How to prevent a war with America. Russia needs a new Gorbachev!
Project "ZZ". An expert opinion has been rooted in the United States that hostility towards “undemocratic” Russia with its anti-Americanism will decline when Putin is replaced by an enlightened liberal leader. Analysts who believe that the war between the US and Russia can be prevented in this political way, believe that the Russians, seeking freedom, "sooner or later" put forward on the competitive stage of the policy of new leaders. They will carry out liberal reforms and make friends with Washington. The scenario for this is already known: it was such a course that Mikhail Gorbachev conducted and continued Boris Yeltsin.
Mr. George Beebe, author of The Russia Trap: How Our Shadow War with Russia Could Spiral into Nuclear Catastrophe, argues on the so-called shadow war, which could turn into a nuclear war. in September 2019 of the year.
Look at the cover of this book. Of course, there is Putin. And under his portrait are scary words about a nuclear disaster. The author, by the way, is a great specialist in the analysis of Russia and all kinds of disasters there: he was not engaged in Russian analytics anywhere but in the CIA. And even headed the department for the analysis of Russia there. Today, he is director of research at the Center for National Interests, a think tank in Washington, which does not relate to any of the American parties. In a word, here we have a real analyst with a status, a real impartial expert.
And this same D. Bib offers - not in his book, but in a magazine "Politico"who published his material - to draw the American Democrats and Republicans to the likelihood of a nuclear conflict with Russia. He also considers a number of theses that can be considered the stereotypical foundations of hostility between America and Russia. His material also cites political paths that could lead to a rapprochement between Washington and Moscow.
The material makes a reservation: all the facts, opinions or analysis expressed in the article belong to the author himself and do not reflect the official positions or views of the CIA or any other US government agency. It is also noted that this material was read at the CIA in order to clarify whether something secret was disclosed there. (Apparently not, since the text was censored.)
The threat of a nuclear war with Russia is higher than what the United States thinks, the author is convinced. And if so, US lawmakers from both parties should address this danger.
George Bib recalls that in the 1950s and 1960s, Americans “rightly feared” the prospects of a nuclear war with the Soviet Union: in those days, schoolchildren regularly participated in bombing exercises, federal, state, and local governments worked on case of nuclear war. Many citizens built bomb shelters in the backyards and stored all sorts of stocks there ...
Today, the old fear of a nuclear disaster has almost disappeared, Bib writes further. However, "the real threat of a nuclear catastrophe is much higher than we think." Bib is confident that diplomacy and complacency have led to a “false sense of security,” which leaves Americans “unprepared and extremely vulnerable to Russia's nuclear attack.”
The author considers the death of the Treaty on intermediate and shorter-range missiles to be a sign of impending catastrophe. The new START treaty, which entered into force under the Obama administration, seems to be waiting for "the same fate" in 2021. In fact, almost all of the key US-Russian provisions on arms control and building confidence in the Cold War era are dead, the analyst said.
Here's another danger: US officials, both from Democrats and Republicans, are not focusing on how to avoid a nuclear disaster. No, politicians are interested in something completely different: how would they show how tough they look in the confrontation “with revanchist Russia and its leader Vladimir Putin”. And President Donald Trump’s proposal for a study by the United States and Russia of ways to resolve disagreements on a diplomatic basis is mainly condemnation.
Having worked for the US government for more than a quarter of a century, Mr. Bib made three main conclusions - he formulated three erroneous assumptions that underlie the complacency of the United States.
Firstly, American politicians believe that since neither side wants a nuclear war, then such a war is unlikely to happen. If the "cold war" ended peacefully, then why should America worry about a new "shadow war"?
The author recalls in this connection that wars do not always begin with a “plan”. Example: World War I. Today, cyber technologies, artificial intelligence, modern hypersonic delivery systems weapons and anti-satellite weapons make the US-Russian shadow war far more complex and dangerous than the old geopolitical rivalry of the Cold War. The traditional borders between espionage and war have been erased, nuclear and traditional weapons are “mixed,” the old differences between offensive and defensive operations are a thing of the past.
Secondly, the Russian threat to American politicians is seen primarily as a "deterrence problem." The logic looks something like this: the United States can hold back a likely conflict by preventing it by tightening economic sanctions, boosting military assistance to Europe, and conducting more aggressive cyber operations. Here is the best way to save the world.
But such a way of preventing aggression instead of America may inadvertently increase the chances of war, says the analyst. The years of NATO expansion and the alleged US involvement in Russia's internal affairs have already convinced the Kremlin that America is an existential threat, the author recalls. “In turn,” Bib continues, “Russia's intervention in the 2016 US presidential election, combined with a series of aggressions against its neighbors, convinced Washington that Moscow was hitting the Achilles heel of the West.”
With a similar phenomenon of "spiral", says Bib, the United States faced in the 2008 year in Georgia. Politicians from Washington accelerated US military training in Georgia, openly advocated Tbilisi joining NATO, and repeatedly warned Moscow about military operations. Saying this, politicians in Washington believed that their “firm determination” would deter Russia from any action. “In fact, it’s the opposite effect,” says Bib.
Third, the United States suggests that "anti-Americanism Russia stems from the inner nature of its regime." Consequently, hostility will decrease when Putin is replaced by a “more enlightened leader who adheres to more liberal approaches.” Sooner or later, supporters of this point of view believe that the unsatisfied desire of Russians for freedom will lead to the formation of a "new leadership in Russia." And this new government will "promote liberal reforms and seek friendly relations with Washington, as Mikhail Gorbachev and Boris Yeltsin once did." As for the “compromise with the Putin regime,” American politicians find this “not only immoral, but also unnecessary and counterproductive.”
However, Bib believes that the notion that Moscow “hates us for what we are, that is, for democracy, and not for how we influence the important interests of Russia,” does not converge with business (if not friendly) relations RF with democracies that it does not find threats. As examples of such democracies, D. Bib names Israel, India, and Japan.
The reality is that Russia's differences with Washington stem from a deep mix of geopolitical, historical and systemic factors. And they will by no means disappear into thin air when Putin leaves.
What to do?
Controlling variable factors in US-Russian relations is a difficult but far from impossible task, Bib is convinced. Washington should objectively approach this issue and learn to “balance” hardness with compliance, military readiness with diplomatic influence. Nor should one “excessively deviate” towards concessions or confrontation. Yes, it is "difficult balance", but at the moment the United States "do not even try to do so," said the expert. Such an approach will require more responsible US-Russian communications and new rules of the game: after all, we are talking about new weapons systems, cyber technologies and changes in the world order.
However, all this “will be impossible” if the real danger of war is not recognized. No, not a modern variation of “planned aggression” in the style of the Second World War, but a nascent spiral of escalation of the conflict along the lines of the First World War. This growing danger, Bib is sure, today "few people realize." And this threat, if nothing changes, "can lead to disaster."
The place of the start of a new disaster was also named. Looks like the Caribbean Crisis of 2.0 is coming.
Ryan Berg in a magazine "Foreign Policy" calls on Washington to reconsider its strategy, for Russia is "preparing for a conflict with the United States in the Caribbean" ("Russia Is Gearing Up for a Conflict With the United States in the Caribbean").
Moscow supports the Venezuelan leader Maduro and relocates his troops off the coast, which means that Washington “must reconsider its own strategy,” the analyst notes. New conflicts around the world can be threatening, but only one conflict, “in the backyard of the United States,” can be truly dangerous.
Despite U.S. sanctions on Venezuelan state-owned oil company Petróleos de Venezuela (PDVSA), oil from that country is still flowing to world markets. And the central mediator in oil exports is Rosneft! This Russian state oil company accepts Venezuelan oil in the form of repayment of a loan.
Berg is convinced that in this way, President Putin "plays a leading role in keeping the Venezuelan dictator Nicolas Maduro afloat." And as long as Putin is doing, the current policy of the US sanctions will not change much in Venezuela. And if so, Washington "needs to rethink its strategy to remove the Venezuelan leader - and do it in the near future."
As the PDVSA customer list has declined, Rosneft has quickly overtaken all other companies and has already become the largest Venezuelan oil trader. If in July 2019 the company processed 40 percent of PDVSA oil exports, then by August it was already processing 66%. Recently, PDVSA even opened an office in Moscow. At such rates of cooperation, Venezuelan loans can be fully repaid at the end of the 2019 year or at the beginning of the 2020.
The presence of Russia in Venezuela, the author of the material considers "the most significant in the Western Hemisphere since the missile crisis in Cuba." And this presence (the author has no doubt) will continue "long after the excuse in the form of collecting Venezuelan debts has exhausted itself."
The Kremlin’s recent moves indicate that Putin intends to intervene even deeper in Venezuela’s affairs, both militarily and financially. The August meeting of the defense ministers of Russia and Venezuela led to an agreement that the warships of the two countries can visit each other's ports, possibly in preparation for future cooperation in the field of territorial defense. Without a doubt, Russians remember reports that US President Donald Trump is obsessed with the idea of a naval blockade of Venezuela. In conjunction with the Russian naval agreement with Nicaragua, the deployment of warships and submarines from the ports of Venezuela can be aimed at refusing to conduct US naval operations in the southern Caribbean. So the Cubans have already demanded, the author adds, that Russia “escort the tankers transporting lots of free oil of Venezuela” to their island “with limited resources”. In addition, according to K. Fuller, head of the US Southern Command, Russian forces surrounded Venezuela garrisons. Making an "interference in Ukraine model, Russian soldiers put the" form of the Venezuelan army. " And here’s the “worst”: the Russians “are openly thinking about deploying cruise missiles in Venezuela in response to the US withdrawing from the Medium and Shorter Range Missile Treaty.” “The echoes of the Cuban missile crisis scare!” The author expresses her fear.
Berg advises the US administration to "strengthen its sanctions game." It is necessary to apply the new embargo and keep the "creative" exists - it is "the only chance to shift the Maduro." And at the top of the new sanctions list, Rosneft should be registered - perhaps it is Maduro’s best ally. In addition, the United States “should consider the Maduro regime as a regime akin to the criminal network, and not as a separate political entity.”
So, to the third world war, which begins with a conflict between the United States and Russia, will lead to a spontaneous "escalation spiral." Turn after turn - and here you have a nuclear disaster, historically similar to the 1914 catastrophe of the year, but with different consequences. Such, after which there will be no oil, neither the USA, nor Russia, nor, perhaps, the planet.
And in fact, no clear prescriptions prevention of nuclear war, the transition of the shadow of the war, experts do not give into nuclear conflict. The discussion of control over “volatile factors in US-Russian relations” looks more like idle chatter of retired CIA analysts than suggestions in the spirit of “real politicians”. Yes, and it’s funny to observe when various kinds of analysts say about compliance at the moment when all the leading centers of world power seemed to conspire to demonstrate intransigence. When the world order changes before our eyes, the diplomacy of pliability is impossible. And it is not for nothing that other experts are waiting for a politician similar to Gorbachev to come to power in Russia. Gorbachev is just an expert in the policy of concessions at the wrong time.
As for Russia, the West does not expect from it a “liberal” politician who will succeed Putin, but a crisis a la 1992 for a year. Moscow with his legs, in debt and in the pit of inflation - that's what the picture sweet hearts of American politicians. And because the procedure for cases in which Russia is seeking debt with Venezuela, angers other experts on foreign policy.
Peace, friendship, chewing gum
Mr. George Beebe, author of The Russia Trap: How Our Shadow War with Russia Could Spiral into Nuclear Catastrophe, argues on the so-called shadow war, which could turn into a nuclear war. in September 2019 of the year.
Look at the cover of this book. Of course, there is Putin. And under his portrait are scary words about a nuclear disaster. The author, by the way, is a great specialist in the analysis of Russia and all kinds of disasters there: he was not engaged in Russian analytics anywhere but in the CIA. And even headed the department for the analysis of Russia there. Today, he is director of research at the Center for National Interests, a think tank in Washington, which does not relate to any of the American parties. In a word, here we have a real analyst with a status, a real impartial expert.
And this same D. Bib offers - not in his book, but in a magazine "Politico"who published his material - to draw the American Democrats and Republicans to the likelihood of a nuclear conflict with Russia. He also considers a number of theses that can be considered the stereotypical foundations of hostility between America and Russia. His material also cites political paths that could lead to a rapprochement between Washington and Moscow.
The material makes a reservation: all the facts, opinions or analysis expressed in the article belong to the author himself and do not reflect the official positions or views of the CIA or any other US government agency. It is also noted that this material was read at the CIA in order to clarify whether something secret was disclosed there. (Apparently not, since the text was censored.)
The threat of a nuclear war with Russia is higher than what the United States thinks, the author is convinced. And if so, US lawmakers from both parties should address this danger.
George Bib recalls that in the 1950s and 1960s, Americans “rightly feared” the prospects of a nuclear war with the Soviet Union: in those days, schoolchildren regularly participated in bombing exercises, federal, state, and local governments worked on case of nuclear war. Many citizens built bomb shelters in the backyards and stored all sorts of stocks there ...
Today, the old fear of a nuclear disaster has almost disappeared, Bib writes further. However, "the real threat of a nuclear catastrophe is much higher than we think." Bib is confident that diplomacy and complacency have led to a “false sense of security,” which leaves Americans “unprepared and extremely vulnerable to Russia's nuclear attack.”
The author considers the death of the Treaty on intermediate and shorter-range missiles to be a sign of impending catastrophe. The new START treaty, which entered into force under the Obama administration, seems to be waiting for "the same fate" in 2021. In fact, almost all of the key US-Russian provisions on arms control and building confidence in the Cold War era are dead, the analyst said.
Here's another danger: US officials, both from Democrats and Republicans, are not focusing on how to avoid a nuclear disaster. No, politicians are interested in something completely different: how would they show how tough they look in the confrontation “with revanchist Russia and its leader Vladimir Putin”. And President Donald Trump’s proposal for a study by the United States and Russia of ways to resolve disagreements on a diplomatic basis is mainly condemnation.
Having worked for the US government for more than a quarter of a century, Mr. Bib made three main conclusions - he formulated three erroneous assumptions that underlie the complacency of the United States.
Firstly, American politicians believe that since neither side wants a nuclear war, then such a war is unlikely to happen. If the "cold war" ended peacefully, then why should America worry about a new "shadow war"?
The author recalls in this connection that wars do not always begin with a “plan”. Example: World War I. Today, cyber technologies, artificial intelligence, modern hypersonic delivery systems weapons and anti-satellite weapons make the US-Russian shadow war far more complex and dangerous than the old geopolitical rivalry of the Cold War. The traditional borders between espionage and war have been erased, nuclear and traditional weapons are “mixed,” the old differences between offensive and defensive operations are a thing of the past.
Secondly, the Russian threat to American politicians is seen primarily as a "deterrence problem." The logic looks something like this: the United States can hold back a likely conflict by preventing it by tightening economic sanctions, boosting military assistance to Europe, and conducting more aggressive cyber operations. Here is the best way to save the world.
But such a way of preventing aggression instead of America may inadvertently increase the chances of war, says the analyst. The years of NATO expansion and the alleged US involvement in Russia's internal affairs have already convinced the Kremlin that America is an existential threat, the author recalls. “In turn,” Bib continues, “Russia's intervention in the 2016 US presidential election, combined with a series of aggressions against its neighbors, convinced Washington that Moscow was hitting the Achilles heel of the West.”
With a similar phenomenon of "spiral", says Bib, the United States faced in the 2008 year in Georgia. Politicians from Washington accelerated US military training in Georgia, openly advocated Tbilisi joining NATO, and repeatedly warned Moscow about military operations. Saying this, politicians in Washington believed that their “firm determination” would deter Russia from any action. “In fact, it’s the opposite effect,” says Bib.
Third, the United States suggests that "anti-Americanism Russia stems from the inner nature of its regime." Consequently, hostility will decrease when Putin is replaced by a “more enlightened leader who adheres to more liberal approaches.” Sooner or later, supporters of this point of view believe that the unsatisfied desire of Russians for freedom will lead to the formation of a "new leadership in Russia." And this new government will "promote liberal reforms and seek friendly relations with Washington, as Mikhail Gorbachev and Boris Yeltsin once did." As for the “compromise with the Putin regime,” American politicians find this “not only immoral, but also unnecessary and counterproductive.”
However, Bib believes that the notion that Moscow “hates us for what we are, that is, for democracy, and not for how we influence the important interests of Russia,” does not converge with business (if not friendly) relations RF with democracies that it does not find threats. As examples of such democracies, D. Bib names Israel, India, and Japan.
The reality is that Russia's differences with Washington stem from a deep mix of geopolitical, historical and systemic factors. And they will by no means disappear into thin air when Putin leaves.
What to do?
Controlling variable factors in US-Russian relations is a difficult but far from impossible task, Bib is convinced. Washington should objectively approach this issue and learn to “balance” hardness with compliance, military readiness with diplomatic influence. Nor should one “excessively deviate” towards concessions or confrontation. Yes, it is "difficult balance", but at the moment the United States "do not even try to do so," said the expert. Such an approach will require more responsible US-Russian communications and new rules of the game: after all, we are talking about new weapons systems, cyber technologies and changes in the world order.
However, all this “will be impossible” if the real danger of war is not recognized. No, not a modern variation of “planned aggression” in the style of the Second World War, but a nascent spiral of escalation of the conflict along the lines of the First World War. This growing danger, Bib is sure, today "few people realize." And this threat, if nothing changes, "can lead to disaster."
Caribbean Crisis 2
The place of the start of a new disaster was also named. Looks like the Caribbean Crisis of 2.0 is coming.
Ryan Berg in a magazine "Foreign Policy" calls on Washington to reconsider its strategy, for Russia is "preparing for a conflict with the United States in the Caribbean" ("Russia Is Gearing Up for a Conflict With the United States in the Caribbean").
Moscow supports the Venezuelan leader Maduro and relocates his troops off the coast, which means that Washington “must reconsider its own strategy,” the analyst notes. New conflicts around the world can be threatening, but only one conflict, “in the backyard of the United States,” can be truly dangerous.
Despite U.S. sanctions on Venezuelan state-owned oil company Petróleos de Venezuela (PDVSA), oil from that country is still flowing to world markets. And the central mediator in oil exports is Rosneft! This Russian state oil company accepts Venezuelan oil in the form of repayment of a loan.
Berg is convinced that in this way, President Putin "plays a leading role in keeping the Venezuelan dictator Nicolas Maduro afloat." And as long as Putin is doing, the current policy of the US sanctions will not change much in Venezuela. And if so, Washington "needs to rethink its strategy to remove the Venezuelan leader - and do it in the near future."
As the PDVSA customer list has declined, Rosneft has quickly overtaken all other companies and has already become the largest Venezuelan oil trader. If in July 2019 the company processed 40 percent of PDVSA oil exports, then by August it was already processing 66%. Recently, PDVSA even opened an office in Moscow. At such rates of cooperation, Venezuelan loans can be fully repaid at the end of the 2019 year or at the beginning of the 2020.
The presence of Russia in Venezuela, the author of the material considers "the most significant in the Western Hemisphere since the missile crisis in Cuba." And this presence (the author has no doubt) will continue "long after the excuse in the form of collecting Venezuelan debts has exhausted itself."
The Kremlin’s recent moves indicate that Putin intends to intervene even deeper in Venezuela’s affairs, both militarily and financially. The August meeting of the defense ministers of Russia and Venezuela led to an agreement that the warships of the two countries can visit each other's ports, possibly in preparation for future cooperation in the field of territorial defense. Without a doubt, Russians remember reports that US President Donald Trump is obsessed with the idea of a naval blockade of Venezuela. In conjunction with the Russian naval agreement with Nicaragua, the deployment of warships and submarines from the ports of Venezuela can be aimed at refusing to conduct US naval operations in the southern Caribbean. So the Cubans have already demanded, the author adds, that Russia “escort the tankers transporting lots of free oil of Venezuela” to their island “with limited resources”. In addition, according to K. Fuller, head of the US Southern Command, Russian forces surrounded Venezuela garrisons. Making an "interference in Ukraine model, Russian soldiers put the" form of the Venezuelan army. " And here’s the “worst”: the Russians “are openly thinking about deploying cruise missiles in Venezuela in response to the US withdrawing from the Medium and Shorter Range Missile Treaty.” “The echoes of the Cuban missile crisis scare!” The author expresses her fear.
Berg advises the US administration to "strengthen its sanctions game." It is necessary to apply the new embargo and keep the "creative" exists - it is "the only chance to shift the Maduro." And at the top of the new sanctions list, Rosneft should be registered - perhaps it is Maduro’s best ally. In addition, the United States “should consider the Maduro regime as a regime akin to the criminal network, and not as a separate political entity.”
* * *
So, to the third world war, which begins with a conflict between the United States and Russia, will lead to a spontaneous "escalation spiral." Turn after turn - and here you have a nuclear disaster, historically similar to the 1914 catastrophe of the year, but with different consequences. Such, after which there will be no oil, neither the USA, nor Russia, nor, perhaps, the planet.
And in fact, no clear prescriptions prevention of nuclear war, the transition of the shadow of the war, experts do not give into nuclear conflict. The discussion of control over “volatile factors in US-Russian relations” looks more like idle chatter of retired CIA analysts than suggestions in the spirit of “real politicians”. Yes, and it’s funny to observe when various kinds of analysts say about compliance at the moment when all the leading centers of world power seemed to conspire to demonstrate intransigence. When the world order changes before our eyes, the diplomacy of pliability is impossible. And it is not for nothing that other experts are waiting for a politician similar to Gorbachev to come to power in Russia. Gorbachev is just an expert in the policy of concessions at the wrong time.
As for Russia, the West does not expect from it a “liberal” politician who will succeed Putin, but a crisis a la 1992 for a year. Moscow with his legs, in debt and in the pit of inflation - that's what the picture sweet hearts of American politicians. And because the procedure for cases in which Russia is seeking debt with Venezuela, angers other experts on foreign policy.
Information