Russia’s re-introduction of G7 during the Hiroshima summit did not stutter. But much has been said about the sanctions. Their length, as was noted in the statement of the leaders of the leading industrial powers, directly depends on Moscow’s implementation of the Minsk agreements (although the Russian Federation is not a party to the conflict. - NVO) and respect for the sovereignty of Ukraine. In a detailed statement, the requirements for Russia look like this: stop supporting Donetsk with Lugansk and return “annexed Crimea” without preliminary conditions. And after Moscow, it was recommended that troops be withdrawn from the Russian-Ukrainian border, to cooperate with the President of Ukraine, Petro Poroshenko, and finally, to guarantee gas supplies.
It is already interesting why it is someone, even the leaders of successful states, dispose of where Russia will keep its troops, with whom it will be friends at a high level, and to whom it will be obligatory to supply its hydrocarbons. But even more interesting, what does Ukraine have to do with it?
Of course, it must be admitted that after the events of 2014, Moscow’s relations with the West acquired a special glow, but nothing fundamentally changed: and without Kiev’s Maidan, NATO moved rhythmically to the east, and the Americans placed elements of their strategic missile defense on our borders. This was allegedly done against Iran - such a fairy tale was invented at the beginning of the century by the “elder brother” from Washington for especially credulous European aborigines. Although even then, much earlier than it was voiced in Athens by Vladimir Putin, it was known: it is enough to load other missiles into universal containers - and the entire territory of the Russian Federation right up to the Urals is in the affected area.
So it’s not in Ukraine. Speaking to graduates of the Academy of West Point or even to the military (in Kuwait, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.), Barack Obama has repeatedly said that the United States will remain the leaders in the world during the 21st century and will not tolerate competitors. As it is known, America has two competitors: China, whose economy confidently comes out on top in the world, and Russia, which has military potential, including nuclear, is able to give the United States more than an adequate answer. It is this circumstance that concerns the American establishment in the first place, that is why Russia is considered the enemy number 1 overseas, and China, which has not yet gained the necessary nuclear muscles, is left in reserve.
IF THE ENEMY DOES NOT GIVE UP
In the era of Mikhail Gorbachev, we ourselves organized a nuclear striptease. But since it wasn’t possible to bare out (they had accumulated a lot of weapons!), In the era of Boris Yeltsin, Russia was actively helped by the so-called partners. Only under the Nunn-Lugar strategic potential of Russia over 20 years without a single shot dropped: on 7610 nuclear warheads, 902 intercontinental ballistic missiles, 684 ballistic missiles for submarines (PL), 33 nuclear submarines, 498 silo launchers, 191 mobile launcher (PU) ground and 492 PU sea-based, 155 long-range strategic bombers, etc. According to the Gor-Chernomyrdin uranium agreement, the Russian Federation lost 90% of weapons-grade uranium reserves, and the Americans were very upset when Moscow refused to continue cooperation ...
But by this time other reserves were already involved. First, NATO, which for a whole decade has suffered from lack of demand, and was forced to prepare to repel abstract threats, is now a rigidly oriented anti-Russian military bloc. Secondly, the American missile defense system and their advanced units are moved directly to the borders of Russia. And so that these movements did not cause unnecessary questions in the European capitals, for which Russia managed to become a very attractive market for goods and services, a huge organizational work was carried out. It must be admitted: Americans are able to formulate tasks and to achieve their implementation by hook or by crook - as it will ...
Here, for example, as did a monster from Russia.
August events 2008 of the year. After a conversation with US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Mikhail Saakashvili, then President of Georgia, at his residence, orders his troops to invade South Ossetia. In response, he received such a blow that not only knights in tiger-skinned fled, but also American instructors, who taught them military matters, fled. However, thanks to the propaganda and agitation of anyone you ask in Europe, everyone is firmly convinced that this is Russia, under cover of night, attacked a small and freedom-loving Georgia. It is even simpler with Ukraine: the time has passed, and the Americans no longer hide the fact that the coup d'état took place with their support and participation, however, Moscow’s response steps are unequivocal and, without going into nuances, are viewed as a manifestation of aggression. Yes, that Ukraine! It turns out that in Syria, Russia is also to blame. According to Washington, if Moscow had not intervened in the events and would have allowed the militants of the "Islamic state" banned in the Russian Federation to take Damascus and cut everyone out, there would be no refugee flow to Europe.
But this is a foreign policy aspect. The program of demonization of Russia, of course, is internal. If earlier, starting from the time of the USSR, Russia was declared an undemocratic state, where the rights of the opposition, nationalities and various minorities are violated in every way, now the accusation of corruption, the symbolist of which has become Putin’s friend cellist Sergei Roldugin, has been added.
Who knows, maybe he somehow took advantage of his close relationship with the head of the Russian state, but he certainly didn’t receive such preferences as sponsors of the election campaign of Barack Obama. But they are silent about them, and Roldugin is the first cello among the world's corrupt officials ...
Well historical aspect. European inhabitants have almost no doubt that the United States defeated Nazi Germany and took Berlin in 1945, attaching its striped flag to the Reichstag. And today they are active - and not without success! - they accustom to the thought that it was Hitler and Stalin, acting at the same time, attacked Europe, and the Americans sailed from overseas and saved the progressive humanity of the Old World.
Since it’s fantastically difficult to give out frank nonsense for reality, once again I take off my hat to the American propaganda machine - it works flawlessly. And all thanks to proven frames.
In this capacity, usually the Americans themselves or, at worst, the British, who in the military structure of NATO, as a rule, occupy command posts. And here's what is remarkable: it seems that if there weren’t these naval commanders and generals from infantry and aviation, as well as "leather collars" (marines) with general stars, especially no one would have remembered Russia.
Take, say, a retired British General Richard Shirreff, who served from NATO 2011 to 2014 for the year served as deputy commander in chief. He wrote a book called “2017: War with Russia,” which states that Russia after Georgia, the Crimea, and Ukraine may invade the Baltic States under the pretext of protecting the Russian-speaking population, and since Moscow has an atomic weapon, nuclear war, the general believes, is unavoidable. And everything will happen, according to his forecasts, within the next year ...
What is left to the ordinary man in the street if an entire general comes to such conclusions, even if he is a retired one? It is clear that they are actively afraid of Russia. By the way, the current NATO generals are also actively involved in the propaganda campaign against Russia, but not everyone is so straightforward about the nuclear threat from us (the head of the State Duma Committee on International Affairs Alexei Pushkov called Shirreff just insane). The new commander in chief of the united NATO forces in Europe, US Army General Curtis Scaparrotti, who, apparently, is still friends with the head, did not replicate banal horror stories about Moscow’s nuclear baton, and echoing his president, said that the alliance should be ready to fight, faced with "resurgent Russia, which is positioning itself as a world power." According to him, this is the first threat along with terrorism and the migration crisis, which in principle does not threaten America.
Today, NATO conducts much more military exercises near the Russian borders than in the most intense years of the Cold War. Photos from the site www.nato.int
No less sincere was his predecessor at the NATO post, the famous General Philip Breedlove, who said that America had “embraced with the Russian bear” for too long, therefore Russia managed to strengthen, made big plans and supposedly sees the United States and NATO “as limiters of their aspirations” . Therefore, the US goal is to “punch holes” in the Russian defense lines, to make them more vulnerable, in order to “stop the further strengthening of Russia in the region”. His proposal: to increase the number of American forces on the European continent from 65 thousand people to 200 thousand, as it was at the height of the Cold War.
And also the American General Breedlove is very concerned about the activity of Russian submarines at the Faro-Icelandic line between Iceland and Great Britain. According to the general, Russian submarines are a significant threat. But there was a clarification for whom, although it is clear that for the USA, and the Americans would like to “brake” them on the beam of Europe. And in general, judging by the alignment of forces, America would not mind putting "high-handed Russia" in place, but it would be good if possible hostilities were somehow limited to the Old World ...
Perhaps the Commander of the National Armed Forces of Latvia Raymond, who voted in two hands at a meeting of the NATO Military Committee for deploying the Allied battalion in Poland and the Baltic States, does not realize what role was prepared for Europe - it didn’t finish peteushnik and military academies. Lithuanian President Dalia Grybauskaite is hardly versed in military affairs, although her father served in the NKVD. But the head of the NATO Military Committee itself, Czech General Peter Pavel, as a military officer, must at least understand something. Or does he really believe that, as he stated, “NATO is and will remain the most powerful and successful military alliance in the world”?
Most likely the general is somewhat mistaken. If, for example, to believe Barack Obama and his predecessors, the US army and navy should be the most powerful military force in the world. America will not tolerate competitors in this area, even loyal ones. And what does NATO mean without the USA? And when did anything mean anything?
By the way, the Ministry of Defense of the USSR did not really count on the Warsaw Treaty, which was dissolved by Mikhail Gorbachev. It is clear that, due to ideological reasons, some pages of history were hushed up, nevertheless there is great hope that, for example, Hungary and Romania, who fought on the side of Hitler, will defend the gains of socialism until recently. Or, say, the Bulgarian brothers who walked in the form of the Wehrmacht, or the Poles, who have their own century-old account of Russia? .. Paradoxically, one could really rely only on East Germans if they really had to fight with NATO or the United States in Europe.
But on whom the US stakes in NATO, is not very clear. You can seriously rely on the Poles, who, with the help of the United States, are ready to do everything to prove that they are the best Slavs in the world, almost Anglo-Saxon. All the others are either not ready to increase military spending, in general, because of the crisis, or they are ready to commercially surrender their territory under the American military infrastructure. However, Americans never seriously counted on Europe as an old woman, and after the collapse of the Eastern bloc, NATO was retained not as a military unit, but as an instrument of influence on Russia in particular, and the world in general. Well, as a buffer zone, of course, which can be donated, if it really comes to the fighting.
When during a visit to Greece, Vladimir Putin was asked about the American anti-missile infrastructure in Romania, he answered clearly: now Romania will also be under the gun. There will be a missile defense system in Poland, and Poland will be on the fly. And on the other, in fact, counted in Bucharest and Warsaw? Perhaps the exceptional capabilities of American weapons? But the events in Syria showed that the devil is not so terrible as he is painted, that Russia’s weapons and military equipment are no worse, if not better in a number of parameters, and provide guaranteed defeat of any objects within reach.
For example, the Caliber will not fly from the Black Sea to Washington, but it’s quite even to the position of the American missile defense system in Romania (all the parameters of the complex have not yet been disclosed). And it is unlikely that people living around these objects are delighted with the prospect of becoming cannon fodder. And Europe itself is hardly delighted with such a prospect, if, as predicted by General Richard Shirreff, a nuclear war with Russia is inevitable, and it will flare up within a year. It would not have clicked ... And on the other hand, if everyone understands everything perfectly, why then Europe, as if in tow, blindly follows the USA?
With the Balts and other Young Europeans, for whom the EU has become a serious economic test, everything is clear, for them the Russian threat is a way of being. Well, what about European old-timers with their history, with their centuries-old culture? Why they can not do without overseas guide?
Everything is very simple. The epoch of Jacques Chirac and Helmut Kohl, who created the European Union, which in the first place was to become an economic competitor of the United States, passed. They were replaced - as argued not without American participation - other leaders came, not so ambitious and not so independent. And more than others, German Chancellor Angela Merkel disappointed the European community.
Its American dependence is so obvious and even caricatured that it is rumored that it is not without purpose. According to one version, Dr. Merkel has a crush on the USA since the 90s, after a vacation in California. On the other hand, Barack Obama has incriminating evidence against the German chancellor - as if during the years of East German youth she was an informant for the Stasi. There are also more exotic versions, and it is still difficult to explain why, after all, European leaders are increasingly not acting in the interests of their states. And not only in the military field, but also in the economy - for example, the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), which the US imposes on Europe with the same pressure as sanctions against Russia and military confrontation with Moscow.
As a result, Europe literally out of the blue received, in military terms, threats from three directions. First, a possible nuclear retaliatory strike from Russia. Secondly, the migration tsunami, which was formed after America, with the involvement of NATO forces, has spread North Africa and the Middle East. Well, the third threat is the North Atlantic Alliance itself, because if there were no NATO or it would not be so active (at the suggestion of the USA), there would be no Russian nuclear missile threat, and there would be no flow of migrants either.
... The literary countryman of the current chairman of the NATO Military Committee, General Peter Pavel, according to Yaroslav Hasek, was once asked:
- What do you think, Svejk, the war will last for a long time?
“Fifteen years,” answered Schweik. - It's clear. After all, since the Thirty Years War has already taken place, now we are half smarter and divide thirty by two to fifteen.
Since in our version it is not clear how much to divide, to make forecasts, when this time the Cold War ends, there is no possibility. And will it end with such “thinkers” like General Shirreff? Anyway, not fast. One hope that power in the United States will soon change and more adequate leaders will come to the leadership, without explosive geopolitical illusions.