Citizens of Russia do not believe in the ability of their country to influence the fate of the world.
England was offered a choice between war and dishonor. She chose dishonor and will get war
(Winston Churchill on the Munich Agreement).
Voting at the UN General Assembly in support of US aggression and al-Qaida in Syria is a milestone. More than 100 countries supported the war and the overthrow of the national government, a little more than a dozen opposed the war.
They used to say the “aggressive NATO bloc”. Today, it has not become customary to say this, although it is today, since the Warsaw Pact left, and NATO has remained, it has already organized with half a dozen wars. Sometimes it is very far outside its “North Atlantic region”: two aggressions in Yugoslavia, a war in Afghanistan, an aggression against Iraq, an aggression in Libya, and Syria is next in line.
However, everything else in all these cases, it acts either with the tacit support of the UN, or formally in accordance with the UN mandate. But if, on a UN mandate, aggressions against independent countries and the overthrow of sovereign governments are organized - who should the UN itself be?
Then we see the “aggressive military-political bloc of the UN”. The UN, of course, was created in 40 for organizing the post-war world. And it was believed that to prevent a new war. But already in 1950, the UN Security Council decided to invade Korea. This war showed that at that time all the forces of the United Nations and its leading participants were not enough to defeat the USSR — and before the division of the USSR such attempts were no longer made. Not because of the peacefulness of New York - it was just clear that there was not enough strength.
What we have today is a typical and classical division of the world. “Imperialism knows only one principle of dividing the world - by force,” was written a hundred years ago. Ahead and the century of the beginning of the first such section, in which the degenerate elite of Russia has drawn the country.
World wars begin with small peripheral wars anticipating them. For the first time it was the Spanish-American war, the Russian-Japanese war, the Balkan wars. In the second - the seizure of Abyssinia by Italy, the invasion of Japan into China, the intervention of Italy and Germany in the civil war in Spain, the annexation of Austria, the partition of Germany, Poland and Hungary of Czechoslovakia.
What is happening today, in terms of the scope of actions and territorial coverage, is many times greater than the wars of the 1914 eve of the year, and 1939’s eve of the year. A hundred years ago, there was no common global interstate organization in the world. Eighty years ago such an organization was the League of Nations. But she turned out to be politically incapacitated: Germany simply abandoned her and went to war without even ignoring, simply without noticing. The maximum anti-war successes of the League are the end of the war between Paraguay and Bolivia in the 1932-35 years. In all other conflicts with her, no one, in general, was considered.
Today there is a comprehensive UN. She is the inspirer and organizer of aggression against sovereign countries, and partly as a tool and instrument of aggression by the most powerful world power.
If Germany, Italy and Japan ignored the League of Nations, the United States and its allies simply turned it into their weapon. When, in the middle of 1990, Boutros-Ghali tried, on behalf of the UN, to stop the NATO aggression in Yugoslavia, he was essentially simply dismissed by the United States from his post.
The main mistake of Russia on the eve of the First World War - it allowed itself to be drawn into the struggle for the interests of others and against its own interests. The main mistake of the USSR (although forced) is the belief in the possibility of stopping the war on the path of international cooperation.
The world in the modern era can be organized only on the basis of a balance of forces. Today's world order reflects the balance of power of the past era - the era of Soviet superpower. The backbone of peaceful life in 1945-1990. were tank factories of the Urals, and with a shield - Korolyov’s missiles. The world was based on the fact that fighting against the USSR was pointless and unpromising: the American analysis of the late 1940s showed no alternative that even with the possession of three hundred nuclear charges in the absence of the USSR, the USA could only count on keeping it under its control British Isles.
Today, only the remaining Soviet rockets (or Russian, but made on the basis of Soviet technologies) are keeping the world today. In the inertial scenario, in a maximum of ten years, the American missile defense system paralyzes this defense. Russia has no more than ten years to prepare for direct aggression against it.
The war in Syria is almost the direct equivalent of the war in Spain in 1936-39. With the difference that at that time the League of Nations formally condemned external intervention in the Spanish civil war, and, frankly speaking, whom it condemned, but today the UN supports such intervention and essentially calls for it.
Then the victory in Spain, Hitler opened the way to Warsaw and Paris. It is very interesting who after Syria will become the object of new US aggression. For now, not Russia. Until. Iran is expected. And many allies of the United States just want to.
Only in the 1939 year, having won in Spain, did Hitler not start a war against the USSR that opposed him in the Pyrenees. He first struck a blow at his ally Poland, which together with him participated just a year ago in the seizure of Czechoslovakia. And in the second - in Britain and France, who silently allowed to defeat the Spanish Republicans and swallow Austria and the Czech Republic.
So allies of the United States, supporting them in Syria, can make a mistake and get "coercion to democracy" in Riyadh or Ankara.
But in any case, Damascus, nothing ends. In general, it is debatable whether it is possible to stop the Third World War. One recipe is, rather, was. But for this you need the USSR.
Russia has a reprieve. But with the current vector of development of events - in one form or another, direct aggression against it by the United States turns out to be almost inevitable. One may engage in conspiracy and psychotherapy. Complacent: “No one will decide to go to war. All will manage. Or malicious, declaring a warning about the inevitability of war by phobia, anti-Americanism and propaganda intimidation - there were those who said all this before 1914 and before 1939.
On the threshold of Russia - world war. And Russia is ready for it worse than it was ready on the eve of 1914 of the year - when its army in combat proficiency was the best in the world, but the political and military leadership was the most stupid in its stories. And worse than the 1939 eve of the year. Even all the unprecedented efforts of the USSR turned out to be insufficient in 1941 - they simply did not have time to fully learn the troops to use the equipment they had at their disposal.
Today, Russia has an army with a staff of thousands of people in 920, with not quite clear level of training and not always updated weapons.
In 1939-41, a powerful, growing modern industry stood behind the army. The state of the military industry in Russia today raises many questions.
By the standards of the speed of development of events on the eve of the Second World War, Russia would have to enter into a direct armed confrontation with the main enemy through 2-4. The nuclear shield stretches the upcoming period for a slightly longer period.
But war is becoming more and more inevitable. It just needs to be understood - and start seriously preparing for it.
At one time, the words “The aggressive NATO bloc” were a stable phrase. The theme of events in Syria does not leave the screens of television and media sites. And while only a minority of Russian citizens are interested in it: according to VTsIOM, 8% is closely watching events, 37% is occasionally interested. In general, all this is not interesting 52%.
It was once the country's citizens who were more worried about what was happening in Honduras than the prices in the store: prices did not change, events in Honduras (Chile, Bolivia, etc.) were viewed as real life and real successes of their own system.
Today, far more people are concerned about the increase in prices and utility bills - 50% and 53%, respectively. Prices are rising, and the fact that the United States somewhere again and again invade, has become too familiar. Yes, and where is Syria know not all. And in the event of a further triumphal march of the Unified State Exam, perhaps those who graduated from school before 1985 will know which continent Syria is on, which Libya and Bolivia are on. That is, Russian education will reach the level of the American one, where not every president knows how Georgia differs from the state of Georgia. By the way, evil tongues say that recently at one of the government meetings the Minister of Education Livanov asked for clarification where Syria is still located - in Africa or in Asia. Rather, it is still a cruel joke. Although it is difficult to say, but it is significant that it appeared at all.
But another thing also affects: citizens do not see the point of being interested in the wars led by the United States, just to not get upset, because they do not believe that Russia will be able to prevent them and protect someone.
There are grounds for thinking that way, because, answering the question what is happening in Syria, only 19% are susceptible to the propaganda of domestic “liberals” and say that there is a “popular uprising against the regime”.
Most, although this point of view is missing not only in the liberal media, but also in official propaganda, with their own mind and without external clues were able to judge that everything that happens is “provocation of other countries for the sake of increasing influence in the region, weakening Syria”. And if among all citizens of such 46%, then among those interested in what is happening - 63%.
A comparable picture is given by the data of the Levada Center, although he tried to somewhat differentiate the questions asked and change the suggested accents. But here the point of view of the positive support of the Syrian militants turned out to have minimal support: only 7% agree that “the Bashar Assad regime carries out a massacre of those who oppose it,” and 36% call things by their proper names and say that in the country there is a civil war, with another 29% claim that "terrorists, incited by the West, are waging a bloody struggle with the country's legitimate government." Although the second and third answers were shared by sociologists, in fact, in fact, they are summarized. Just because, as a rule, any civil war is not just a military confrontation between the two sides, but proceeds with the support of the forces of certain foreign states. And it is more or less clear to everyone that what is happening in Syria would have ended long ago with the victory of the national government, if the side leading the war with it was not supported in personnel, in military-technical, and morally hostile both by Syria and in this case Russia, by external forces.
And this is well understood by those who answered the questions. Because although only 8% of citizens believe in the victory of the national government (over the year there are more and more of them), in reality the victory of his opponents believes a lot less - only 3%. And these during the year is becoming less. But the relative majority believes that everything will end with the intervention of NATO, and 25% - that there is a long civil war ahead. And supporters of both points of view is becoming more and more.
At the same time, 29% of the country's citizens believe (and there are more and more of them) that Russia today should render assistance to Syria, as its natural historical ally. And only 14% believes in the Western version of the violation by the Syrian authorities of “human rights” and would like to support the US and NATO sanctions against the national government of the country. For the repetition of external intervention, similar to what took place in Libya, 3% of citizens are definitely speaking.
At the same time, 28% suggest that Russia simply does not interfere and try to benefit from the ongoing opposition, while the rest do not undertake to determine their position.
These last two indicators are in fact not so much cynicism and indifference as disbelief in one’s strength and the strength of Russia. People suggest simply not to interfere or say that they do not know what to do - because they do not believe that something can be changed. For many, the question arose: “Why interfere somewhere, if everyone won’t win early?”
Citizens of the country do not believe in the ability of their government to complete even a just cause. The country does not believe in their strength. The government does not believe in the strength of the people and is no longer thinking about the fact that it approves its actions, but that the world centers of power and terror approve of them.
But the problem is that the one who is not able to protect the victim of robbery will eventually find himself in the position of the victim of the same robbers, and no one wants to come to his aid.
But, of course, with the help of the USE, awareness of such simple things cannot be achieved.