To wage war and win it, you need to understand what goals the attacking side wants to achieve, for which it started the conflict. The American ideology of modern war is outlined in the US National Military Strategy-2015 (NAF), where the scale of the Pentagon’s preparations is demonstrated.
In essence, the document is about turning the “global disorder” (terms in quotation marks from the text of the strategy) into “international order promoted by the American leadership”.
This “international order” is directly related to the “promotion of universal values” and ensuring the “security of the global open economic system”.
Since the document is from the Pentagon, it is supposed to advance the new order with the help of the war. To do this, the US military must “apply globally” and be able to conduct “integrated operations” based on a “global stabilizing presence” (that is, a network of bases) and a “global network of allies and partners”.
If everything is global in the strategy, then why is it called national? After all, the main conflict of globalization (the new world order) is between the national and the planetary. In this struggle there can be no compromise. The national will continue, only by destroying the global cancer cells. And if the USA in the NAF declares the global as its national interest, this means that the cancer has metastasized, the patient is in an incurable stage. True, there are fears that the agony will be too dramatic and destructive for the whole world.
In NAF, the national is subordinated to the global and is governed by it. And the US military is fighting in the interests of the global state, destroying what they have sworn.
Peter Bruegel the Elder. "Blind"
Harvard scholars M. Hardt and A. Negri wrote in the set of many books: “The US war for democracy is a war for the establishment of a new world order”. In essence, this is a war for all that is aimed at "destroying the unity of the national state and national society."
Defense adviser, ideologist of the war in Iraq and regime change in other countries, neoconservative Michael Ledin writes: “Creative destruction is our hallmark, which we are committed both within our society and abroad. Every day, in succession, in parts, we are destroying the old world order, from economics, science, literature, art, architecture and the cinema to politics and legislation. Our opponents have always hated this hurricane of energy and creativity that threatens their traditions (whatever they are) ... We must destroy them to ensure our success historical missions. "
As a result of this war, a world order based on global statehood should be formed on the ruins of destroyed (subdued) states, and the foundations of a global empire — economic, political and religious — should be consolidated.
The new world order includes three components: economic, political and spiritual.
What is the new economic order? According to NAF, it is a global, open economy, where the owners are transnational banks (TNB) and transnational corporations (TNCs). They are hampered by state borders, because, because of them, the economy cannot be completely open, that is, accessible for capture and exploitation. Therefore, TNB and TNC are interested in these boundaries do not exist. And the quickest way to destroy them is war.
A world without states is a non-polar world. Obama's adviser Richard Haas, president of the Council on Foreign Relations, writes: "The system of world government must be created, and sovereignty abolished ... Nations must be prepared for the surrender of sovereignty to world structures ... This is already happening in the commercial sphere."
Thus, a new economic order is built by dismantling national states through depriving them of their economic and territorial sovereignty. If the state does not go for it voluntarily, then it becomes a target for attack. This is tantamount to an attempt to revise the “global open economy,” that is, to become, as the strategy calls it, a “revisionist state” - an enemy of the United States.
What is the new political order? All countries are divided into two groups - vassals of the global center, which are part of the “global network of allies and partners” and are ready to fight for the new world order, and the so-called revisionist states that oppose it. They refuse to be vassals, and therefore are declared enemies. In the first place here is Russia.
Famous American economist and publicist Paul Craig Roberts writes: “Russians think that there is some misunderstanding about Russia's intentions. Russian media do not understand that Russia is unacceptable, because it is not a vassal of the United States, like other countries. The Russians believe in this Western talk about “freedom and democracy” ... In other words, it does not occur to the Russians that they have been chosen as a target for extermination. ”
What is a new spiritual order? M. Hardt and A. Negri in their other program book "The Empire" write about this: "New ethical and legislative standards of good and evil will be approved by one for all." The NAF declared war for the violent, with the help of fire and sword, the spread of "universal values". The enemy for the United States is the one who exposes these values to “revision” and remains true to his spiritual tradition and religious identity.
Philosopher A. Panarin prophetically wrote: “The main opponent of the powerful of this world is Russia and its Russian idea. Orthodoxy is now increasingly being called upon to respond to the current global process. And this “disease” of the Russian mentality cannot be cured by changing the system and ideology: they are required to change our very spiritual nature, to kill the valuable core of our culture. Their goal is, firstly, to deprive us of the Russian idea, and secondly, to overwhelm our statehood. ”
Nets dragging the dead man
In order to realize the global goals laid down in the military strategy and to carry out “globally integrated operations” of an interventionist and punitive (anti-partisan) nature, the Pentagon needs a global infrastructure.
In order for the US military to be “applied globally,” a “global stabilizing presence” is envisaged (that is, a network of bases) based on a “global network of allies and partners.” The word "network" is used in the American military strategy very often.
It is a symbol of a non-polar world, a world without states that are traditionally built on the principle of hierarchy.
Based on the periodization of the war network against the hierarchy in the first stage, the destruction of the state is achieved by its fragmentation. Its division into hostile political and ethnic (separatist) structures is provoked (broad state identity is replaced with narrow clan and tribal). The state loses its binding hierarchy and turns into a loose, atomized network formation. The cells of this network, closed on narrowly clanded and ethno-separatist interests, when exposed from the external center, can easily be provoked to fight against the state in the form of revolution or civil war. In the role of an external center, as is easy to guess, as a rule, the United States.
As a result of the implementation of the network matrix “revolution + civil war” (or vice versa), the state collapses into small slave protectorates along the borders of this narrow tribal identity, that is, it rolls back to pre-state relations, to a patrimonial device, where the warring tribes, under fear of destruction, meekly paid tribute to the colonial empire. This was, for example, the way of the Slavic tribes under the yoke of the Khazar Kaganate. Modern examples are also enough.
Thus, tearing the state into pieces, the network moves to the second stage of its war against it, where it is replaced by supra-state entities. The fact is that these pieces torn apart by the network war, having suffered under the yoke of slavery, may again want to unite in a state capable of repulsing the colonizer. The American neocons, and not only they, are in panic afraid of the restoration not even of the Soviet Union, but of the Russian Empire, which stood as a stronghold of hierarchical statehood and won victories in almost all wars. She did not recognize only the war-revolution, which was essentially a network war and was conducted according to the network principles of fragmentation and the introduction of management polycentrism. In addition to internal control centers, the external center was aggressively earned, which placed part of political circles under its control.
As a result of the network war with the revolution, turning into a civil war (this is a strategic classic so far), the Russian Empire collapsed. But later her torn pieces began to unite again, resulting in the emergence of the Soviet Union.
So in order to prevent reunification and restoration of the state, there is a stage of its “replacement by supra-state entities in politics, economy and culture”. An example of this was the EU and the new members of NATO.
These same thoughts are presented by Robert Strauss-Hope, who is considered to be the teacher of such politicians as Kissinger, Reagan, Nixon and Brzezinski. The mentor writes: “The new world order will be the last phase of the historical transition, and it will put an end to the revolutionary period of this century. The task of the American people at the same time will be to destroy the nation states, lead weakened countries to form wider alliances and stop, by means of force, attempts to sabotage the new world order. ”
The main "saboteur" in the HBC-2015 declared Russia. And the means by which the United States intends to “stop attempts at sabotage” is war, including punitive, anti-insurgency (anti-guerrilla) actions in the occupied territories.
This is a strategy of war, the ultimate goal of which is the implementation of the program of the third stage of the network’s struggle against the hierarchy - the “creation of a global state” and the advent of the tyranny of anti-hierarchy.
To achieve its strategic goals, the Pentagon uses different types of special networks, which together form its global network.
Such special networks (subjects of warfare) mainly include military and paramilitary networks leading a hybrid war against national statehood. These are military bases, special operations forces, intelligence, private military and intelligence campaigns, specially trained extremist militants (for example, fascist ultranationalist organizations).
The Pentagon issued a special order “On the creation of an operational joint force group on the conduct of an unconventional war”. There, in particular, the following objectives are set, concerning the formation of military and militarized networks:
-creation of networks of secret operational groups that are able to penetrate the enemy’s combat groups, split them, seize control and destroy them;
-preparation of the operational environment for large-scale intervention by the US Armed Forces or for operations of local armed formations;
-search and the formation of opposition forces (networks) in the country - the object of future aggression, which would be useful to ensure the invasion of US forces.
The Pentagon is actively using political networks leading irregular war in the political space of the national statehood. These include biased information networks, including those operating in cyberspace, networks of unconventional warfare forces (designed to organize a revolution), including the non-governmental (non-commercial) organizations focused on it, the “fifth column”. In addition to undermining political foundations through revolution, these networks are designed to turn a sovereign state into a vassal of the global center and make it part of "allies and partners" leading the war for "international order promoted by the American leadership."
NPO - regular enemy army
It is time to finally realize that the US-supported NGO networks (NPOs) are the subjects of the unconventional war-revolution. On one of the Pentagon slides illustrating the concept of “Win in a difficult world”, a battlefield is schematically shown where the deployment of troops and armaments is indicated. And alongside them, NGOs acting in the interests of the Pentagon are noted as equal participants in the hostilities.
Along the way, it is worth noting the following. According to the statement of the Secretary of the Public Chamber, Alexander Brechalov, 52 currently has political organizations recognized by foreign agents in Russia. They are funded from abroad. This is about one percent of human rights NGOs that receive funds for their activities from abroad. In Russia, following the results of 2014, only the identified number of such NGOs exceeded four thousand.
The amount of their funding amounted to more than 70 billion rubles. Compare two numbers. Immediately after the adoption of the law, the amount of foreign funding of human rights NGOs was four billion rubles. She is now 70 billion. That is, in less than three years since the adoption of the law on foreign agents, foreign funding has increased 17,5 times.
Paul Craig Roberts has spoken about foreign cash injections into NGOs: “The National Endowment for Democracy” was founded in order to transfer money to Soviet dissidents. All foreign funds that come to Russia, still go to anti-government activities. In Soviet times, US intervention in the internal affairs of the USSR with the help of NED could be perceived as a spark of freedom. Today it is the control of Russia's political activity, as well as the control of the West over the resources of Russia. ”
The Pentagon-controlled religious networks are waging an irregular war in the spiritual space of national statehood for the dissemination of "universal values." These are destructive religious organizations, biased structures acting against traditional spirituality, as well as trans-regional networks that pursue political goals (for example, the Islamic State, specially created by the Pentagon to fight Assad, which is documented).
Economic networks are used by the US Armed Forces to wage an irregular war in the economic space of the national statehood. They are TNK and TNB, the economic “fifth column” (acting in the interests of the “open economy” to the detriment of the national) and criminal structures of various sizes.
The foregoing allows us to conclude that, by its ideology, modern warfare is a network war (not to be confused with the network-centric).
Given the scale, aggressive and preemptive use by the adversary of the network subjects of warfare against Russia, we urgently need a comprehensive anti-network war strategy.
In the ideology of modern war laid truly epochal meanings. Our army must understand them in order to become a staunch defender of the Fatherland and defeat the enemy in this war, who pursues not only economic, political, but above all spiritual goals. This imposes a special responsibility on our military and people, it requires the full mobilization of all forces.
Recall the words of the officer fleet Russian Empire M. O. Menshikov, written at the beginning of the last century: “An indifferent army dies like an army. “As an indifferent orchestra is no longer an orchestra deserving this name, so is a warrior squad that has lost interest in the war, by no means an army.”
Interest in the war can be revived through the understanding of its special deep essence. As Menshikov writes: “More than once our great empire approached the brink of destruction, but it was not wealth that did not exist, not the armament with which we always limped, but the iron courage of her sons, who did not spare either strength or life, saved her would live Russia ".