will land along a routed route, etc., the very landing divisions of the enemy, which we will have nothing to stop, since there is no army.
Thus, we create not only the point of military presence of our potential enemy, but also a possible springboard for its aggression.
5. The next point is also very important to understand. Russia has consistently lost its sovereignty.
How does this apply in this case? They say that we are participating in the fight against world terrorism, that there is nothing terrible here, and this, on the contrary, is good, since Russia has no levers of influence either on drug production or on drug traffic, while the United States seems to have such opportunities.
However, an analysis of the practice of relations with America leads to several conclusions.
First of all. Never, never, in all cases. history the West and, in particular, America never (except for several years of World War II, when we fought together with fascism and, as strategic allies, united our national potentials in the name of Victory) one kind gesture in the direction of Russia, except for words, not a single act useful for Russia and not a single act. Nothing.
That is, the talk "about the reboot, about the joint fight against world evil" has never led to anything. These conversations ended in unilateral concessions on the part of Russia to their Western partners, whether in favor of NATO or America, and always led to a deterioration in the general state of Russia's national security. This applies to all negotiations on strategic offensive arms, all negotiations on the reduction of nuclear weapons, etc.
Secondly. It must be said that the process of “falling into” Russia into the mainstream of the US national strategy, on the one hand, is logical, since Russia simply does not have its national strategy and is for America only a field, means and object of its own war for survival in the status of “perpetual manager the world "; on the other hand, such a course of “general orientation and dependence on the United States” is successive for the last thirty years of our national history, the basis of the political orientation of our entire political and economic establishment, and suits the entire “power vertical”.
6. This history also has its “cargo traffic”. We can trace the formation of cargo transportation to Afghanistan through Russia, which were first carried out by Russian transport aircraft in agreement with America at their expense, then American military transport aircraft began to do this simply by transit “through us”, and now the jumping point is formed with its base and Service personnel in Ulyanovsk.
This is a living example of how the very idea of an alien military presence is growing and being implemented; seemingly out of nothing, from their requests and our voluntary concessions to the “good American guys” and just three steps along this “roadmap of national betrayal”.
First step. It would seem that everything came up against the simple request of the Americans: guys, let's transport goods. And ours said yes. At your expense? Yes, we agree to pay.
The second step. Then after some time the Americans: but let us do it not on your planes, but on our planes? Our said: let us pay you? "We will pay".
The third step. The Americans said: now let us deal with our base of unloading, jumping and refueling, say, in Ulyanovsk. And our said: Come on. And "nothing happened, but they are already here and the world is applauding for them."
7. Russia has become not competitive, but simply "unprincipled and corrupt."
Of course, all this can be assessed differently, but it is obvious that each time it was accompanied by a direct surrender of strategic positions from Russia, and our government pretends that nothing happened and all this “just and we will still have money for that ". Everyone is happy, everyone laughs and "in the business." All political science pops revolve around this topic, all sorts of pseudo-analysts say it's okay, local politicians and businessmen have already counted profits.
And national politicians are sure that now in the West they will definitely be accepted as their own and, maybe, they will cancel the “Jackson-Vanik amendment”. And they will be able to report to their voters about this personal victory in the fulfillment of election promises and that this is their personal contribution to the “battle for Moscow”.
But what do we have in terms of strategy?
From the point of view of assessing the strategic situation, we see the triumph of one of the most recent strategic ideas of the West, which is that the United States buys state power, top politicians and the generals subject to the aggression of the country. The achievements of this strategic technique are obvious. By buying up the Iraqi generals in the bud, this led to the fact that the generals and even the Islamic Guards surrendered the country, personally surrendered Hussein, and then all these generals themselves were destroyed.
The same is done with us. We can trace a clear sequence when the results of buying up national elites at the root, which leads to facilitating the penetration of the United States even at the level of military presence inside independent Russia: surrendering strategic bases in Lourdes (Cuba) and Camrani (Vietnam), surrendering Yugoslavia and Kosovo, surrendering positions for Iran (cancellation of the already concluded contract for the supply of C-300), surrender of Libya are the stages of the “long way” of a series of our commanders-in-chief, every next of whom understood worse and worse what country and army they got o have to do with them.
8. We are moving to the camp of direct opponents of China.
Everything is explained to us by market, profit, jobs. But, nevertheless, the strategic situation for Russia is deteriorating, its authority falls and it becomes a party to the war, and speaking on the side of the United States, NATO and the so-called world community, which is clearly directed against China.
What is being done now transforms us not only as NATO allies, but also as an adversary and enemy of China, since the whole matter is conceived by the states that are strategic reformatting the Eurasian matrix in order to destroy their main competitors. Russia has almost ceased to be a competitor. And China, which still, of course, is only becoming strategically on a par with America.
Thus, we never received anything from America and now we will receive nothing for this business, except 20 millions of empty unsecured dollars. And we quarrel with China, with whom we have good relations. We, humiliating him with our ingratiating with the West, humiliate ourselves and lose our face.
9. Finally, one more thing. We do not believe Americans, and all their activities on our territory must be carefully controlled.
Where will the US and NATO aircraft fly? First, they fly through half of Russia to Ulyanovsk, then they sit down in Ulyanovsk, refuel and the other half of Russia from Ulyanovsk slip and follow to Afghanistan. We believe our American partners, what will happen? Of course, we do not believe! Suppose that an American military aircraft is flying and conducting reconnaissance, for example, a radar one (the crew may not even know that it has been installed on this board). They just take the signal, that is, they are scouting.
Suppose also that, for example, suddenly a bag or a box with some sensors may pop out of a window, a porthole or from some cavity of this plane, or some container may fall out of it and fall into the Volga. . And the river will be infected, maybe not today, but it is possible.
Or take negotiations via satellite with their command, or when they perceive different radio-electronic radiations, that is, they conduct reconnaissance along this strip of their spans, and in fact we are talking about military infrastructure facilities, military-industrial complex, nuclear stations, nuclear infrastructure facilities, etc.
This means that the process of this “NATO transit” itself must be controlled from the beginning to the end. And what is to control?
This means when they cross the border from the west, a pair of our fighters rise and lead them, watching these planes as far as Ulyanovsk, land them. When they rise from Ulyanovsk to the border with Afghanistan, our other couple rises and leads them there to our border. Air defense works on these airplanes and our radiolocation service, which controls and looks at the whole thing, so that no one deviates from the route, so that none of these aircraft fall out and fall on our territory, and this can only be visually observed.
Regarding the drug situation, I can say the following: the more Americans in Afghanistan, the more drug traffic. We know that it was the CIA that was selling drugs in Latin America and supplying weapons for the contras, that is, it was the main part of the drug traffic and with this money weapons were bought for Iranian militants.
I will give an example of how this might look in our case. Here they fly from Afghanistan through Russia, land in Ulyanovsk. On the way, they can drop containers with these drugs on parachutes anywhere, and therefore we must control them. For example, they landed in Ulyanovsk, which means that our best dogs in the world, which teach 2 mg of drugs anywhere, should be brought into these planes and look for drugs there. That is, check the aircraft for what they are carrying or loading. Imagine that they find this drug.
And this is a precedent - do you understand how this can be used?
Of course, for all "our efforts" - for the work of air defense, for the work of pilots of escort crews, for their kerosene, for the work of customs officers and dogs of drug control, and so on, the United States must pay. And they will gladly go for all of this, since they solve by spending empty dollars, which they can print for as long as necessary, and promises, their strategic military task.
In general, there are many different things that our people should know. Like those who make decisions, they need to know what this will lead to.
And all this surrender will lead only to the humiliation of our dignity, to our national weakening and to the continuation of the surrender of Russia.
This will never be perceived by our population and society as a positive event. Ultimately, this may lead to the degradation of the authority of the new Supreme Commander, who has not yet begun his activity, and to drive the last nail into the coffin of the acting Supreme Commander. And this will give us nothing in terms of military power or strategy.
10. That is, it turns out, Russia can now be bought. It is impossible to conquer Russia, it is impossible to defeat our people. But, it turns out, you can buy the very top, and he will already persuade all the people that, they say, “sleep well, the Russians”, nothing terrible happens. And our kind naive people will say - well, okay, we trust you.
But still, one wonders why March 4 was held elections, and two days later Serdyukov took the initiative that we would have a base in Ulyanovsk, and two days later Comrade Barack Obama congratulated Vladimir Putin on his victory? It seems to us that he simply does not understand what he plunges into before he begins to command. And this, after all, raises many unnecessary questions, including him as president, for whom the majority of the nation relies on him as his last hope.
Information