Who wears a copper shield? Or diplomacy issues
“Whoever wears a copper shield, he has a copper forehead. In place of a falcon sits an owl. Oh, gins, you are looking for where you have not hidden, kiss my donkey for it under the tail! ”- so great Khoja Nasreddin taught a trusting moneylender, who instead of putting himself in a sack to drowning, to tease the militarists of that time. He also took three hundred tanga for it.
In ordinary life, this behavior is called fraud.
Sometimes society can forgive and even encourage fraud. Khoja Nasreddin, close to the people, is against the disgusting usurer, in general “ours, against ours”. Therefore, fraudsters always try to pass for those close to the people (“ours”), then, even if unseemly acts are revealed, the society says: “Yes, they lied, stole and killed, but with good purpose, for our sake.”
For example, the crowd justified Yulia Tymoshenko when proving her honesty was completely impossible. In the same way, the crowd will justify today's “socially close” “heroes”, even when it becomes obvious that they were pushing her (the crowd) to commit suicide out of ambition and self-interest. Why not forgive the brothers in mind.
But today we are not about the crowd and not about the ambitious. And not even about the goals. We are about methods. The two main methods of achieving goals in politics are war and diplomacy. All that is not war is diplomacy. At the same time, diplomacy is also a war. Often, the consequences of a diplomatic victory are more destructive than the consequences of a military victory.
For example, Japan was defeated by the United States in the war and even subjected to nuclear bombardment. And the USSR was defeated by the United States exclusively at the negotiating table. The counting of territorial, demographic, political, economic and other losses will not be in favor of the USSR.
War is legalized for murder. If you killed a person in a peaceful life, you will be sent to prison (for a long time, possibly for life). If you killed a hundred people in a war, you will become a Hero of the Soviet Union.
In diplomacy legalized fraud. And in its highest form, when you do not say anything except the truth (in the XVII century it was possible to lie for a second, now everything is checked), but you still mislead your opponent. The business of a diplomat to achieve the goals of a war without warfare. Therefore, even when diplomats talk about mutually beneficial cooperation, about compromise, this is a compromise in someone's favor.
For example, modern Russia proposes the United States to return to a fair world order in which everyone is equal - the same rules apply equally to everyone, without the notorious “double standards”. The offer is mutually beneficial and noble through and through. If we abstract from reality.
In fact, equality for all in the world never existed. Equal, after 1945, were only the USSR and the USA, and the rest could only choose the overlord. Even if we assume that in the wonderful new world the centers of power will not be two, but more (this is by the way in the interests of Russia, since they will balance each other and do not need to over-exert as the USSR), only the number of overlords will increase, the principle of inequality will not change . This is not surprising - a country with an economy of half (third, quarter) planetary and with a population of several hundred million or a billion people cannot depend on the decision of the government of an island in the ocean living on tourism and feeding a couple of thousand attendants .
In addition, Russia somehow proposes the United States, which for a long time (twenty-five years) was the only world hegemon, to share power with other contenders for leadership. The losses of the United States are obvious, but acquisitions (stability, the possibility of a less painful transition to another type of economy, etc.) are abstract and not necessarily achievable. From time immemorial, everyone knows that by renouncing the right to control the situation individually, sooner or later you can learn that nothing depends on you anymore. The United States has done this with the USSR and does not want to be in its place.
Actually it was because of this that the global conflict broke out, of which we are a participant. Rather, he had deep, not only and not so much political, as economically reasons, about which I have repeatedly written, and some authors, economists have described them much deeper and more detailed than me. But on the external, obvious and unquestionable level, it looked like the US military-political opposition trying to maintain its dominance in the world, and Russia (as well as China and other countries whose interests coincided with Russia) multipolar world.
In the pre-nuclear era, such a confrontation would have long ago turned into a military conflict, in which the conventional North Atlantic bloc (USA, Canada, EU, Australia, Japan) would oppose the same conventional Eurasian (Russia, China, India, Iran, part of Latin America and some African countries). At the same time, diplomats would actively work to attract allies, including at the expense of weak links in a foreign bloc (as, for example, in the First World War, a member of the Triple Alliance of Italy as a result sided with the Entente).
In the nuclear age, direct confrontation between the superpowers means guaranteed mutual destruction and is undesirable. It is not desirable, not impossible (as some think), since the development of the political and military situation is subject to its own logic and can get out of control. Especially if the “controllers” are inadequate and sincerely believe that it is possible to swing a nuclear club impenetically or send troops anywhere and for that there will be nothing.
The foregoing leads us to a simple conclusion - under the circumstances, a global conflict could have only a multi-level character. At the highest level, it took the form of an informational, political and economic clash between Russia and its allies, and the United States and its allies. Here the main role is played by diplomats. At the lowest level there are clashes of armed groups controlled by different centers (client states, rebels, mercenary gangs, religious radicals, “volunteers” of different varieties and shades). At the same time, bright real low-level wars in reality serve no more than providing top-level operations.
Wars of the lowest level have no military strategic meaning. Even if it seems that they are designed to establish control over a strategic point, this is nothing more than an appearance.
The West could control the Libyan oil much better without overthrowing Gaddafi, and the Iraqi without overthrowing Hussein. The United States, which has been working with Saudi fundamentalists for decades, did not have irreconcilable ideological contradictions with Iranian fundamentalists, and Tehran’s hypothetical nuclear bomb threatened Washington no more than Pakistan’s real nuclear bomb. In Syria, Assad made all possible concessions (he even abandoned the influence of principle in Syria in Lebanon). Even Yanukovych asked only 15 for billions of dollars to sign an association agreement and present Ukraine to the West as a whole, united, controlled.
If Americans wanted to create an anti-Russian ram from Ukraine, they would give Yanukovych money (costs less and efficiency higher). Today, any point in the world becomes a strategically important platform, if it was chosen for a superpower collision and ceases to be such as soon as they "go to fight in another yard",
Therefore, all American destabilization projects are not aimed at maintaining control at critical points for a long time (as the “specialists” in colonial wars of the last century think so far), but at creating information and political discomfort for their opponents and forcing them to intervene unfavorable conditions. Opponents, however, responded to the Americans by applying the same strategy.
By the way, the first to asymmetrical responses to strategic threats from the United States began to resort to China twenty years ago. Then Russia was still the American satellite and the Great Celestial Middle People's State had no other choice. Direct confrontation meant defeat (not only and not so much military as political, diplomatic and, above all, economic).
The next strategy was mastered by Iran, which uses the Shiite communities and Alawi Syria against the US and the Sunni Gulf regimes under their control.
Russia officially became the last on the path of war with the United States. She had time to analyze the successes and mistakes of the parties to the conflict over the past decade. In addition, Russia is the only country that has the ability to cause the United States unacceptable damage in a direct military confrontation. This allowed Moscow to work out the most effective strategy for confronting Washington at the top (diplomatic) level.
In the past five years, Moscow has been entering into military-political and economic alliances, objectively beating on US interests. Prior to this, 2008 was a milestone year when Russia became the first state after 1991, to use military force against Saakashvili’s US client regime with impunity.
At the same time, formally, Russian diplomats are going in all directions to meet the American wishes. Numerous multilateral negotiation formats are being created (in which no one is going to negotiate with anyone), ceasefire agreements are made (which no one is going to cease), concerns are shared (while fixing diametrically opposing views on the format of solving the problem).
Since at the top level it is impossible to fight, the task of diplomacy is to draw the enemy as far as possible into as many real conflicts as possible and force him to stretch his resources so that they simply do not remain on the main global opponent (the resources are not rubber). Russian diplomacy copes with this task perfectly well.
The United States got bogged down in Libya, the US got bogged down in Syria, the US got bogged down in Ukraine, the US got bogged down in Iraq, the US got bogged down in Afghanistan. America is unhappy with the Indians, Iranians, Pakistanis, Chinese, Hispanics, many Africans and Arabs. Washington's allies bear all the great costs, in the complete absence of the promised dividends. The longer the confrontation lasts, the more obvious it becomes even to the EU elites that it will soon be their turn to go into the furnace of an undeclared war in order to delay the moment of the onset of resource insufficiency in the United States.
The second option is to reset all client modes at once (from Libya to Afghanistan). But then the geopolitical opponents of Washington (Russia, China) and the multipolar world, which is still being denied by the United States, will become the objective reality for everyone. Therefore, at the lowest level, military conflicts continue and even intensify, allowing the US to mask its defeat at these sites and with great difficulty, but still convince its European allies to make new and new sacrifices in order to achieve an elusive victory.
The only weaponswhich remains in stock with the USA is informational. It is with his help that they are trying to change the result of a strategically lost war, winning tactically right on the battlefield. The bet is made on too large a gap between the upper and lower levels of confrontation. Their relationship is not obvious to a significant part of the population of the struggling states.
Well, diplomatic battles and victories to the general public are in principle inaccessible, both because of the lack of appropriate qualifications (including among journalists) for their evaluation, and, first of all, because of the objective secrecy of the relevant information (first, the content of the negotiations always remains a secret, and secondly, rarely outside the professional circle understands the “bird language” of official briefings and joint communiqués).
Therefore, most of the population sees only the lowest level of conflict. Where there is an open war client regimes with each other. Here battles rage, blood is shed, people are dying, treaties are not respected, states are being destroyed. Politically active segments of the population ask questions: “How long?” And “What do we agree on?”. The United States, having lost the swamp belolentochny maidan in Russia, see the possibility of weakening Russian power only in reducing the patriotic strata of the population. Therefore, they support such sentiments directly and indirectly.
Some patriots have always opposed Putin (although now they have to swear allegiance to his almost 90% rating). Including they went to the Swamp together in the liberal opposition. And there were there, in the same ranks with the compradors, both the left and right radicals. They have sufficient experience in dealing with Washington, both direct and indirect (through the liberal opposition).
The part (especially it concerns information officers) works simply for money. It is easy to follow, looking at who and how zealously supported various financially beneficial "humanitarian" (in fact, political) support projects for Donbass or, for example, the same KSU. A person can make a mistake once, but if every time he makes a mistake in the direction of financially profitable projects, then no matter how much he shouts about his lack of moderation, reasonable doubts arise about his honesty and / or adequacy.
Most simply do not understand what is happening. And it will not be able to understand, no matter how much you explain, because in order to understand the principle of the mechanism, it is necessary to understand its structure. The majority of the population of any country has no idea about the goals, objectives, principles and methods of work, not only of modern diplomacy or the highest levels of the state apparatus, but even about passing management decisions at the level of local self-government.
Therefore, the last attempt by the United States to win back the lost war in its favor is to discredit the diplomatic process in the eyes of the Russian population, ensuring victory at the top level of confrontation and force Moscow to shift the center of gravity of the struggle to Washington’s lowest (military) level, at least in Ukraine. Why in Ukraine, and not in Syria or Libya, too, was repeatedly written.
From the Russian population, one can equally well squeeze out tears of sympathy for the dying children of Donetsk and Tripoli, Lugansk and Damascus, Gorlovka and Baghdad. But only the blame for the death of children of Donbass can be placed on Putin. Let anyone fighting now hysterically in front of an agitated audience and with foam on his lips demanding to send troops to Ukraine will try as successfully to demand to send an army to Libya or to Syria. Meanwhile, the peoples of these countries are fighting for Russian interests longer than the Donbass, the destruction of infrastructure, the dead civilians, including women and children there are more orders of magnitude than in the Donbass, the danger to the survivors is much higher. The fact that events in these countries were provoked by the United States and directed against Russia is also obvious. Unlike Ukraine, Syria is even formally an ally of Russia.
In general, it is necessary to understand one simple thing. The wars at the lowest level will continue, and perhaps even grow, presenting a danger not only for the citizens of individual countries, but also for the whole of humanity, exactly until the victory at the highest level is won. The capitulation of Kiev, Islamic State or Al Qaeda will not lead to the surrender of the United States, but the surrender of the United States will instantly stop all current wars and outrages associated with them.
Politics has always been a tricky business. Therefore brilliant politicians and diplomats in human stories by the way, they are remembered by everyone (from the first states of Sumer and Akkad, to our days). Modern politics is doubly complex because it is conducted in real time (couriers no longer jump around the year for instructions), with a huge number of participants (a hundred years ago nobody was interested in events occurring in the neighboring continent, and today any banana republic is embedded in the political process ) and also as openly as possible (TV and the Internet make the political process more and more broad, less trained masses) as participants in the political process.
As a result, we get a completely perverted picture. When, in the 18th century, Frederick the Great (a diplomat and commander) taught the population of Prussia cultural farming, it was taken for granted. If today Lavrov and Shoigu come to teach a rural agronomist how to ensure Russia's food security, they will be laughed at if their advice would be reasonable and prepared. Over two hundred and fifty years, specialization has increased too much. But for some reason, nobody is embarrassed when an agronomist, a pensioner, a doctor, a teacher, a driver, a professor of philology, etc. teaches ministers and the president to manage the state, diplomats to conclude agreements, and military to capture neighboring states and territories. Not logical.
In principle, anyone who can turn away from emotions and delve into the following simple scheme will be able to understand Russia's actions:
1. The state protects its citizens.
2. The state protects its interests.
3. The interests of neighboring states and the lives of their citizens are not an empty sound for Russia (especially when it comes to the former territories of the USSR and their population). But the problems mentioned in paragraphs. 1 and 2 have priority.
4. If the Russian leadership faces a choice - to sacrifice the interests of Russia and Russian citizens to protect the interests of citizens and the integrity of other states or to sacrifice other states and their citizens to protect the interests of Russia, the leadership of the Russian Federation must make a choice in favor of Russia.
5. Russia supports its allies (recognized and unrecognized) to the extent and in the manner in which it can do so without prejudice to its interests.
6. The overall victory of the Allies is possible only in the event of a victory for Russia.
7. Not a single Russian client regime (recognized and unrecognized) has been brought to the mercy of the United States. At the same time, the United States has withdrawn from the defense of Georgia and is now surrendering Ukraine.
8. War and politics are not fiction. Here they operate not with emotions and destinies, but with an acceptable and unacceptable level of losses. In the end, history shows that the one who survives to victory wins, and not the one who burns and kills more actively.
In general, 1942 killed soldiers near Rzhev and civilians in besieged Leningrad, so that the Red Army could collect reserves and gain room for maneuver in the south, near Stalingrad, where the campaign was won.
Now in the Donbass (as well as in Syria, Libya, Iraq and other points of the planet not interested in Russian defeatists-alarmists) militiamen, volunteers and civilians are dying so that Russia creates the necessary reserves and has room for maneuver at the highest level of confrontation, where fate is not decided Avdiivka, but the world.
Only the concentration of the maximum amount of resources at a critical point gives a chance to win the war, even if this war is fought by unconventional means. After all, anyway, "He who wears a copper shield ..."
In ordinary life, this behavior is called fraud.
Sometimes society can forgive and even encourage fraud. Khoja Nasreddin, close to the people, is against the disgusting usurer, in general “ours, against ours”. Therefore, fraudsters always try to pass for those close to the people (“ours”), then, even if unseemly acts are revealed, the society says: “Yes, they lied, stole and killed, but with good purpose, for our sake.”
For example, the crowd justified Yulia Tymoshenko when proving her honesty was completely impossible. In the same way, the crowd will justify today's “socially close” “heroes”, even when it becomes obvious that they were pushing her (the crowd) to commit suicide out of ambition and self-interest. Why not forgive the brothers in mind.
But today we are not about the crowd and not about the ambitious. And not even about the goals. We are about methods. The two main methods of achieving goals in politics are war and diplomacy. All that is not war is diplomacy. At the same time, diplomacy is also a war. Often, the consequences of a diplomatic victory are more destructive than the consequences of a military victory.
For example, Japan was defeated by the United States in the war and even subjected to nuclear bombardment. And the USSR was defeated by the United States exclusively at the negotiating table. The counting of territorial, demographic, political, economic and other losses will not be in favor of the USSR.
War is legalized for murder. If you killed a person in a peaceful life, you will be sent to prison (for a long time, possibly for life). If you killed a hundred people in a war, you will become a Hero of the Soviet Union.
In diplomacy legalized fraud. And in its highest form, when you do not say anything except the truth (in the XVII century it was possible to lie for a second, now everything is checked), but you still mislead your opponent. The business of a diplomat to achieve the goals of a war without warfare. Therefore, even when diplomats talk about mutually beneficial cooperation, about compromise, this is a compromise in someone's favor.
For example, modern Russia proposes the United States to return to a fair world order in which everyone is equal - the same rules apply equally to everyone, without the notorious “double standards”. The offer is mutually beneficial and noble through and through. If we abstract from reality.
In fact, equality for all in the world never existed. Equal, after 1945, were only the USSR and the USA, and the rest could only choose the overlord. Even if we assume that in the wonderful new world the centers of power will not be two, but more (this is by the way in the interests of Russia, since they will balance each other and do not need to over-exert as the USSR), only the number of overlords will increase, the principle of inequality will not change . This is not surprising - a country with an economy of half (third, quarter) planetary and with a population of several hundred million or a billion people cannot depend on the decision of the government of an island in the ocean living on tourism and feeding a couple of thousand attendants .
In addition, Russia somehow proposes the United States, which for a long time (twenty-five years) was the only world hegemon, to share power with other contenders for leadership. The losses of the United States are obvious, but acquisitions (stability, the possibility of a less painful transition to another type of economy, etc.) are abstract and not necessarily achievable. From time immemorial, everyone knows that by renouncing the right to control the situation individually, sooner or later you can learn that nothing depends on you anymore. The United States has done this with the USSR and does not want to be in its place.
Actually it was because of this that the global conflict broke out, of which we are a participant. Rather, he had deep, not only and not so much political, as economically reasons, about which I have repeatedly written, and some authors, economists have described them much deeper and more detailed than me. But on the external, obvious and unquestionable level, it looked like the US military-political opposition trying to maintain its dominance in the world, and Russia (as well as China and other countries whose interests coincided with Russia) multipolar world.
In the pre-nuclear era, such a confrontation would have long ago turned into a military conflict, in which the conventional North Atlantic bloc (USA, Canada, EU, Australia, Japan) would oppose the same conventional Eurasian (Russia, China, India, Iran, part of Latin America and some African countries). At the same time, diplomats would actively work to attract allies, including at the expense of weak links in a foreign bloc (as, for example, in the First World War, a member of the Triple Alliance of Italy as a result sided with the Entente).
In the nuclear age, direct confrontation between the superpowers means guaranteed mutual destruction and is undesirable. It is not desirable, not impossible (as some think), since the development of the political and military situation is subject to its own logic and can get out of control. Especially if the “controllers” are inadequate and sincerely believe that it is possible to swing a nuclear club impenetically or send troops anywhere and for that there will be nothing.
The foregoing leads us to a simple conclusion - under the circumstances, a global conflict could have only a multi-level character. At the highest level, it took the form of an informational, political and economic clash between Russia and its allies, and the United States and its allies. Here the main role is played by diplomats. At the lowest level there are clashes of armed groups controlled by different centers (client states, rebels, mercenary gangs, religious radicals, “volunteers” of different varieties and shades). At the same time, bright real low-level wars in reality serve no more than providing top-level operations.
Wars of the lowest level have no military strategic meaning. Even if it seems that they are designed to establish control over a strategic point, this is nothing more than an appearance.
The West could control the Libyan oil much better without overthrowing Gaddafi, and the Iraqi without overthrowing Hussein. The United States, which has been working with Saudi fundamentalists for decades, did not have irreconcilable ideological contradictions with Iranian fundamentalists, and Tehran’s hypothetical nuclear bomb threatened Washington no more than Pakistan’s real nuclear bomb. In Syria, Assad made all possible concessions (he even abandoned the influence of principle in Syria in Lebanon). Even Yanukovych asked only 15 for billions of dollars to sign an association agreement and present Ukraine to the West as a whole, united, controlled.
If Americans wanted to create an anti-Russian ram from Ukraine, they would give Yanukovych money (costs less and efficiency higher). Today, any point in the world becomes a strategically important platform, if it was chosen for a superpower collision and ceases to be such as soon as they "go to fight in another yard",
Therefore, all American destabilization projects are not aimed at maintaining control at critical points for a long time (as the “specialists” in colonial wars of the last century think so far), but at creating information and political discomfort for their opponents and forcing them to intervene unfavorable conditions. Opponents, however, responded to the Americans by applying the same strategy.
By the way, the first to asymmetrical responses to strategic threats from the United States began to resort to China twenty years ago. Then Russia was still the American satellite and the Great Celestial Middle People's State had no other choice. Direct confrontation meant defeat (not only and not so much military as political, diplomatic and, above all, economic).
The next strategy was mastered by Iran, which uses the Shiite communities and Alawi Syria against the US and the Sunni Gulf regimes under their control.
Russia officially became the last on the path of war with the United States. She had time to analyze the successes and mistakes of the parties to the conflict over the past decade. In addition, Russia is the only country that has the ability to cause the United States unacceptable damage in a direct military confrontation. This allowed Moscow to work out the most effective strategy for confronting Washington at the top (diplomatic) level.
In the past five years, Moscow has been entering into military-political and economic alliances, objectively beating on US interests. Prior to this, 2008 was a milestone year when Russia became the first state after 1991, to use military force against Saakashvili’s US client regime with impunity.
At the same time, formally, Russian diplomats are going in all directions to meet the American wishes. Numerous multilateral negotiation formats are being created (in which no one is going to negotiate with anyone), ceasefire agreements are made (which no one is going to cease), concerns are shared (while fixing diametrically opposing views on the format of solving the problem).
Since at the top level it is impossible to fight, the task of diplomacy is to draw the enemy as far as possible into as many real conflicts as possible and force him to stretch his resources so that they simply do not remain on the main global opponent (the resources are not rubber). Russian diplomacy copes with this task perfectly well.
The United States got bogged down in Libya, the US got bogged down in Syria, the US got bogged down in Ukraine, the US got bogged down in Iraq, the US got bogged down in Afghanistan. America is unhappy with the Indians, Iranians, Pakistanis, Chinese, Hispanics, many Africans and Arabs. Washington's allies bear all the great costs, in the complete absence of the promised dividends. The longer the confrontation lasts, the more obvious it becomes even to the EU elites that it will soon be their turn to go into the furnace of an undeclared war in order to delay the moment of the onset of resource insufficiency in the United States.
The second option is to reset all client modes at once (from Libya to Afghanistan). But then the geopolitical opponents of Washington (Russia, China) and the multipolar world, which is still being denied by the United States, will become the objective reality for everyone. Therefore, at the lowest level, military conflicts continue and even intensify, allowing the US to mask its defeat at these sites and with great difficulty, but still convince its European allies to make new and new sacrifices in order to achieve an elusive victory.
The only weaponswhich remains in stock with the USA is informational. It is with his help that they are trying to change the result of a strategically lost war, winning tactically right on the battlefield. The bet is made on too large a gap between the upper and lower levels of confrontation. Their relationship is not obvious to a significant part of the population of the struggling states.
Well, diplomatic battles and victories to the general public are in principle inaccessible, both because of the lack of appropriate qualifications (including among journalists) for their evaluation, and, first of all, because of the objective secrecy of the relevant information (first, the content of the negotiations always remains a secret, and secondly, rarely outside the professional circle understands the “bird language” of official briefings and joint communiqués).
Therefore, most of the population sees only the lowest level of conflict. Where there is an open war client regimes with each other. Here battles rage, blood is shed, people are dying, treaties are not respected, states are being destroyed. Politically active segments of the population ask questions: “How long?” And “What do we agree on?”. The United States, having lost the swamp belolentochny maidan in Russia, see the possibility of weakening Russian power only in reducing the patriotic strata of the population. Therefore, they support such sentiments directly and indirectly.
Some patriots have always opposed Putin (although now they have to swear allegiance to his almost 90% rating). Including they went to the Swamp together in the liberal opposition. And there were there, in the same ranks with the compradors, both the left and right radicals. They have sufficient experience in dealing with Washington, both direct and indirect (through the liberal opposition).
The part (especially it concerns information officers) works simply for money. It is easy to follow, looking at who and how zealously supported various financially beneficial "humanitarian" (in fact, political) support projects for Donbass or, for example, the same KSU. A person can make a mistake once, but if every time he makes a mistake in the direction of financially profitable projects, then no matter how much he shouts about his lack of moderation, reasonable doubts arise about his honesty and / or adequacy.
Most simply do not understand what is happening. And it will not be able to understand, no matter how much you explain, because in order to understand the principle of the mechanism, it is necessary to understand its structure. The majority of the population of any country has no idea about the goals, objectives, principles and methods of work, not only of modern diplomacy or the highest levels of the state apparatus, but even about passing management decisions at the level of local self-government.
Therefore, the last attempt by the United States to win back the lost war in its favor is to discredit the diplomatic process in the eyes of the Russian population, ensuring victory at the top level of confrontation and force Moscow to shift the center of gravity of the struggle to Washington’s lowest (military) level, at least in Ukraine. Why in Ukraine, and not in Syria or Libya, too, was repeatedly written.
From the Russian population, one can equally well squeeze out tears of sympathy for the dying children of Donetsk and Tripoli, Lugansk and Damascus, Gorlovka and Baghdad. But only the blame for the death of children of Donbass can be placed on Putin. Let anyone fighting now hysterically in front of an agitated audience and with foam on his lips demanding to send troops to Ukraine will try as successfully to demand to send an army to Libya or to Syria. Meanwhile, the peoples of these countries are fighting for Russian interests longer than the Donbass, the destruction of infrastructure, the dead civilians, including women and children there are more orders of magnitude than in the Donbass, the danger to the survivors is much higher. The fact that events in these countries were provoked by the United States and directed against Russia is also obvious. Unlike Ukraine, Syria is even formally an ally of Russia.
In general, it is necessary to understand one simple thing. The wars at the lowest level will continue, and perhaps even grow, presenting a danger not only for the citizens of individual countries, but also for the whole of humanity, exactly until the victory at the highest level is won. The capitulation of Kiev, Islamic State or Al Qaeda will not lead to the surrender of the United States, but the surrender of the United States will instantly stop all current wars and outrages associated with them.
Politics has always been a tricky business. Therefore brilliant politicians and diplomats in human stories by the way, they are remembered by everyone (from the first states of Sumer and Akkad, to our days). Modern politics is doubly complex because it is conducted in real time (couriers no longer jump around the year for instructions), with a huge number of participants (a hundred years ago nobody was interested in events occurring in the neighboring continent, and today any banana republic is embedded in the political process ) and also as openly as possible (TV and the Internet make the political process more and more broad, less trained masses) as participants in the political process.
As a result, we get a completely perverted picture. When, in the 18th century, Frederick the Great (a diplomat and commander) taught the population of Prussia cultural farming, it was taken for granted. If today Lavrov and Shoigu come to teach a rural agronomist how to ensure Russia's food security, they will be laughed at if their advice would be reasonable and prepared. Over two hundred and fifty years, specialization has increased too much. But for some reason, nobody is embarrassed when an agronomist, a pensioner, a doctor, a teacher, a driver, a professor of philology, etc. teaches ministers and the president to manage the state, diplomats to conclude agreements, and military to capture neighboring states and territories. Not logical.
In principle, anyone who can turn away from emotions and delve into the following simple scheme will be able to understand Russia's actions:
1. The state protects its citizens.
2. The state protects its interests.
3. The interests of neighboring states and the lives of their citizens are not an empty sound for Russia (especially when it comes to the former territories of the USSR and their population). But the problems mentioned in paragraphs. 1 and 2 have priority.
4. If the Russian leadership faces a choice - to sacrifice the interests of Russia and Russian citizens to protect the interests of citizens and the integrity of other states or to sacrifice other states and their citizens to protect the interests of Russia, the leadership of the Russian Federation must make a choice in favor of Russia.
5. Russia supports its allies (recognized and unrecognized) to the extent and in the manner in which it can do so without prejudice to its interests.
6. The overall victory of the Allies is possible only in the event of a victory for Russia.
7. Not a single Russian client regime (recognized and unrecognized) has been brought to the mercy of the United States. At the same time, the United States has withdrawn from the defense of Georgia and is now surrendering Ukraine.
8. War and politics are not fiction. Here they operate not with emotions and destinies, but with an acceptable and unacceptable level of losses. In the end, history shows that the one who survives to victory wins, and not the one who burns and kills more actively.
In general, 1942 killed soldiers near Rzhev and civilians in besieged Leningrad, so that the Red Army could collect reserves and gain room for maneuver in the south, near Stalingrad, where the campaign was won.
Now in the Donbass (as well as in Syria, Libya, Iraq and other points of the planet not interested in Russian defeatists-alarmists) militiamen, volunteers and civilians are dying so that Russia creates the necessary reserves and has room for maneuver at the highest level of confrontation, where fate is not decided Avdiivka, but the world.
Only the concentration of the maximum amount of resources at a critical point gives a chance to win the war, even if this war is fought by unconventional means. After all, anyway, "He who wears a copper shield ..."
Information