How did the First World War begin? Of course, not with the murder of the Archduke Ferdinand. It was a reason, nothing more. From the murder of Ferdinand to the beginning of the war only one month passed. This, you see, is not enough to prepare a global slaughterhouse. We conclude that everyone was ready by that moment. But Ferdinand ... If this hadn't happened, there would have been something else.
The main thing, we emphasize, was a hotbed of instability, which sin would not take advantage of. Austria-Hungary at that time really cracked at the seams because of its national and ethnic contradictions. And the second center, albeit at some distance from Europe, but in the Middle East. This is a collapsing Ottoman Empire. There, things were even a little more neglected than in Austria-Hungary. But control over the straits and the Middle Eastern territories were a more tasty morsel than Austria-Hungary, where the devil could break his head in national and territorial issues.
And there are two main targets: this is Germany, whose imperial ambitions have really begun to strain everyone by that moment, and Russia, whose economic growth also caused a burning in certain places among the "partners."
What was the result? As a result, the 4 empires ceased to exist immediately: the Russian, German, Ottoman and Austro-Hungarian. A whole bunch of independent states appeared on the map, such as Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Estonia, Finland.
And the winners staged a luxurious carve out of what used to be called empires. Most of all, of course, the British succeeded. Although the French are not far behind the eternal rivals in the “spin” part. Virtually the entire Middle East has come under the control of these two countries.
Russia was in a strange position, because it lost to losers. For this, of course, a special thank you to the other world to the Bolshevik comrades, but nothing can be done. That was, that was.
And the United States appeared on the international arena.
Further, we note, many countries-participants of the PRC experienced the most severe economic crisis. Work for military needs was not in vain, and the acquired territory had to be mastered. And the losers - to compensate. And the further the crisis tyrannized the world, the stronger became the reality of the second war.
Who was more interested?
Germany, which took away Alsace, Lorraine, North Schleswig and all foreign colonies, with the coming of the Nazis to power was ready to fight for the return of "blood." Japan, as a "winner" country, received virtually nothing, except for absolutely worthless former German Karolinsky, Mariana and Marshall Islands. And the United States, where the Great Depression raged and really needed to do something.
And what about England and France? And they also had a hefty headache. In addition to the revanchist-minded Hitler, there was also Stalin. Who by the middle of 30-s completely successfully strangled "old Bolsheviks", Lenin's comrades-in-arms, those who so successfully gave Russian lands in exchange for peace, organized industrialization in the USSR and also began to glance in the direction of "Russia that we lost." Pretty successful, by the way.
The main goal of the Second World War was, of course, not the fight against fascism. It was necessary to "slow down" obviously rushed in the wrong direction, where England, France and the USA would like Germany and the USSR. The rest is as it will.
As a result, the United States remained in the arena as a superpower. All the others that were losers, that the winners licked for a long time the wounds caused by the war.
What do we have today?
We have quite a few similarities with the events of the 20 century. Unfortunately. Let's go point by point.
Is there an empire today that is experiencing the same problems as the Austro-Hungary or the Ottoman Empire? Definitely there. This is the European Union. The fact that he is bursting at the seams is both economically and politically a fact. Although we will return to the Ottomans.
Speaking of economics, it is worth noting that today there is such an education as G20. Which, according to the intentions of the founders, should rule the world today. It turns out, yes, because the G20 today is 85% of world GDP and 75% of world trade. The rest - live as you want. And while they live.
But if you look at what happened in the world after 1990 of the year, then it is quite possible to trace such a moment that all countries that could get close to the "twenty" in terms of development and influence received some kind of cataclysm, or throwing them far back, or really collapsed state. There is no need to go far for examples.
Iran (the case of Iran is somewhat beyond the scope, for somehow they did without bombing).
Yes, Ukraine is on the list for a reason, indeed, there was potential, there were opportunities, but everything was sacrificed for the anti-Russian confrontation. However, the scenario is the same, since the soil allowed to grow seeds thrown into it, then why bomb? Themselves have done well.
However, the last line is the most interesting. If Syria had been “squeezed out” according to the Libyan scenario and planted a puppet acceptable to the West, then who would be in the region an unambiguous hegemon?
That's right, Turkey.
A member of the "club of twenty" and NATO concurrently. And throughout the Middle East there would be silence and grace up to the friendly "partners" of Pakistan. The rest of the Middle Eastern players would be busy with their direct business - the survival of the post-war crisis.
However, it did not work out, and here we come close to the reasons.
Will it be logical to unleash another world-wide disgrace, if its goal is to stop Russia that is clearly "flying off the rail"? And the fact that Russia today is clearly not moving along the path that was prepared for it at the end of the last century, is doubtful only among the followers of Nemtsov. It is still alive, of course, unlike the gurus of the liberal movement.
There is no definitive answer yet, but if in our opinion, yes, it is logical. No wonder there were so many attempts to draw Russia into the rehearsal.
By rehearsal, we mean local conflicts that would not provoke a global conflict, but served to “sway” Russia. Well, as the events of recent years have shown, they became the basis for sanctions.
Transnistria, Karabakh, Ukraine, Central Asia. Now - Syria. What may follow next?
Further, in our opinion, there are three regions whose status can be described as "explosive."
1. North Africa.
Something is constantly happening there, but as the Libyan events have shown, Russia has no interests there, and is not expected.
2. North Korea.
A country practicing more than a kind of neighborhood policy. It may well claim to be the next “arsonist,” especially considering its relations with Japan and South Korea. And, accordingly, from the USA.
Our eyes are rarely turned to the east, the European theater is more familiar, and now here is the Middle East. But do not discount what is happening there. And there are not quite nice things going on there, even if we discard China's constant “flops” with its neighbors on the topic of control over the islands.
The resulting alliances, China + North Korea against the United States + Japan + South Korea, will be able, sooner or later, to undermine the relative calm in the region. More precisely, if anyone can, it is North Korea. Especially given the presence of her atomic weapons (according to 17 +/– 2 charge) and means of its delivery to Japan.
And all this is not too far from our borders.
We add here the revanchist sentiments in the Japanese government and the increasing power of the Japanese self-defense forces. The Japanese Navy today is quite comparable, and in some respects it is significantly superior to the Pacific Fleet, which has just begun to emerge from a protracted crisis.
Those who object to us that there are two “Boreas” on the Pacific Fleet, which are able to make Japan a cataclysm and simply wash it off with a tidal wave, will be right. But this is still a weapon of deterrence, and the use of Boreev will be the beginning of a global nightmare.
But the war with the use of nuclear weapons, we still do not consider. Until.
3. Near East.
The most profitable area. Why we do not consider Europe? Yes, simply because both Europeans and Americans today prefer to solve their problems away from their borders. Europe seems to have already fought, and the States on their territory and did not really fight, except for the Civil War, but this is quite a matter of bygone days.
Europeans want to live the same way. Yes, not everyone in Europe realized that the war had actually come to them, being carried by the residents of those countries who also want a beautiful and full life. Of those who account for the remaining 15% of global GDP.
But the Middle East seems to us a more suitable arena. If only because Russia is already there. So far, only with the VKS grouping, but what will happen next is difficult to predict. Again, because of Turkey.
Yes, our "partners" put on that player, when viewed from the perspective of a smart person. It was not their fault that Erdogan turned out to be a slightly not quite suitable executor of the will of the West, and in fact threw up the whole game. However, his imperial ambitions for the creation of a pro-Turkish territory on Syrian soil can go far ahead. As well as the return, or rather, the pressing of the Iraqi lands, which were previously part of the Ottoman Empire.
The alignment is simple: today, Turkey is actually on the brink of a civil war between the Turks and the Kurds. Although it is possible that the parties have already crossed this line.
Turks are starting active actions against the Kurds. Active is like in 2014 in Ukraine. Iran definitely stands up for the Kurds. Erdogan calls for help from NATO, especially if he is not able to cope. NATO stands up for Turkey, Iran will unambiguously call for help either Russia, or the CSTO, which it is actively trying to join. It started ...
And the United States and Europe remain somewhat apart from the theater, rubbing their hands and anticipating dividends.
Indeed, the Middle East is the most convenient place. Unlike the PMR, Ukraine, Afghanistan, and places of other similar conflicts, it is accessible by water. So, it is possible to transfer troops and equipment by the forces of the fleets. And support ships. In short, as in the war with Iraq. Or in situations in Libya and Yugoslavia. For, as practice has shown, through the air, of course, you can throw a lot of things, but not in such volumes.
This may also include the statements of some countries (such as the United States and Germany) about the transfer to Syria of their contingents "to fight terrorism". Although, we note, nobody asked them about it. But - such is politics. Indeed, won't the same Germans fight the poor peaceful refugees in Hamburg and Cologne? All that could have been fucked from these refugees had already been raped when they were transferred to Germany. And now the refugees are going to fuck their own (or not quite their own) in Germany itself. But this is another история.
Terrorism will only be fought in the Middle East. Not only are there really terrorists there, there are still resources there. And the resources, I'm sorry, they are more important than any struggle for democracy against anyone. Here, against anyone for the resources to fight and will be the Americans and their European counterparts.
Let's summarize some of the above. What is happening today in Syria and its surroundings, in our opinion, is another rehearsal. Which, however, may be followed by more serious events. And, watching the development of the global crisis, we are becoming increasingly confident that this is only the beginning. The beginning of processes that will not end soon (with the victory of Assad, for example) and which, moreover, can begin to absorb an increasing number of countries interested in overcoming the crisis at the expense of others.
Returning to the header. Where the New Gavrila Principle lives, we do not know for sure. In Ankara, Damascus, Baghdad or Riyadh. But the fact that there, in the Middle East, is unique. Today it is already difficult to say who pushed on the act of that Principle, but for some reason there is no doubt who will rule today.