In many countries, almost simultaneously talking about the war. About the world war, the third in a row in the newest stories. The hottest heads claim that it has already begun in various forms and in different regions of our planet. These wars are called hybrid, informational, cyberwar, simply local wars and armed conflicts with possible global consequences. Of course, we all understand that there is a huge distance between propaganda, international journalism and real politics. However, the general international situation and the foreign policy situation around Russia makes one think seriously.
Do Russian wars want to happen?
Of course they do not. But lately unprecedented pressure has been put on our country in almost all areas of international cooperation. For this, any provocative methods and techniques are used. Let's take a quick look at all of this largely staged, scenario-based architecture of global pressure on the Russian Federation in the face of growing chaos and the destruction of the world order.
The peculiarity of the modern period is a kind of convergence of problems of different scale and potential consequences. Syrian, Ukrainian regional scenarios are intricately intertwined with the “toxic work of Skripale” and artificial chemical attacks of the Syrian troops in the liberated territory.
It would seem, what can the UN Security Council say in the case of the traitor Skrypal? In any countries do not like traitors. Especially in the elite intelligence communities. But this does not mean that they are always threatened with fatal revenge. Although sometimes they say that there are no people in intelligence services, but only human material to perform certain tasks. But it is also known that any defector or traitor is a carrier of limited information. Sooner or later, this information loses its relevance. Then its carrier becomes unnecessary, and often just a burdensome link in exploration. Then it becomes possible to use this spy in a one-time fatal action. Like and it's done, and got rid of the ballast. And in the case of Skripale at the same time, all material evidence was destroyed. Now he plans to demolish his house, and a restaurant, and in general everything where this spy visited. The task is to wipe out everything connected with it. And really, for the sake of storing the memory of a traitor?
In this confusing incident, if anyone is sorry, it is the Russian citizen Yulia Skripal. Children are not responsible for fathers. This pretty young woman, due to unknown, but tragic circumstances, was injured. Unless, of course, it is assumed that she herself can be, consciously or not, some link in this provocation. After all, since its disappearance on the day of poisoning, no one else has seen it. For security reasons, you can restrict access and contact with her, hide your place of stay. But it would be possible to show it. At least make sure she is her. And that she is alive, although the alleged “novice” toxic substance, according to developers and experts, does not leave a chance to survive.
Not only such scenario provocations are dangerous, in the plots of which even the directors themselves from British and other "allied" special services are perplexed. The reason for the start of hostilities can be any, even a random event. And after that, it will not matter whether it was a provocation of the special services, an error in the actions of the military, a single-handed terrorist attack or something else. Time to find out the reasons simply will not. This time limit will be required to make a decision about the start of hostilities. Whether they will be a retaliatory step or a preemptive strike - historians of wars will find out later. Unless, of course, one of them survives. In some remote area. And do not die later from radiation, hunger, lack of drinking water and the usual conditions of existence.
They, who did not know war, cannot understand this.
The danger is multiplied by the fact that in almost all countries there are people in power who have not experienced the horrors of war in the past. They have forgotten the stories of their parents and older relatives. There are those who simply do not know anything about the horrors of war. Their well-fed and peaceful childhood and all subsequent prosperous life was not disturbed by the sirens in connection with the air raid, they were not aroused by the bombings and did not have to hide in the basements for weeks or even months so as not to die. As, for example, in the Donbass, Syria or Iraq.
Many modern politicians do not know this or do not want to know. They stumble into the aggressive groups of Western countries under the leadership of the most economically and militarily developed countries. They believe that in this way they gain their security. But in reality, they only multiply potential threats and military dangers for themselves and neighboring countries. They do not teach the lessons of the former world wars. Although among them are those who survived in the past, colossal military upheavals, adversity, defeat, economic and human losses.
Unlearned history lessons
First of all, we are talking about European countries. After all, Central, Northern, Eastern, Southern Europe and the European part of the Russian Empire became the territory for theaters of military operations in World War 1. A world war of war engulfed vast territories. The 4 states marched against the 34s of the countries that started the war. More than 70 million people, abandoning peaceful labor and their families, put on soldiers' overcoats. Of these, about 10 million people died and more than 55 million military personnel were injured and injured. About 12 million more civilians died in the territories where the fighting took place. Approximately 20 million of those who died of famine and disease in the war years need to be added here. Such was, by far incomplete estimates, the price of the 1 World War I for humanity. And the cause was the fatal shots of the student dropouts in Sarajevo, which killed two people. But it was not an action of a mentally abnormal person. It was a provocation carried out by his hands according to the plan of the nationalist organization “Black Hand”.
The war ended in the defeat of the aggressors. Four empires collapsed and the world was redistributed in favor of the victor countries. Who got the most benefit from this global fire? Of course, the far overseas and unhurried participant in that war on the side of the Entente is the United States. What were the military steps of this powerful ally of the Entente? The first step was simple and clear - 4 August 1914, the Americans declared neutrality in the war in Europe. And only 6 on April 1917, after the decision of the special session of the congress, did President Wilson declare the US to enter the war on the side of the Entente.
The win is obvious. Received huge revenues from military orders of the warring countries and the sale of other necessary goods. Financial resources have grown significantly due to the provision of loans for the conduct of this devastating treasury of all countries participating in the war. The territory and population of the United States in no way suffered during the war, which lasted 4 year and three and a half months.
But the greatest military coupons cut off the UK itself. Its territory and population was also outside the combat zone. The troops suffered relatively small losses. The British Empire itself, as a winning country, annexed vast territories. Such countries as Iraq, Egypt, Namibia, Cameroon, Oman, Palestine and some other former German and Turkish colonies became British colonies. Almost a quarter of the land on our planet was dominated by the British crown. In addition, there are no rivals in Europe. Germany defeated. Allies - France and Russia are weakened by heavy military, economic and human losses. Moreover, a huge Russian empire collapsed, and the Bolsheviks came to power in the remaining territory. However, the current world order did not meet the national interests of many countries, so the threat of a new world war not only persisted, but also increased.
Do not calculate the price of victory
In 21, the volleys of World War 2 thundered. It is known that each subsequent world battle was worse in scale, destruction and loss than the previous war. It happened at that time. Started in September 1 1939, with provocation, it lasted for many years 6.
The reason was the scenario provocation of the "attack" of the Poles on the radio station in the small border town of Gleiwitz 1 of September 1939 of the year. The provocation is also known as the operation "Canned", conducted by the German special services.
62 countries from 73, which were independent states at that time, were drawn into this war. Already 4 / 5 population of the planet fought with each other. Under the gun were more than 110 million. The casualties exceeded 55 million, of whom more than 28 million were citizens of the USSR.
In fairness, it is worth noting that many countries entered the war against fascism and Japanese militarism only in April-May 1945, when only weeks of war remained until complete victory. At the final stage of the war, without any military expediency, for the first time in history, the Americans used atomic bombs against the population of Japanese cities.
And again, the winners were the United States and the United Kingdom. In addition to the status of the victor country, which provided significant shares of the material and scientific values of the defeated countries, they also benefited greatly from the sale of military products to belligerent countries. Their casualties were significantly lower than in many European countries. In addition, the British territories were less affected by enemy raids, and the US territory was not at all subjected to military strikes, except for an incidental incident. The island and remote geographical location has protected these countries from direct ground invasion of the enemy.
There will be no winners in 3 World
Then came the years when collective prudence protected humanity from the threat of self-destruction as a result of a potentially possible 3 th world, but already nuclear missile war. The threats and dangers of the new world war have become in many ways fundamentally different compared to those that were in previous wars.
First, the geographical remoteness of opponents or their insular location ceased to play a protective role.
Second, the lesser importance and influence on the outcome of the war with the use of nuclear missile weapons began to have the presence of opponents of large, well-armed and trained armies.
Thirdly, the fact that the parties have a certain number of carriers of nuclear weapons makes it possible to guarantee or destroy unacceptable damage and irreparable human losses to any enemy.
Fourthly, considerable economic, financial and other potential cease to play a decisive role if the parties still have the opportunity to manufacture, maintain, maintain and manage national nuclear missile systems. For the destruction of the enemy of this arsenal by all accounts is enough.
Fifth, with equal potential possibilities of opponents in nuclear missiles, common sense causes politicians and the military to avoid direct confrontations with the risk of mutual destruction of the opposing sides.
According to the latest data, in the world now 8 countries possess stocks of nuclear charges and their carriers of different types, range and reliability. There are still approximately 15 countries that have or have their own nuclear programs, research centers and potential capabilities. But in reality, only the United States and Russia possess the necessary and sufficient nuclear missile potential to solve any global military tasks. At the same time, Russia, in response to the aggressive moves of the USA and NATO, is forced to develop a new promising weapon for its defense. Recently, President V. Putin presented these breakthrough military technologies to the world. This is not a military threat or a demonstration of our strength. Russia is forced to take measures to protect its national interests, territorial integrity and resist hostile steps and actions.
"International hooligans" at work
Today the world is balancing on the brink of war and peace. The overall military-political situation provokes not only another round of the arms race. As a result of aggressive actions by a coalition of Western countries led by the United States, potential centers of a new world war are being created. This was felt most acutely throughout the world, when, in the first half of April, as a result of ill-considered actions, primarily the United States, for the first time in the last decades, there was a risk of a direct Russian-American military clash. The threat of an 3-th World War approached reality. And all these spring days lived and continue to live in anxious waiting for hundreds of millions of people both in the conflict zone and in other territories.
April 14 Americans launched a rocket attack on 9 objects in Syria. Fortunately for everyone, not a single rocket, aircraft or ship of the western coalition violated the boundaries of the Russian responsibility zone in Syria. However, such a threat with possible subsequent strikes still remains. Even a cursory express analysis of the current military-political situation leads to disappointing conclusions.
First, as in the case of the beginning of the two previous world wars, the current military conflict is based on provocative actions and unfounded, unsubstantiated accusations. There is a great opportunity for another provocation in the range from the case of Skripale to pseudo chemical attacks in Syria, which can culminate in a direct military confrontation of opposing forces. There may be other false reasons for military attacks and surprise strikes.
Secondly, as recent events in connection with the attack on Syria have shown, there were enough publications in the media and social networks of unverified and in many cases provocative information to make such an important and responsible decision. Not even a fake document, not a false testimony or confession, under threat of death, but simply someone else's suggestion that someone might have done something.
The British are big inventors in terms of provocations and the use of sophisticated methods that push people and states together in conflicts and wars. History holds many such examples. However, the current political leadership of Great Britain surpassed all its predecessors. The "ingenious" invention of a new political formula to justify any aggression under the flag of retaliation against the highly likely established "villains". It is not known whether Elizabeth II is aware of this know-how in international law, but Sherlock Holmes would be shocked exactly from Highly Likely. After all, all his art detective was to find irrefutable evidence. And here it is not necessary to think. He told any sir that with high probability he was a gangster and a criminal, he took out his big revolver - bang-bang - and "justice" triumphed. Yes, a very dangerous "toy" was in the hands of inept politicians.
Third, and perhaps it was necessary to put the first point, the decision to launch a rocket attack on the territory of a sovereign state was made solely by the leaders of the United States, Great Britain and France. Without the participation of any other branches of government. As this blatant case showed, the 3 World War II could well have been unleashed by this decision "for three". One had only to make mistakes in pointing missiles and get on the Russian servicemen. I am sure that the situation would not have been resolved by simply responding with a Russian blow to enemy missiles and their means of delivery. Mutual escalation of hostilities would follow. And the lives of hundreds of millions of people and the well-being of not only aggressor countries, but also many other states would be threatened.
Fourth, the presence of the military bases of the aggressor countries in the territories of other states should make their authorities and peoples think that rent and other preferences cannot be more important than the real threat of retaliation. Here, for example, the British aircraft took off from Cyprus, thereby substituting this small island nation for a potential retaliatory strike. There is something to think about and the authorities, and ordinary Cypriots. And so wherever the military bases of the United States and their allies are located.
Fifth, in the week from 7 to 14 in April, the UN Security Council has already been going to 5 urgently to resolve crisis situations, but it never came to an agreed and mutually acceptable solution. And how is this possible if the 3 aggressor countries are also permanent members of the Security Council with veto power. And for any bombing, missile strikes and aggression against independent UN member states, they do not need any decisions or mandates to act from this most important international organization. International law is becoming a fiction. What can one demand, say, from Somali pirates, if the same pirate, aggressive methods and methods are used by recognized guarantors of democracy throughout the world?
About a week ago, the British representative to the UN, Karen Pierce, made a statement in connection with Russia's legitimate demand to allow its experts to proceed to the Skripale case. She compared them with the requirements of the arsonist to be allowed to investigate the fire. Now this definition of her must be returned to the British author. Otherwise, how else can we call, without littering the language of diplomacy, the preparation of the UN Security Council resolution on the situation in Syria by the three aggressor countries that have committed a military attack on the Syrian state. After all, the United States, the United Kingdom and France acted as the instigators of the world fire in the Middle East, and now they also want to intimidate and “put in place” those who defended their wounded land and the long-suffering people.