Choice of the USA. To be or not to be NATO alliance
On the eve of the New Year, the world has not found a way out of the crisis. The hysteria continues in European capitals. In Washington, politicians and the military are losing various options for responding to Moscow's demands. Kiev froze in anticipation and is actually engaged in self-criticism.
Alas, the political crisis in the United States, some discord in European politics, the gas crisis, the return of Covid-19 in a new guise and many other challenges are not helping to pacify the planet. And the policy based on the principle of "everything later" led not only to the accumulation of unresolved problems, but to the emergence of new ones.
The "showcase for the exhibition of the achievements of the capitalist economy" created in the West has ceased to be attractive not only for "totalitarian regimes", but also for the citizens of "democratic" countries themselves. It turned out that "totalitarian regimes" are much more effective in certain circumstances.
Ukraine has become a global problem
The defeated Ukraine, instead of the euphoria of victory, has become another problem for the global West. The huge country demands "bread and circuses" that were promised by the West. In plain text, Kiev politicians demand the same benefits and the same assistance that Poland received in due time.
But Kiev forgets that Poland was just created for the "showcase of the exhibition of achievements." For "luring buyers"! And it really worked great. The West has vast experience in trade.
And here lies the danger for the whole world. The hungry, cold and devastated country is radicalizing and already today is ready to “declare war and surrender” to anyone, except, probably, Russia. The situation is reminiscent of the 30s of the last century. Who is the first "bitten by a mad dog" is unknown.
When considering a military solution to a problem, we often assume that the United States and Russia will go all the way. That Moscow and Washington need a complete victory over their potential adversary. This means that the end of the war, the finish, and not the victory, will be the use of nuclear weapons.
But why such confidence?
None of the states today wants to "feed the vanquished." Modern wars are therefore local, short-lived and are fought on foreign territories. Cynically speaking, he came, hit, took what was needed or destroyed the dangerous - and left.
It seems to me that this is precisely why Washington is pushing Ukraine and Europe into a military conflict with Russia. The Americans are well aware that in a war with a non-nuclear state, the Kremlin will not use nuclear weapon... Thus, according to the plan of the Pentagon strategists, the Ukrainian-Russian war will be non-nuclear.
Raise bids to the maximum
The US decided to play for high stakes. Putting the NATO alliance on the line. This military bloc has done its job and has practically turned into a useless scarecrow, which no one is afraid of. I understand that this is a rather controversial statement, but facts are stubborn things.
In recent decades, the United States and NATO have conducted a fairly large number of military operations abroad. And everywhere under the beautiful name "NATO Joint Forces" the American army was hiding. The divisions of the European countries - members of the alliance played the role of auxiliary divisions. Present ...
What did this lead to?
Once, during the time of the USSR, the Americans and Russians spent most of the military budget on the maintenance and development of allied countries. The USA financed NATO, the USSR - the OVD. After the collapse of the USSR, the need for a NATO bloc was questionable.
But as Nietzsche once said: "War makes the winner stupid." Not only did the Americans continue to finance NATO, they allowed the bloc to expand, that is, they even increased spending. At the same time, there was no need for this, except for the notorious "missile flight time".
Further, simple arithmetic.
The US military budget is $ 768,2 billion. The military budget of Russia is 42,1 billion. At the same time, as President Putin recently said, the Russian army is modernized, armed with the latest weapons, mobile and effective. The US Army "froze" in development in the 90s of the last century.
American analysts, quite rightly, speak of the superiority of the Russian army over the US Army and Marine Corps in terms of combat effectiveness and striking power. True, most analysts still justify this by the fact that Russians always fight near their borders, but ...
Whenever possible, I consider with interest the award (order) strips of our military.
How does this have to do with the might of the army?
I think it is directly connected and shows exactly the fighting efficiency. Most officers, not even talking about generals, have military awards first. These are combat officers!
So, the Ukrainian clown president is starting a database in Donbass. The people of Ukraine, sadly to admit it, for the most part support it. Russia is doing what President Putin promised. The corps of the republics liberate the occupied territories of the Luhansk and Donetsk regions.
Some NATO countries, according to bilateral agreements, are beginning to actively help Kiev and thus involve NATO in the war. The United States, having no bilateral treaties, is washing its hands.
A perfectly digestible plan?
Why Americans do not need and even dangerous war
We are used to thinking that military solutions to problems are common enough for the United States. Yes, when your army solves problems effectively, with minimal losses and great benefits, this is so. Only in recent years it has begun to dawn on Americans that the movie Rimbaud and the real American soldier are completely different people.
Now the Pentagon has no confidence of victory, even where the American army has enormous technical superiority. As it was in Afghanistan, as it is happening in Syria. And this is caused not so much by the miscalculations of commanders and bosses, as by the policy of tolerance and inclusiveness.
The army, which officially serve openly gays, lesbians, transgender people, is demoralized. The army, which takes everyone in a row, loses its firmness. As a result, dedication, cohesion and pride in their achievements suffer severely. And these are the necessary conditions for maintaining a professional armed forces.
This state of the army, of course, leads to military defeats. What we see today.
But let's look at Europe.
There is no war and no military defeats.
But what is the NATO contingent, for example, in Poland?
Can we talk about the united forces of the alliance today?
Can we talk about a single command?
Let us recall the footage of the exercises of the joint forces of the bloc. Some in the forest, some for firewood. The level of training of soldiers and officers is strikingly different. The level of proficiency in equipment and weapons, too.
And this is a combined force?
Well, the last.
America is in crisis. The world is in crisis. A new war, and even with such an adversary as Russia, will lead to a sharp deterioration in the standard of living in the United States. Prices for everything will rise sharply. Starting from products that will be difficult to deliver, and ending with energy resources, which will be redirected to the army.
It is not difficult to predict the development of events further ...
Save face and destroy the state or return to the status quo
So, Washington is faced with a really serious choice. Either continue to play the role of a world leader who controls the situation and can always stop its development, or accept the conditions put forward by Russia and curtail anti-Russian activities in Ukraine, thereby depriving Kiev of the ability and desire to solve the LPR problem by military means.
Both Moscow and Washington are not yet ready to make any compromise. The cost of failure is too great, too much is at stake. If Ukraine is "blown up" after all, the consequences for all European countries, for Russia, for the United States, and for the whole world will be very serious.
In any case, the world is waiting for very serious changes ... We are waiting for January 10, when the two presidents begin regular negotiations ...
Information