Military Review

Project "ZZ". Washington, give Moscow!

45
American analysts doubt that the US administration is doing the right thing, quadrupling the defense spending in Europe, explaining this spending by the need to contain Russia. Obama is blamed for actions that exclude a democratic public comment procedure. There is an opinion that “containment” will lead to endless confrontation, and even to war with the Russians. Maybe something will change after the new president came to power in the USA? Hardly, after all, all the candidates are the instigators of war.




Jeffrey Tyler, publicist and contributing editor of Foreign Policy magazine, in the newspaper "Chicago Tribune" reflects on the “dangerous game” that Obama started, having chosen Putin as his opponent.

In February of this year, when a civil war was raging in Syria, and the “Islamic State” established itself in Libya, the White House announced its plans to allocate the defense budget to the 2017 fiscal year. These plans do not concern IG, but Europe. The amounts are called up to 3,4 billion dollars. Recently, the US Department of Defense specified its “defense” plans.

This includes the deployment of troops and heavy equipment in Romania, Hungary and the Baltic countries. Even the possibility of violation of the Russia-NATO 1997 Founding Act is taken into account.

The Obama administration has chosen the wrong time for such plans and statements. Today, attempts are being made to resolve the conflict in the "separatist" Donbas by implementing the Minsk agreements. Russia, badly affected by economic sanctions, has a clear desire to “reset” its relations with the West (in a fair sense of this concept, the publicist points out). Russian intervention in Syria was a pretext for restoring Moscow’s “battered status” on the world stage.

A senior White House official explained in Washington that defense spending and the deployment of military forces are a “long-term response to a changing security environment in Europe.” These plans reflect the "new situation." Russia has become an unpredictable player. In addition, the Pentagon considers Russia the main threat to US national security.

Of course, in response to the deployment of NATO forces, Russia announced that it would take "all necessary measures to protect [its] security." NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg immediately accused Moscow of waving a “nuclear sword”, intimidating its neighbors and destabilizing the “European order” in the field of security.

NATO has already deployed some units in the Baltic states, and President Barack Obama visited the region, thereby confirming his support for the alliance. The very presence of NATO on the border with Russia is unprecedented; even at the height of the Cold War, there was no such thing. Today, Russian and American nuclear arsenals are “in full combat readiness”, and this, given the cooling of relations between Moscow and Washington, creates an especially dangerous situation.

The risk of an armed conflict between Russia and NATO is not only a hypothesis. Since the beginning of the Ukrainian crisis in 2014, Russia has repeatedly violated the airspace of NATO countries, the author writes. Simulated nuclear strikes on objects in Eastern Europe and even in Sweden. Large-scale military exercises were conducted, at which "the invasion of Scandinavia was practiced." “This is only an incomplete list of military maneuvers,” the publicist points out, “which, apparently, are intended to give one clear signal to NATO: Russia has returned!”

However, when assessing Russia's actions, the analyst continues, a lot depends on how you look at the actions of the Kremlin. The author believes that Putin does not come, but only "reacts", as evidenced by the events in the Crimea and the flight of Yanukovych ("which happened five days before the invasion"). And note, Putin expresses hope for constructive relations with the West. At the same time, he could not “sit and watch how Ukraine slips out of Russia's orbit”: after all, the Black Sea is strategically important for Russia, and the well-known port should not fall into the hands of NATO.

More than 20 years ago, George Kennan, the architect of the American containment policy toward the USSR, warned that the admission to NATO of the former Warsaw Pact countries (not to mention the former Soviet republics, the Baltic countries) would provoke a “new cold war,” which is likely to end in a hot and it will put an end to efforts to build a workable democracy in Russia. ”

This view seems to be confirmed by Putin’s reaction to the formation of the “political axis” of Kiev and the West, culminating in the “euromaidan”. Of course, Ukraine will not be taken to NATO neither in the near future, nor ever, but NATO promised that one day it will be taken.

There is reason to believe that the Ukrainian crisis can still be resolved. Kissinger and Brzezinski had previously offered a deal with Russia: in exchange for the official non-admission of Ukraine to NATO, Russia allows Kiev to go "its own way" in non-military areas (which may include EU membership). Such a mechanism could be ratified at a summit in which the United States and Russia would participate.

But with the Crimea more difficult. Even if a new referendum on the status of the peninsula is held under UN control, but the return of this territory to Ukraine "seems unlikely." This is already clear from the survey results: they show that about 80% of Crimeans prefer to stay in Russia.

What do the US and its allies need to do? They must "give in", give up their desires and "be ready to lift the sanctions and normalize relations with Moscow."

The West and Russia should unite efforts in the fight against a serious and growing threat from Islamist terrorism, and also direct efforts to solve the problem of refugees. And the recent visit of US Secretary of State John Kerry to Moscow shows that Western and Russian interests converge here: the parties want to stop the Syrian war and stop the "Islamic State". And no one wants a new world war.

Building the United States four times the cost of "defense" in Europe (to "contain" Russia) removes funds from operations in Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan. The Obama administration is setting the stage for “endless confrontation, and perhaps even for war with Russia,” and shy away from public discussion of this topic, the author believes.

Potential presidential candidates from both parties behave aggressively, while others are already ready to "give Putin the nose." But this kind of bravado leads nowhere. The policy of sanctions does not lead to anything either: Putin’s support in Russia is high, his rating remains at more than 80 percent. And if this is the US policy aimed at "scrapping" Russia, then it "does not work." A new approach to relations with Moscow is urgently needed, the analyst believes. "Too much at stake."

Dan Sanchez on site Antiwar.com enumerates potential candidates for the presidency of the United States and finds none that could lead the country to a peaceful foreign policy.

Many are afraid of Hillary Clinton. And it’s hard to argue with them: this lady is the “midwife” of a multitude of disasters, chaos and bloodshed. Many pacifist-minded citizens, especially of the left wing, are ready to vote for Bernie Sanders.

Others criticize the neo-cons who have seized power. And this is also true. The roots of the current disastrous policy of the United States go back to the era of President Clinton, which logically resulted in the military actions of the neo-conservative Bush administration aimed at the redivision of the Greater Middle East.

Many people with right-wing anti-war beliefs are looking for salvation in the figure of Donald Trump: they say he will stop the policies of the neo-cons.

But Dan Sanchez doesn't believe anybody.

Mr. Sanders is a supporter of a moderate interventionist foreign policy. Well, you need to vote for him simply because the nightmarish Clinton does not break into power?

As for Trump, he, if you look closely, is a much bigger “hawk” than many other Republicans. Listen to him when it comes to torture, state security and civilian casualties. Or about the blood that is spilled for oil. Can such a person really become the “champion of the anti-war movement against the neoconservatives”?

What to do? How to stop these instigators of war?

Dan Sanchez believes that it is necessary to focus public attention on politicians. Public opinion should be turned against real hostilities, thereby diverting the attention of society from certain obsessive ideas, from the election campaign theater, from this political wrestling.

Yes, the clique eager for military blood may go to power, but the new administration of the White House will not be able to rule in a vacuum. All regimes should strive to preserve legitimacy, the author recalls. And no regime can afford to blatantly ignore the spirit of the times. The new president may receive his post by "majority vote." But if “only a small part” of the inhabitants of the country vote for him, his mandate will not be full-fledged.

And if it turns out that most of the public who did not vote is opposed to the war, this will especially reduce the potential of the president’s foreign policy. Faced with the fact that a significant part of society "irreconcilably opposes war," even the most "militaristic president" will be limited in its actions, and, perhaps, even retreat from its undertakings. Even Richard Nixon had to end the war when the people demanded it.

The fewer people on the election day will line up for voting, preparing to “obediently choose” between the new “emperors”, and the more people will “defiantly blame the empire itself”, the better the prospects for world peace will be.

* * *


In the United States, there is not a single presidential candidate who would really be able to put an end to the White House’s aspiration to “contain” Russia instead of fighting real enemies of terror. And none of the claimants for the throne in the White House is in the full sense of the word a pacifist, no matter what he promised.

The policy of the outgoing administration of B.H. Obama is preparing for the new president an arena for the endless confrontation of the USA with Russia, a field for a new cold war, which may well turn into a hot one. And today, even those who believe in Russia's modeling of “nuclear strikes on Eastern European objects” and practicing the “invasion of Scandinavia” exercises consider Obama’s foreign policy a threat to world peace and urge Washington to “give up”, lift sanctions and normalize relations with Moscow .
Author:
Photos used:
http://photocorrespondent.com
45 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Andrey K
    Andrey K April 18 2016 09: 43
    +26
    "It is believed that" containment "will lead to endless confrontation, and even to a war with the Russians" ...
    And in Washington, do any sane people remain at the helm?
    In my opinion, they live by the rule of the dashing 90s, they are just gopniks who do not calculate the result of their actions or the subsequent reaction to these actions of their "partners", not to mention opponents ...
    1. Maksus
      Maksus April 18 2016 09: 51
      +9
      Americans have only one way to solve all their problems, both external and internal. And this way is another war. Only not small, but large, with the participation of all their creditors. And there are only two victims - Russia and China. That's just their gut is very thin ....
      1. cniza
        cniza April 18 2016 09: 57
        +18
        The gut is thin, but they will try to find the wrong hands, which they do around Russia.
        1. shtanko.49
          shtanko.49 April 18 2016 17: 03
          +1
          They will set fire to Russia and wait for a convenient moment to sting, this is the essence of the existence of the United States.
      2. The comment was deleted.
      3. Pereira
        Pereira April 18 2016 10: 07
        +22
        Thin, not thin, but twice they managed to skim the cream from the world massacre.
        It can be said, then no one understood anything, that since then, both politicians and peoples have opened their eyes. Sense of that?
        The corrupt elites of most countries will surrender their people with a gamble of brilliance in their wide eyes. Elites do not even have to pay for it. Just allow to take out of their countries and keep stolen in American banks.
        It will be a very economical war.
        1. _Vladislav_
          _Vladislav_ April 18 2016 10: 35
          +18
          Putin does not attack, but only "reacts", as evidenced by the events in the Crimea, and the flight of Yanukovych ("which happened five days before the invasion"). And, mind you, Putin expresses hope for a constructive relationship with the West. At the same time, he could not “sit and watch Ukraine slip out of Russia’s orbit”: the Black Sea is strategically important for Russia, and the famous port should not fall into NATO’s hands

          I already said something, but I repeat.
          After the collapse of the USSR, between the Russian Federation and Ukraine there was a tacit agreement that Crimea with a Russian military base will always be in the orbit of Russia's interests. Ukraine will always extend the agreement on the arrival of the Black Sea Fleet in Sevastopol, and Russia will pretend that Crimea is Ukrainian. And everyone is happy. Ukraine receives money for the lease, Russia receives control over the Black Sea.

          The first time the Ukrainian side decided to question this agreement during the First Orange, when Yushchenko came. He was the first to try to hint to the Kremlin that American ships could occasionally hang out in Crimea - by organizing the Seabreeze exercises with American friends. But, thanks to the efforts of the special services (mostly Russian) and God knows what else, the exercises were disrupted. Russia made it clear that it did not appreciate the joke of humor, we live on.

          And now, to our happiness, came to power, it seems quite a PRO-Russian Yanukovych. With intentions, to extend the agreement on the arrival of the Black Sea Fleet in Sevastopol, indefinitely. Ukraine continues to recognize that Crimea is in Russia's strategic orbit. But this was the strategic miscalculation. Russia paid too much attention to Crimea, and too little to Ukraine. At the same time, the West has already prepared and nourished a new anti-Russian movement, which was to spontaneously come to power and, on seemingly legal grounds, demand the denunciation of the treaty.

          Thus, the second time Ukraine questioned the entry of Crimea into the strategic orbit of Russia, there were recent Euro-Maidan events and the overthrow of Yanukovych. Actually, even before his overthrow, it was already clear that an operation was being prepared to force the Americans into Crimea. And so that the Americans do not move in, Russia moves in there.

          The referendum on the entry of Crimea into Russia is, in principle, just a nice bonus. The decision to join it was made (of course) much earlier. When Ukraine abandoned the unspoken, but nevertheless, agreements - that Crimea is in the strategic orbit of Russia's interests. P.E. since the conversation didn’t work out, Russia simply took the Crimea. And this is logical in general then.

          PS
          Then in 1991, Comrade Kravchuk suggested that Comrade Yeltsin take the Crimea - "if Crimea is Russian, it will be even better for the independence of Ukraine itself" - quote. And today we already did not have such problems, the mistake of the swineherd Khrushchev could be corrected even then.
          But either Comrade Yeltsin was drunk, or something else, he did not take in general. Therefore, I had to take it today.
          Yes, for reference, the concept of evicting the Black Sea Fleet from the Crimea is initially not wealthy.
          1. He has nowhere to evict - in Novorossiysk there is no such opportunity to fit the entire fleet.
          2. There is no way to evict his physical, the Ukrainian Navy is a parody of the fleet. The American fleet - in such a proximity to the coastline, is also not able to evict the Black Sea Fleet.
          3. Statements by some Ukrainian politicians (earlier before the Maidan) demanding that the Black Sea Fleet be evicted from Sevastopol, it’s like - well, imagine you are an average person of ordinary size, go to the forest, go to the bear’s den (without weapons) and tell the bear that you intend evict him. Not of course you can do it, but it’s useless. It's like pissing against the wind.

          1. your1970
            your1970 April 18 2016 18: 08
            +1
            “Faced with the fact that a significant part of society is“ irreconcilably opposed to war, ”even the most“ militaristic president ”will be limited in his actions, and perhaps even backslide. Even Richard Nixon had to end the war when the people demanded it. "
            They’re sleeping right and seeing how to limit the next president in actions !!!! The people will demand and that’s all - the end of the war !!!!
            I really didn’t quite understand why they didn’t protest against the war in Afghanistan and didn’t "demanded" something, like popcorn, for example, or to end the war ...
        2. varz
          varz April 18 2016 12: 13
          +17
          Russia's task is to prevent the states from organizing another war in Europe. And if anything, the first strikes on the territory of the United States: industry, scientific and financial centers, centers, military-industrial complex, armed forces. In the meantime, on duty with nuclear weapons off the coast of the states, further work to abandon the dollar, increase Russia's role in regulating energy prices, increase the role of the ruble, etc.
          The main thing in the country is the introduction of the death penalty for embezzlers with the confiscation of everything from relatives.
          1. Ros64
            Ros64 April 18 2016 20: 27
            0
            And send a fifth column led by kagtava artists to cut ice on Franz Joseph Land.
            1. WSW1WSW
              WSW1WSW April 18 2016 21: 11
              +1
              WHERE IS HERE AN EMPHASIS ON QUALITY? You are sowing the wrong seeds!
        3. vik14025
          vik14025 April 18 2016 13: 54
          +3
          Don Sebastian, "The Corrupt Elites" therefore became elites, since they were initially formed, or rather were formed precisely in order to surrender their peoples constantly, day after day, preferably not too noticeably.
        4. WSW1WSW
          WSW1WSW April 18 2016 21: 07
          +1
          I agree! These fat 3,14ndos cats live like that. Truly fiendish hell.
      4. Saffron
        Saffron April 18 2016 10: 08
        +3
        Because there is nuclear weapons and modern means of their delivery (possession of which is recognized by America as a real threat to their existence). Therefore, in order to protect themselves, they have recently intensified the development of modern missile defense systems (since it has not been possible to drag Russia into all kinds of reduction treaties with catastrophic consequences for us). And also to prevent the appearance of WMD in countries that could threaten America (for example, Iran).
      5. dmi.pris
        dmi.pris April 18 2016 10: 29
        +1
        The Americans have only one way to solve their problems ... To gather all together, and jump off the Earth somewhere far away .. Paneta will become calmer without these "exceptional" .. Aliens really will not be envied. wassat
        Quote: Maksus
        Americans have only one way to solve all their problems, both external and internal. And this way is another war. Only not small, but large, with the participation of all their creditors. And there are only two victims - Russia and China. That's just their gut is very thin ....
      6. Volzhanin
        Volzhanin April 18 2016 10: 46
        +7
        And since we will not allow such a war, they will have to eat themselves. We just need to take time, and in America, as a result of the general impoverishment of the population, a bloody mess mixed up with social services will begin. and racial contradictions. Then all the apocalyptic films shot by the Americans will turn out to be a reality for them. Weapons in the country, like foolish wrappers! And according to the forecasts of the amers themselves, all this will happen before 2020. You just need to prevent these geeks from unleashing another conflict, abandon the green-wrapper and the mattress itself will burst into small strips! We will only have to stock up on seeds and beer and make sure that the bloody massacre does not go beyond the borders of the northern merzikosia.
    2. vovanpain
      vovanpain April 18 2016 10: 06
      +19
      The policy of the outgoing administration of B.H. Obama is preparing for the new president the arena for the endless confrontation between the United States and Russia, a field for a new Cold War, which may well turn into a hot

      Well, we, too, are not idle. laughing
      1. your1970
        your1970 April 18 2016 18: 14
        +2
        it seems even the shadows are correct soldier
      2. WSW1WSW
        WSW1WSW April 18 2016 21: 14
        +2
        Damn, we’ve already lost the scent! Why give out our military secrets ??? (I'm talking about a secret photo)
    3. The comment was deleted.
    4. siberalt
      siberalt April 18 2016 11: 27
      +12
      Who will "rot" faster depends on the patience of the people. There is no Russian equal here. The grandfathers put up with it and told us to. It seems that there is no other for us in the foreseeable future. And the way we lived, so we will live - sometimes empty, sometimes thick. But we have a WILL for all directions - I don't want to walk! hi There is no such thing anywhere else and that is our life force!
      1. Michael67
        Michael67 April 18 2016 11: 58
        +4
        It is disgusting that the amer leaders continue to bend their line. And all in foreign territories. I’m probably angry, but I want the eylstone geyser to distract amers from foreign "interests" and switch them to purely their own. To stop shitting around the world.
  2. Saffron
    Saffron April 18 2016 09: 47
    +6
    Today they are forcing Europe to increase military spending, tomorrow they will force them to buy weapons from themselves (as intended). The most interesting thing is that Europe does not want a confrontation with Russia, it is forced to breed a tantrum
    1. weksha50
      weksha50 April 18 2016 10: 31
      +1
      Quote: Saffron
      The most interesting, Europe does not want a confrontation with Russia,



      Um ... And what is the talk of leading European politicians about the need to create a united European Army to oppose "aggressive" Russia ???

      PS They already have not enough NATO bloc ...
      1. Tatar 174
        Tatar 174 April 18 2016 14: 22
        +3
        Quote: weksha50
        Um ... And what is the talk of leading European politicians about the need to create a united European Army to oppose "aggressive" Russia ???

        The Euro-Army, it seems to me, they need in order to finally get out of the power of NATO and the United States. Otherwise, why? But they did not completely lose their brains in order to seriously prepare to fight in Europe with Russia.
  3. Pvi1206
    Pvi1206 April 18 2016 09: 51
    +6
    Either peace or war.
    The state of "no war, no peace" was possible only in Leon Trotsky's delusional mind.
    The Americans must understand that in the event of a new world war, they will not be able to once again sit out behind their "puddle" ...
    1. ferdiperdozzz
      ferdiperdozzz April 18 2016 12: 51
      +2
      This is not their puddle.
      1. Kasym
        Kasym April 18 2016 19: 17
        0
        The Americans will "play out", paying attention to "containment" of the Russian Federation, but forgetting about Daesh and all the like - they will wait for new terrorist attacks not only in the EU, but also at home. hi
  4. Altona
    Altona April 18 2016 09: 56
    +4
    Now it seems to us more profitable for Republicans to come to the White House. Even let it be Marco Rubio instead of Donald Trump. Although they are traditionally with warlike rhetoric, they are more adequate or, say, negotiable than democrats. Because democrats generally behave like lawless people.
    1. cniza
      cniza April 18 2016 09: 59
      +5
      It has always been easier for us to negotiate with the Republicans.
    2. The comment was deleted.
  5. Dam
    Dam April 18 2016 09: 58
    +13
    Let the Arctic fox come to the White House! And he will be a democrat or a republican I do not care
    1. Pereira
      Pereira April 18 2016 10: 10
      0
      And let me find a suitcase with money. And they will be eureka or dollars, I do not care.

      Damm, the arctic fox does not go by itself. They either let him in or call him.
      1. Dam
        Dam April 18 2016 10: 39
        +1
        And he is already in place and scratching at the door. What will launch it, the collapse of the dollar or the big tear in the elections, we will see
  6. shinobi
    shinobi April 18 2016 10: 11
    +2
    The Americans are preparing another war in Europe and the Pacific. At the same time, they will try, and whoever gives them, will sit aside. Selling weapons and resources to the conflicting ones. As it was in both the world. Only in vain do they hope to stay. One of the working out scenarios fighting in the north, practiced the invasion of the United States through Alaska and Canada. In those latitudes, the vaunted fleet of the Yankees is not very effective. The US defense is weak. The breakthrough can be very quick.
    1. iliitchitch
      iliitchitch April 18 2016 10: 39
      +1
      Quote: shinobi
      In those latitudes, the vaunted Yankees fleet is not very effective. The US defense is weak. The breakthrough can be very quick.


      And, in fact, what for to break through? Unless in the event of a complete blow-up to smithereens and in half of all sga, it is no longer a breakthrough, but a return of one's own + indemnity for "all good". This I mean that in a future war, the "front line", "depth of defense" somehow look archaic. Everything is leveled by missile range. But daddies with plans and in such a case should be kept ready, yes, NOT ONE war went on according to textbooks.
      1. Corsair
        Corsair April 18 2016 15: 19
        +1
        Quote: iliitch
        And, in fact, what for to break through? Unless in the event of a complete blowing to smithereens and in half of the sun, this is no longer a breakthrough, but a return of one's own + indemnity for "all good"

        what Here is an idea with Status-6 or what else we already have there (I think Sakharov suggested in the 50-60s, I don’t remember exactly), with the flushing of all the infrastructure (with the population, factories, city-centers, ports) on the coasts The USA is a very sound idea, capable of discouraging any desire to get into one's own business.
        You are absolutely right - you don’t have to break into it at the cost of the lives of our guys, wash off the right bank into the ocean, and if you don’t give up immediately, then the left bank.
  7. Tolstoevsky
    Tolstoevsky April 18 2016 10: 16
    +2
    mows under an adequate, comedian comedian
  8. Naval
    Naval April 18 2016 10: 18
    +2
    The new president, according to tradition, will be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize fellow
  9. Yarik76
    Yarik76 April 18 2016 10: 23
    +2
    Article plus' has something to discuss and think about. Forwarding to the weak now with Russia will not work "Crimea has shown" sanctions are also not very good - Syria. The time for politics is coming and it pleases. Let's see!
  10. fif21
    fif21 April 18 2016 10: 29
    +3
    The desire to "break" Russia can lead to a reciprocal desire angry
    Section, NATO bombing of Yugoslavia canceled out the "agreement on the preservation of borders in Europe." NATO's eastward expansion canceled out not one treaty on arms limitation in Europe, but all treaties. The Europeans do not want to do dirty work for the Naglo-Saxons and fight with Russia. And Russia cannot be destroyed from the inside. If a fight cannot be avoided, hit first !? Or endless balancing on the edge of a knife? The policy of "containment of Russia" will lead to war, whether we like it or not hi
  11. olimpiada15
    olimpiada15 April 18 2016 10: 31
    +4
    Any US president will do what financial sharks need.
    Remember, Obama in the election campaign promised to withdraw the armed forces and eliminate the infamous prisons. As a result, Iraq, Afghanistan remained, but Libya, Syria, and Ukraine were added.
    The United States must be beaten in the place from where the hands grow: to destroy their financial parasitism. This does not depend on Russia, but it must make its contribution to the destruction of the well-being of the hegemon of the Russian Federation.
    Look at Turkey, analyzing the objective figures of economic cooperation, you can see a picture of the insignificant influence of the Russian Federation on the Turkish economy. In reality, the effect of the termination of cooperation in the field of tourism, the purchase of agricultural products, clothing and the construction business, will simply undermine the Turkish economy.
    1. fif21
      fif21 April 18 2016 11: 24
      +2
      Quote: olimpiada15
      Any US President Will Do What Financial Sharks Need
      And what do financial sharks need?
      1. Death of creditors
      2. The ability to rob countries
      3. Make money in the arms market
      4. Keep the global economy on the dollar
      All attempts to resist robbery are thwarted with the help of the Allies (they are robbed to a lesser extent) and the US Army. hi Russia was never considered an ally of the United States-2 sea exception, and that was only because of the 2 evils they had to choose the lesser, and they earned on it. hi
    2. The comment was deleted.
  12. ruAlex
    ruAlex April 18 2016 10: 38
    +4
    The president in America has long turned into a govar’s head and, in fact, decides little himself, one of the last examples of Kennedy when he tried to return the financial instrument to the state by taking this right from the Fed, we know how it ended for him. And all subsequent presidents clearly learned a lesson, having essentially given control of the country to mega-corporations and financial bigwigs. And those if they consider that the war is beneficial for them without batting and will arrange it with an eye.
  13. koshmarik
    koshmarik April 18 2016 11: 50
    +5
    Warming themselves up with the Russian threat, the United States is turning Europe into a huge, completely militarily insignificant military base, thereby depleting its far from endless resources and the resources of Europe. Flag in their hands. The main thing for us is not to chase parity, but we, in fact, are not chasing - let them play because it’s clear that we can’t argue against the world’s nuclear power.
  14. Lelek
    Lelek April 18 2016 13: 08
    +2
    (And if it turns out that most of the public who did not vote is opposed to war, this will especially reduce the potential of the president’s foreign policy.)


    Don't count on it. In the US electorate, the credo "America, America is above all" and "I will win all" are firmly embedded. There have appeared, however, lately "sane" ones, but their number is scanty and in no way affect the elections to the heads of the country of the same sane politicians. Mostly "trampophiles" and "clintonophiles" prevail. In addition, among the Yankees there is a large percentage of outspoken Nazis, whom you cannot reproach for being peaceful.
  15. Tatar 174
    Tatar 174 April 18 2016 14: 16
    +1
    Maybe something will change after the new president comes to power in the USA? Hardly, because all the candidates are arsonists of the war.

    This is only business and nothing more, the huge profits of corporations on which any US president depends and will depend. There is nothing surprising in this.
  16. v.yegorov
    v.yegorov April 18 2016 15: 34
    0
    will provoke a "new cold war, which is likely to end in a hot one, and it will put an end to efforts to build a workable democracy in Russia."

    It (the war) will put an end to the whole world, from it will remain one continuous little head.
  17. nrex
    nrex April 18 2016 16: 39
    0
    This MONKEY is a Nobel Peace Laureate. If he is PEACEKEEPER, then those who appropriated it to him, WHO ???
    1. WSW1WSW
      WSW1WSW April 18 2016 21: 23
      0
      WHO, WHO ... Peacekeepers. Among the laureates, the number of scum is growing. Brezhnev was laughed at for receiving awards. What to take from him was already an old man, but this borders on insanity (senile). And comrade The barn is still young and received in advance mode. fool
  18. Vpolenevoin
    Vpolenevoin April 18 2016 17: 47
    +1
    I really want the voice of the author of this article to reach the powers that be. A very timely, relevant and truthful article.
  19. 1536
    1536 April 18 2016 19: 18
    0
    Decent this Obama ... people say. But his actions are unclear.
  20. silver_roman
    silver_roman April 19 2016 09: 59
    0
    What a tin .... the whole article is just a complete disinformation. Stupidly all nonsense.

    Russia, greatly affected by economic sanctions, has a clear desire to “reset” its relations with the West (in the fair sense of the term, the publicist points out). Russian intervention in Syria was a pretext for restoring Moscow's "battered status" on the world stage.

    This sentence is simply the quintessence of idiocy.

    I wonder if the words of this sanchez have at least a fraction of his true opinion, or is it really all the media in the west and their correspondents just empty biomass ??? If you choose a piano for the post, the essence will not change. Every day, instead of a sour face, we will see a talking piano (graphics allow), which will express concern, regret the invasion of another "totalitarian" country, etc.
    The whole Saxon empire is like a bicycle: if it stops, it will simply fall. And the movement for them is WAR.

    And to concentrate on the "true" enemy of terrorism, and not the Russian Federation, generally speaks of complete lack of competence (or engagement - pursuing the interests of certain groups in the American establishment). Terrorism is a mechanism for achieving the goals of the Saxons, generated by them. RF is really their enemy. Works both ways.

    In the furnace is shorter.
  21. trantor
    trantor April 19 2016 18: 49
    0
    These plans reflect a “new situation”. Russia has become an unpredictable player.

    This is really unpredictable Russia. She is directly pushing the whole of Ukraine to join, or at worst, at least the South-East, and she only agreed to Crimea. The entire Baltic states have already been exhausted, and have tinted themselves, and washed themselves - Russia does not take it. Yeah. You gentlemen never understood us, and you will never understand. Even those who sincerely try to understand something.
    In the United States, there is not a single presidential candidate who would really be able to put an end to the White House’s aspiration to “contain” Russia instead of fighting real enemies of terror. And none of the claimants for the throne in the White House is in the full sense of the word a pacifist, no matter what he promised.

    In all this ugliness, there is one positive point that should become our strategic advantage: The United States has a political planning horizon of 4 years (from election to election). Moreover, if the President is elected for a second term, then often he already begins to act on the principle: after me at least a flood. We need to use this somehow.