Military Review

Logic of war

95
Logic of warIt's hard to say if the world has logic storiesbut world wars definitely have iron logic. For such wars there are always serious reasons; with such wars, big countries are trying to solve their big, or even insoluble problems. What big country in the world today has big financial and economic and current domestic political problems? Huge international debt?


US presidential candidate Hillary Clinton says the other presidential candidate, Donald Trump, is a threat to national security. And Trump throws back: "Clinton must go to jail, due to systemic violations when she was secretary of state." Clinton declares: "If Trump becomes president, there will be a holiday in the Kremlin." Trump responds: “NATO is being ripped off by the United States,” and meets with Henry Kissinger, the ideologist of the “detente” policy, while today's “gray cardinal” of Washington is its opposite - Zbigniew Brzezinski.

In vassal USA, Europe is also a complete mess and lack of discipline. In England, a referendum is held on secession from the European Union, and the popular politician Boris Johnson, one might say, the English “Trump”, demands “to return his country to national control - England”. On the current Prime Minister, who is in favor of a “European choice,” the British have the following opinion: “Cameron is a useless prime minister, and he lies to us.”

Berlin, in the peak of Ankara, defiantly adopts a resolution on the Armenian Genocide by the Turks at the beginning of the twentieth century, the European press bows Turkish leader Erdogan with a “possessed dictator” and “emerging sultan”, in response to Erdogan speaking about Turkey’s “new way” towards Europe.

Against this background, the Western press, unanimously, but completely freely, with a few exceptions, sculpts from Russia an “image of the enemy” under the pretext of its “aggression in Ukraine”, where Washington has just made a “non-aggressive” “regime change” by a coup d'état, and Russia interferes such a “spread of democracy” does not even recognize it as “democracy”! And this undermines European values ​​...

If you call this demagogy with real words, then the West is preparing to justify its aggression against Russia, under the guise of further "spreading democracy", making it inevitable in the eyes of the western man in the street. I remember that Hitler justified his aggression with the need to spread culture in Russia, and the need for decommunization. The West also deals with the latter in Ukraine, in the Baltic States and in Poland ...

If we speak in a dry military language, the West is trying to take advantageous springboards for war with Russia, which it is not a pity for him to turn into a battlefield. Many analysts believe that Washington has decided: if it is not possible to “change the regime” in Russia, as in Ukraine, then it must be demolished, and it goes for this to its original lines. But not only for this.

The internal problems of the United States, and the entire progressive Western community, can also be tried to be solved at the expense of the new world war. Let us not forget that the technological gap between the West and the non-Western world is drastically reduced, and the West needs to fight for peace, with all the non-Western world, either now or never.

So, the launch by the West of the ideological engine of the new war, demagogic Russophobia, is a necessary condition for its unleashing, and we see that it is supported by the US coming out to bridgeheads convenient for the Russian attack in Ukraine and in the Baltic states.

Yes, Russia is a nuclear power, but Washington hopes, nevertheless, for a conventional (conventional) war, a certain guarantee of such a course of war should be the global American missile defense, whose complexes are deployed in Romania and Poland. Or hope ...

However, after the speech of the Russian Aerospace Forces in Syria, the United States began to fear the usual war with Russia, and they began to talk about what happened “unthinkable”: Russia restored its non-nuclear military power and challenges the West. The “unthinkable” may be the decision about the so-called preventive “instant global strike” of the USA on Russia, which, however, may be “unthinkable” and end ...

When is the X time for Washington? The United States will deploy a missile defense base in Poland in 2017, so the world can count on a whole year of peace. However, not everything is decided by military preparations. A serious internal obstacle to the outbreak of world war was for neocon, neo-Trotsky-permanent Washington candidate for US President Donald Trump.

To thwart Trump’s presidency, if it becomes inevitable, to keep him out of the White House Oval Office, the neocon hawks can go very far, even for world provocation, and the Third World War, following the example of his predecessor Adolf Hitler’s world domination.
Author:
95 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Nikolay71
    Nikolay71 20 June 2016 06: 36
    +4
    World War Again? To be honest, I do not believe that in the coming years there will be a big war. Local yes - not going anywhere.
    1. Alexander Romanov
      Alexander Romanov 20 June 2016 08: 52
      +16
      Quote: Nikolay71
      To be honest, I don’t believe that there will be a big war in the coming years.

      In early June 1941, people rejoiced in the coming summer, walked, rested and did not believe in the possibility of warriors.
      And in Germany, they also did not believe in a warrior from the USSR. We had a non-aggression PACT.
      Ordinary people understand that a warrior is a way to an impasse, but for some reason politicians step on the same rake all the time.
      1. kos2910
        kos2910 20 June 2016 10: 18
        +2
        I agree, somehow it turns out that the unthinkable, in which the majority does not believe, happens suddenly. One wonders about the timing of the start and methods. Although, in reality, it is already on, but when it goes into the hot and irreversible phase ....
      2. Achilles
        Achilles 20 June 2016 10: 58
        +3
        In early June 1941, people rejoiced in the coming summer, walked, rested and did not believe in the possibility of warriors.
        And in Germany, they also did not believe in a warrior from the USSR. We had a non-aggression PACT.
        Ordinary people understand that a warrior is a way to an impasse, but for some reason politicians step on the same rake all the time.

        At that time, a large number of German troops concentrated near our borders and intelligence spoke about this, now the concentration of such a number of troops will not be noticed. Even for delivering a preventive “instant global strike”, a large amount of concentration of the US fleet near our border is needed, again the accumulation of the fleet is not noticed again, it is also not possible, so such a situation as in June 1941 is basically impossible, but they can provoke , for example, according to the Turkish scenario or something else, where they will declare us aggressors, where there will soon be local skirmishes, thereby, all this can lead to a full-scale war. From all these patients, one can expect anything, we (government leaders and the military) need to be prepared for the development of different scenarios. War is always death and destruction, we living in Russia, it is known at the genetic level.
        1. gladcu2
          gladcu2 20 June 2016 14: 37
          +4
          Achilles

          The decisive concentration of troops was brought to the borders in the last week.
        2. RussianHoplite
          RussianHoplite 20 June 2016 20: 35
          +1
          According to the site http://www.defconwarningsystem.com (This is an independent group in the United States that has connections in the upper echelons of NORAD and Air Strategic Command) Yesterday, the Pentagon introduced the DEFCON 3 alarm level. And this is already really serious. At least those Americans who engage in this service claim that in 90% of cases, their scale reflects the real US DEFCON scale. And as a person living in Estonia, I can say that it smells of war. So in the forecast I will be even more bleak than the author of the article, because I expect the Third World before the end of this year.
          1. Vadim237
            Vadim237 20 June 2016 21: 42
            0
            This year there will definitely not be anything, and even more so in subsequent ones.
          2. AK64
            AK64 20 June 2016 21: 53
            +1
            According to the site //www.defconwarningsystem.com(This is an independent group in the United States that has connections in the highest echelons of NORAD and Air Strategic Command) Yesterday, the Pentagon introduced the DEFCON 3 alarm level. And this is already really serious. At least those Americans who engage in this service claim that in 90% of cases, their scale reflects the real US DEFCON scale.


            Mean someone is playing on the stock exchange for a fall
      3. EvgNik
        EvgNik 20 June 2016 12: 20
        0
        Quote: Alexander Romanov
        Ordinary people understand that a warrior is a way to an impasse, but for some reason politicians step on the same rake all the time.

        Need a global law. If there are preconditions for war - leaders, deputies and other diplomats - go against each other and beat their faces to each other. Live. It would be interesting to see how Putin will clean Obama's oval face.
    2. Altona
      Altona 20 June 2016 13: 45
      +2
      Quote: Nikolay71
      World war again?

      --------------------
      To be honest, it has already begun. Of course, these are not Napoleon's dragoon units or Hitler's tank columns. Thank God it didn't start. But judging by how rapidly the events are developing in the "international sports organizations", which are all in violation of their own Statutes and even the Olympic Charter, which directly says about the prohibition of all kinds of discrimination, including political, then war has been declared on us.
      1. komTMG
        komTMG 20 June 2016 14: 41
        +5
        Recently read a book.
        The day before the day after tomorrow
        Sergey Anisimov
        I recommend to read. Her teeth were angry. I recommend reading or listening to an audio book. Kravets.
        Here are a few quotes from this book.
        Do you think the civilized world will continue to tolerate the fact that we do not have democracy and freedom, that the Russian government is violating the rights of its people?
        Tolerance and humanism will be propagated in Russia divided into “zones of settlement” by fire and sword. Enough for everyone ...
    3. Sailor
      Sailor 20 June 2016 14: 40
      +2
      Everything goes to this, and the media tactfully prepares the people, the USA has long been ready for it only to fail to incite its "kadaks" so that clean and rich get out of the meat grinder, and we and the PRC are delaying time to prepare for it, but everything goes to war.
    4. CHILD
      CHILD 20 June 2016 23: 30
      0
      .... I'm afraid the next tourists are going to visit us again ... only in what directions and levels? .... we are anxious from all directions
    5. sgazeev
      sgazeev 21 June 2016 16: 59
      0
      Hollywood buried us from the 90s, lost count. request
  2. Shiva83483
    Shiva83483 20 June 2016 06: 53
    +7
    Well, yes, well, yes, there were, "enlighteners", "democrats" and other evil spirits came here to Russia, how it all ended, everyone knows ... and who is not, history books to help. History teaches us one thing, that it does not teach fools. That's the whole analysis of schizos from Europ and because of okiyanu. Until they rake the melon, they won't calm down ... hi
    1. Alena Frolovna
      Alena Frolovna 20 June 2016 09: 12
      +2
      Well, yes, well, yes, there were, "educators", "democrats" and other evil spirits came here to Russia, how it all ended, everyone knows ...


      1. The comment was deleted.
    2. russkiy redut
      russkiy redut 20 June 2016 10: 10
      +1
      Yes, we always won, but at what cost! You need to lead a cunning dip. politics as in the time of Alexander III.
  3. samarin1969
    samarin1969 20 June 2016 06: 58
    +14
    Many powers want to solve internal problems through wars.
    Pumping up gray arms markets is not enough. Russia is a good reason to start the Rearmament Program.

    In the coming wars, the winner will be the one with more order, a better security system. Strong, tough states always have advantages over trading republics. Amorphous patriotism and a mercenary army will not save you from the coming war. Unfortunately, the leadership of the Russian Federation is afraid of "leaving investors", a maniacal desire to privatize strategic industries and dumping scarce resources on all kinds of "collisions" (World Cup, Sochi, "festival of youth and students") .... We are building a "boyar republic" with expensive ritual democracy. What for?!
    1. AK64
      AK64 20 June 2016 09: 59
      -4
      Unfortunately, the leadership of the Russian Federation observed ....


      Unfortunately, the leadership of the Russian Federation is not observed. Generally.
      And what is observed is a gang of thieves and a staged from there gauleiter
    2. EvgNik
      EvgNik 20 June 2016 12: 13
      0
      Quote: samarin1969
      In the coming wars, the one who has more order will win, the security system is better built.

      Konstantin, I’m afraid that there will be no winners in the third world. There will be few survivors.
      1. samarin1969
        samarin1969 20 June 2016 13: 59
        +1
        "There will be no winners in the third world."
        Call it, Evgeny, this is a "chain of local conflicts". Some of them may well cause destabilization of the state, as after Tsushima.
        And without a nuclear Armageddon, citizens of the Russian Federation shoot and die in the Caucasus, Syria, volunteers in the LDNR. This is a "creeping war".
      2. gladcu2
        gladcu2 20 June 2016 14: 41
        +1
        Evgenik

        I do not agree.

        The presence of nuclear weapons may not stop the conventional war. In World War II, all the armies of the world had chemical weapons. But no one applied it.
      3. Vadim237
        Vadim237 20 June 2016 22: 15
        +1
        How will they survive - the countries of South America, Australia, Africa, China, India, Pakistan, New Zealand, Madagascar, Japan, Cuba, Vietnam, Cambodia, Indonesia, Malaysia, etc., but Europe, the USA and part of Russia will die - countries outside they will simply watch how we wet each other - they will hit finger after finger after the mess and the first thing they do is block the borders for refugees from territories that fell under nuclear bombing, nor will there be any humanitarian assistance on their part - food and water are not allowed to potential corpses - you have started this all yourself now and get out, the surviving countries will be actively preparing for the consequences of planetary contamination with radioactive and chemical elements from the war territories, namely, to create supplies of food with water, to develop a new type of closed-type agriculture - hothouse and hatchery, to distribute means of protecting the population from radiation, to carry out measures to decontaminate the soil, air and water over its territory, to restore economic ties, new superpowers will appear - most likely it will be China and India, and the territory of Russia, the USA and Europe, as well as part of the adjacent states will become exclusion zones, with the remaining endangered population, 100 years.
  4. inkass_98
    inkass_98 20 June 2016 07: 01
    +4
    Victor somehow got confused in logic behind the curtain of an article - to start the third world war, the States will start a world war by provocation against Trump request.There should be a slightly different conclusion, if you follow the logic of the article: world war can (should) start anyway, but under Clintons it will happen naturally, and under Trump it will require serious provocation. How love such scenarios in Hollywood! Only now the final will be sad for everyone, and for the States in particular - the territory is not very large, the people are not so small, but there are nowhere to go, two oceans and Canada nearby, which will also fly as the closest slime dish.
    1. AK64
      AK64 20 June 2016 10: 07
      -5
      You have a fundamental error in your arguments: today the real enemy of Russia is not the United States, but ..... the EU, that is, Germany. Well, maybe China.

      Yes, friends.

      And the United States is a de facto ally.

      Just as a result of the activities of the "government", "they joined the wrong bloc."

      And the problem of the “wrong bloc” is simple: in the bloc with the EU, Russia’s place is a market / raw material appendage, and that’s all. Well, who (besides the "government") needs this?
      1. pimen
        pimen 20 June 2016 10: 13
        0
        Quote: AK64
        And the United States is a de facto ally.
        Just as a result of the activities of the "government", "they joined the wrong bloc."
        And the problem of the “wrong bloc” is simple: in the bloc with the EU, Russia’s place is a market / raw material appendage, and that’s all. Well, who (besides the "government") needs this?

        Come on?! And in the block with the USA, what place is Russia in? ..
        1. AK64
          AK64 20 June 2016 11: 17
          -2
          Come on?! And in the block with the USA, what place is Russia in? ..


          Which one you stand on.
          In this case, there are options: The trade balance with the United States shows that Russia is not interesting for the United States either as a market or as a source of raw materials. But there are options.

          But a "union" with both the EU and China is possible only in one way - "on their terms", that is, only and only as an appendage. Neither the EU nor China needs Russia in any other form.

          It is the EU that is "expanding eastward" (yes, again, "Dranch nach Osten"), not the United States. And the United States is breaking into the Pacific Ocean region, where, as a result, it collides with China.
          1. pimen
            pimen 20 June 2016 12: 09
            +1
            I wonder if you all think we are such d'ebils there that you don't even consider it necessary to strain yourself for a "decent divorce"?
            1. AK64
              AK64 20 June 2016 12: 20
              +1
              I wonder if you all think we are such d'ebils there that you don't even consider it necessary to strain yourself for a "decent divorce"?


              That is, there are no arguments (and there wasn’t), and the transitions to personalities began?
              Well - success in hard business
          2. wanderer_032
            wanderer_032 20 June 2016 13: 29
            +1
            Quote: AK64
            The trade balance with the USA shows that Russia is not interesting for the USA either as a market or as a source of raw materials.

            laughing

            Much more interesting as a colony. Is not it?

            Statements about the world gas station here everyone remembers. So look for the ears on duty - in another place. bully
            1. pimen
              pimen 20 June 2016 13: 34
              0
              I believe that even as a colony we are not interested in them, in the end, they will always be able to overcome what they need from the EU. The question, it seems, has already moved to the plane: either We, or They
            2. AK64
              AK64 20 June 2016 13: 56
              +1
              Quote: AK64
              The trade balance with the USA shows that Russia is not interesting for the USA either as a market or as a source of raw materials.


              Much more interesting as a colony. Is not it?

              Where is the USA, precisely the USA, the colony?
              But Angola or South Africa would be much more interesting as a colony.

              Statements about the world gas station here everyone remembers.

              You would. than to be indignant, this very statement was carefully read.
              Indeed, McCain actually corroborated the fact: the Russian Federation is not a subject of politics.

              And this is by no means the fault of the United States. If you are in fact subject a stranger politicians - blame yourself.

              So look for the ears on duty - elsewhere. bully

              I rely more on stronger brains. And I think that, in spite of your and screaming screams, there are those here.

              There are four serious players in today's world. These are (1) the USA, (2) German-France, i.e. the EU, (3) Britain, and (4) China.
              The Russian Federation is simply not on this list.

              The four players mentioned are actually fighting among themselves.
              So, today's Russia acts either in the interests of Germany (the EU), or in the interests of Britain, and against the United States. But not in their own.

              To begin to pursue an independent policy - the Russian Federation must first acquire its own national government. That is, the government acting in the national interest.

              And for those who recall McCain’s quite fair words, Margaret Thatcher should not be forgotten.
              1. pimen
                pimen 20 June 2016 14: 10
                +3
                But Germany is not a colony? Japan is not a colony? (and this is only on a classic basis, with the occupying forces)
                1. AK64
                  AK64 20 June 2016 14: 27
                  -3
                  But Germany is not a colony? Japan is not a colony? (and this is only on a classic basis, with the occupying forces)


                  Go, darling, go - those who go to the person without any arguments are not interesting to me
                  1. Camel
                    Camel 20 June 2016 14: 54
                    +1
                    But Germany is not a colony? Japan is not a colony? (and this is only on a classic basis, with the occupying forces)

                    Go, darling, go - those who go to the person without any arguments are not interesting to me


                    But in essence they didn’t answer ... Is it true, are not Germany and Japan colonies of the USA "on formal grounds"?
                    I didn’t get personal with you, will you give me an answer?

                    And about the colonies of the United States - Afghanistan, for example, from recent ones. Few?
                    1. AK64
                      AK64 20 June 2016 15: 41
                      +1
                      But really, aren't Germany and Japan colonies of the USA "on a formal basis"?


                      No, they are not.

                      Compare with the classic colonies: India in the BI, or at least Ireland in the BI. Congo for Belgium ... Estimate the level of exploitation. We are silent about Congo or Angola (there was an article about Congo here too - it was a nightmare), but in India there are millions of starvation victims. Even in white European Ireland, just through the strait, in the civilized 19th century, it would have been one and a half million dead from starvation.
                      That's what it is. colonies, in the traditional sense.

                      And Japan and Germany are more likely vassal dependence. And look HOW Americans rocked Japan, and Germany. Well Germany --- but Japan in the 80s was the THIRD world economy, after the USA and the USSR (!). You think: not Britain, not Germany - but some kind of Japan.
                      Just do not tell that the Japanese did it for themselves: it was their Americans that rocked it.

                      So compare with Congo or Ireland.

                      Further, Germany seeks to get out of vassal dependence too. For this, they organized (together with the Foance) the EU. And this is already a very serious organization, quite capable of competing on equal terms with the United States.
                      And recently, the EU has been talking about the "EU armed forces". Yes Yes. The US reared: "WHY? There is NATO!" But the EU is not stupid: they understand that NATO is the United States and vassals --- and they just want complete independence, to which they strive. their independent armed forces are already complete independence.

                      And the United States is already struggling to control these impulses.

                      Is this good or bad? We look:
                      The EU, Russia is close by, there are no oceans between them - which makes the situation a little uncomfortable. And the mobility potential of France + Germany alone is already 150 million people, and the economy is much stronger than the Russian one. (And in total in the EU - over 500 million)

                      I have several acquaintances, good (really good) reasonable educated Germans. Most of them love the EU-RF-China Axis idea. Why is this? So against the United States, why else.
                      But two questions follow:
                      (1) Well, we won the USA - and what next? How will we continue to live? But beyond two spiders (the EU and China) there are no more in the bank --- "Axis" is torn in half (somewhere in Russia, that means), and the EU confrontation against China begins.
                      (2) What is the role of the RF in this picture and what are the gingerbreads for the RF? And everything is as always: the role is the soldiers, and the gingerbread ... Well, what are the "gingerbread" for the soldiers? Others get the gingerbread.

                      Do we need it?

                      Notice, I'm talking about really good, educated, intelligent Germans. What bad, unintelligent and uneducated people think to themselves - I’m even afraid to imagine.

                      And about the colonies of the United States - Afghanistan, for example, from recent ones. Few?

                      And where is the exploitation of Afghanistan by the USA? There is exploitation, there are signs that they want to settle in Afghanistan?
                      Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya - this is the US war against Europe.
              2. Volzhanin
                Volzhanin 20 June 2016 19: 35
                0
                Yeah, only all of these four players Russia is able to multiply by zero, both individually and all at once. This time.
                And secondly, in the light of ever brighter trends, the economic power of these states is nothing more than a zilch. And the Americans know this, so they twitch and rage.
                And as for our collaborationist authorities - yes, right in the hole, but they are mortal. The task of a new rot to the authorities is not allowed.
                1. AK64
                  AK64 20 June 2016 20: 20
                  +2
                  Yeah, only all of these four players Russia is able to multiply by zero, both individually and all at once. This time.
                  And secondly, in the light of ever brighter trends, the economic power of these states is nothing more than a zilch.

                  There was a program called "Visiting a Fairy Tale". Apparently you stayed in it

                  And the Americans know this, so they twitch and rage.

                  And do not "twitch". And they do not "rage".
                  The level of "jerking" is no higher than in the 70s or 80s. Or in the same 90s.



                  And as for our collaborationist authorities - yes, right in the hole, but they are mortal. The task of a new rot to the authorities is not allowed.


                  Well, isn't it funny: on the one hand, you call your own "government" collaborators, and on the other, for some reason, you think that "we will multiply everyone, everyone by zero and show Kuzka's mother!"

                  Here one of the two ....
  5. standing
    standing 20 June 2016 07: 05
    +14
    Yes ... not long ago fought. Just do not fight according to the rules imposed on us. Fast, tough (cruel) asymmetric measures will help to avoid huge losses on our part. This is not hatred. I consider myself a realist, unfortunately. Destruction of the GPS orbital rupture, capture of the Baltic states to Koenig and urkaina to Odessa. The simultaneous destruction of missile defense points in Europe. And like a cherry on the cake, undermining Yellowstone ... But do not sting and minus, our generals will not go for that. Everyone will worry that some kind of Poland will blame inhumanity.
    1. SeregaBoss
      SeregaBoss 20 June 2016 07: 55
      +2
      Dear, it seems to me that you are more likely to see that they are throwing minuses than about the really coming war. So, in the General Staff, we do not have a match for you and they can and will make the necessary decisions at the right time, so sit there with your priest exactly and sts.
    2. KaPToC
      KaPToC 20 June 2016 09: 37
      +3
      If there is no tension in the earth's crust, then no Yellowstone atomic explosions will awaken, or, if there is tension, but not enough, then everything will end in zilch.
    3. RedBaron
      RedBaron 20 June 2016 18: 48
      +1
      Quote: standing
      Yes ... not long ago fought. Just do not fight according to the rules imposed on us. Fast, tough (cruel) asymmetric measures will help to avoid huge losses on our part. This is not hatred. I consider myself a realist, unfortunately. Destruction of the GPS orbital rupture, capture of the Baltic states to Koenig and urkaina to Odessa. The simultaneous destruction of missile defense points in Europe. And like a cherry on the cake, undermining Yellowstone ... But do not sting and minus, our generals will not go for that. Everyone will worry that some kind of Poland will blame inhumanity.

      From the point of view of Europe, this scenario did not happen only because of the strengthening of the NATO group, so everyone has their own truth and it is better without a war.
  6. Banishing liberoids
    Banishing liberoids 20 June 2016 07: 07
    +3
    About people like Trump and the Clinton, the Russian people say one hour, the Sabaks do not live without a fight for an hour.
  7. then
    then 20 June 2016 07: 44
    +13
    Trump is a wolf in sheep's clothing. There is no need to hope for a change in US policy under Trump as president. Clinton and Trump are like "bad" and "good" cops. As president, they will do what they are allowed to do. It is good if they avoid a military confrontation with the Russian Federation.
    1. Svoy_tovarish
      Svoy_tovarish 20 June 2016 08: 54
      +4
      I agree. Remember US Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel? He said that he remembers well the trenches of the Vietnamese jungle, and if the Lord leads, he will do everything to avoid new conflicts. We even had some of the media present him as the blue of the world)), and as soon as he took the post of minister, Russia became the number 1 threat, and the United States and Europe began to consolidate before this threat. So it is here. I think the differences between them are only that they can serve the interests of different corporations and go to the US goal in different ways. And the United States has one goal - it is global, absolute domination!
    2. AK64
      AK64 20 June 2016 10: 19
      0
      Clinton and Trump are like "bad" and "good" cops.


      Clintonsha is still IMHO dumber. Yes and ... unstable
  8. SOB
    SOB 20 June 2016 07: 48
    +2
    Yes, apparently talking will not help anymore - only a face on the table.
  9. Sars
    Sars 20 June 2016 07: 51
    +2
    About Trump. Remember President Kennedy? So he was the only president of the United States, not a member of any Masonic organization.
    Clintonsha is in the luminates.
    Trump, however, if communicating with Kisenger, may turn out to be not such a simpleton.
  10. Reptiloid
    Reptiloid 20 June 2016 07: 52
    +5
    How can they not envy the territory and riches of Russia ?!
    After all, the collapse of the USSR allowed the existence of the United States and geyropa. And at the expense of Yugoslavia they fed. Iraq, Libya were also devoured.

    Russia really bothers them
    1. AK64
      AK64 20 June 2016 10: 25
      -2
      How can they not envy the territory and riches of Russia ?!


      What nafig "wealth"? What is the "territory"? This "territory" in Canada is undeveloped millions of kilometers. And the US itself is essentially empty.

      You have the reasoning of a Muscovite who has never been outside the Moscow Ring Road: Who needs the "territory" of tundra and permafrosis? And "wealth" - like South Africa or Australia - is wealth. And from under permophrosis go and get it - even if gold will become unprofitable.

      Dreamers ...
      One would like to ask: if you are so rich, then why are you so poor?
      1. wanderer_032
        wanderer_032 20 June 2016 13: 41
        +1
        Quote: AK64
        One would like to ask: if you are so rich, then why are you so poor?


        Because in the 90s the Americans actively helped us to develop "democracy" and put into power all kinds of pro-Western pi ... ows, from which we still get rid of and clean up the consequences of what they have done.
        1. AK64
          AK64 20 June 2016 14: 20
          -4
          Because in the 90s Americans ...


          And until the 90s why were the poor?
          Ah, "Gorbachev is a traitor." And before Gorbachev? "the traitor Brezhnev, the traitor Khrushchev, the traitor Stalin, ... etc., etc."

          And the fact is that it is simple: there is no "wealth" in Russia.
          1. gladcu2
            gladcu2 20 June 2016 14: 51
            0
            AK64

            Until the 90s, the USSR had the highest standard of living in the world. Not one of the most, but the most.
            1. AK64
              AK64 20 June 2016 15: 55
              +1
              Until the 90s, the USSR had the highest standard of living in the world. Not one of the most, but the most.


              You see, I was born in the 64th year. So please tell tales to someone else, but I'm a little old for fairy tales
            2. Alexander Romanov
              Alexander Romanov 20 June 2016 21: 23
              +1
              Quote: gladcu2
              Until the 90s, the USSR had the highest standard of living in the world. Not one of the most, but the most.

              Oh yes, a VEGA stereo tape recorder cost three salaries. Not so brazenly lying, it's some kind of trolling.
          2. Volzhanin
            Volzhanin 20 June 2016 19: 46
            0
            What a hopeless stupidity, and even with a claim to some kind of intelligence!
            Hurley then all the scum from all over the world is hiding here, as if you were barking at least 1000 years without respite?
            Ugh, even oppose disgusting.
            1. AK64
              AK64 20 June 2016 20: 28
              0
              Well, I’ll do it as usual: I’ll give the boor 30 minutes to read this, and throw in the emergency
      2. Camel
        Camel 20 June 2016 15: 13
        +2
        What nafig "wealth"? What is the "territory"?


        The territory of Russia, defined by its Constitution, is 17 125 191 km². Ranks first in the world in territory (c) Wiki


        This is about the territory.

        I wanted to quote about "wealth", but I'm afraid the modernists will not miss such an extensive quote, so you are on the Wiki.

        So which of us is a dreamer?
        1. AK64
          AK64 20 June 2016 15: 58
          -1
          So which of us is a dreamer?


          You.
          Have you ever gone outside the MKAD?
          You take the train, and go straight from MSC to Vladik, looking through the window: what you see outside the window is SPACE, which is practically impossible to use economically.

          I understand, I understand --- this is not visible from the MSC. And I lived there, it happened.
  11. olimpiada15
    olimpiada15 20 June 2016 08: 24
    +15
    The total dominance of the states is at stake and war is not only beneficial to them, but necessary.
    While countries and peoples are fighting each other, destroying their economies, depleting resources, the United States will grow stronger and gain strength.
    Only world war will make the United States a hegemon. Peaceful competition will not give this country any advantages. Other countries and peoples are capable of reaching a high technological level themselves, catching up and surpassing America. For the existing US dominance is built on the propaganda, deception and gathering of other countries.
    But war should not hurt state territory — this is the only temporary deterrent.
    And preparations for war are underway: military bases around the world, hot spots, the setting off of peoples, the creation and support of the opposition, incl. "moderate" with tanks, artillery.
    The victim is already selected. Why Russia, not only because of the rich resources. Russia is a self-sufficient country, its resources are enough to live and develop, the same Western Europe has limited resources, without hydrocarbons coming from outside, it cannot develop further. And one more argument for the attack: the Russians do not give up, which means that the conflict develops into a global one.
    And the more destruction there will be in the world, the more victims there will be, the faster the USA will achieve its goal of global domination. A weakened opponent is easy prey for a predator.
    And for Russia it is important that understanding comes: no attempt at compromise and concessions will save the country from destruction. Russia will be saved and protected by self-sufficiency in the economy and the armed forces. The country should always be ready for war: every second, and for a long period. And only this will save the country from destruction and from new wars.
  12. nadezhiva
    nadezhiva 20 June 2016 08: 38
    +1
    To disrupt Trump’s presidency, if it becomes inevitable, so as not to let him enter the Oval Office of the White House, neo-Hawks hawks can go very far, even to a world provocation, and the Third World War
    Strange conclusion. The maximum that they can do so as not to let Trump into the White House is to shoot. The minimum is to buy electoral votes (which is simpler and more real).
    And the war with Russia .... It's easier with China. Moreover, it is technically much easier to unleash a conflict there. And more profitable, by the way.
    1. pimen
      pimen 20 June 2016 09: 17
      +2
      China is a nuclear power. In a conflict, the one who is less likely to lose, or who agrees to lose everything, is more likely to win. Americans consider themselves exceptional. Jewish clans that have ruled America and the World for centuries are unlikely to agree to risk their status quo without a 100 percent guarantee.
    2. AK64
      AK64 20 June 2016 10: 28
      0
      The maximum that they can do so as not to let Trump into the White House is to shoot. The minimum is to buy electoral votes (which is simpler and more real).


      They can "calculate", as in the case of Horus
    3. The comment was deleted.
  13. Vadim237
    Vadim237 20 June 2016 08: 44
    0
    "When the X-hour for Washington comes" - When they will have several thousand missile defense missiles in service, with the selection of false warheads and hypersonic weapons in mass production - but all this will not be very soon.
  14. Seraphimamur
    Seraphimamur 20 June 2016 08: 44
    +5
    Yes, Americans need a war. But only such where they would be enriched. Understanding that they will be killed, they will not fight. This is a cowardly and vile nation. They only attack the weak to rob!
  15. standing
    standing 20 June 2016 09: 21
    -2
    Hmm .. From my entire post, people read only one word-synonym for emptying the bladder. This word aroused them and gave them literary inspiration. And what about the errors we write? Non-Russians or studied poorly?
  16. Lord blacwood
    Lord blacwood 20 June 2016 09: 24
    0
    The world war will not begin, since it is impossible to defeat it. If the US starts a war, the Russian Federation will respond, and no US missile defense will save. Instead, the Russian Federation and the United States will fight among themselves in small countries (for example, in the Donbass or in Syria), arranging coups and unleashing civil wars, sending military experts, advisers, weapons there, or openly intervening in conflicts (as in Syria).
    1. AK64
      AK64 20 June 2016 10: 33
      -2
      The world war will not begin, since it is impossible to defeat it. If the US starts a war, the Russian Federation will respond, and no US missile defense will save.


      Yah? truth?
      The United States makes the Russian Federation, the Russian Federation makes the United States --- and who is the result all in chocolate? That's it: the one who organized everything, but he sits in line. So he will win.
      1. Volzhanin
        Volzhanin 20 June 2016 19: 53
        -1
        Parties only will not be. Several dozen nuclear warheads will fly to Australia and New Zealand, and much more. A bunch of ocean islands will immediately go under water. If only they sit out in Greenland, they won’t begin to wet her with a vigorous bomb.
    2. Vadim237
      Vadim237 20 June 2016 13: 16
      +2
      Those who will not participate in this war will win.
    3. Vadim237
      Vadim237 20 June 2016 13: 28
      +2
      "US missile defense will not save" - ​​This is so far, today it is 900 anti-missiles without selection of false warheads, and tomorrow it will be 2000 missiles with selection of decoys flight trajectory in the active phase - over the entire area of ​​the globe.
  17. vladimirvn
    vladimirvn 20 June 2016 09: 30
    +3
    They will go into an armed conflict with us in the most extreme case. They have an individual approach to different groups of countries. For those who are simpler and the bombing approach, for others, color revolutions. The second group "suits" us more. Combinations are possible though.
  18. standing
    standing 20 June 2016 09: 32
    -2
    But with the General Staff, yes, it's to the point. Smart people. I hope they understand that all our successes were only when we were not in the position of "taking revenge", but hit first, without looking back at international opinion.
  19. voyaka uh
    voyaka uh 20 June 2016 09: 56
    +2
    "To disrupt the Trump presidency if it becomes inevitable,
    so as not to let him into the Oval Office of the White House, neo
    hawks can go very far "////

    In fact, these hawks are from the same party as Trump - the Republican.
    Do not let yourself into the White House? belay
    And their rival, Clinton, belongs to the liberal Democratic Party.
    1. andj61
      andj61 20 June 2016 10: 24
      +2
      Quote: voyaka uh
      In fact, these hawks are from the same party as Trump - the Republican.
      Do not let yourself into the White House?
      And their rival, Clinton, belongs to the liberal Democratic Party.

      Actually, the Brzezinski hawk is a democrat, and the peacekeeper Kissinger is a republican ... On this basis, the author makes his conclusions in the article.
      But their parties there are not much different from each other.
      Only in recent decades have Democrats sought to pay more attention to foreign policy, and Republicans - to domestic.
      And there are plenty of hawks in both parties.
  20. tasha
    tasha 20 June 2016 10: 17
    +2
    I think that in the near future there will be no direct military conflict between the major powers. Nobody needs it and is disadvantageous. In addition, in the current multi-polar world, in a conflict of two parties, there is sure to be someone third who will be the winner. In two major wars of the last century, the United States was just such a third, so there is experience.

    There will be a series of local conflicts, saber rattling and an attempt to draw a potential enemy into an arms race. Of course, attempts to undermine the political system of a competing country from within will not stop.
    1. gladcu2
      gladcu2 20 June 2016 15: 04
      -1
      tasaha

      When there is tension, you can very quickly slip the point of no return.

      In World War I, Tsar Nikolai began military operations guided not by pragmatics, but by morality.

      Such solutions do not look very reasonable. Because morality can often be interpreted in two ways. Nevertheless, a war was launched and the consequences were grave.
    2. gladcu2
      gladcu2 20 June 2016 15: 04
      0
      tasaha

      When there is tension, you can very quickly slip the point of no return.

      In World War I, Tsar Nikolai began military operations guided not by pragmatics, but by morality.

      Such solutions do not look very reasonable. Because morality can often be interpreted in two ways. Nevertheless, a war was launched and the consequences were grave.
  21. aleksklo
    aleksklo 20 June 2016 10: 50
    0
    Quote: kos2910
    I agree, somehow it turns out that the unthinkable, in which the majority does not believe, happens suddenly. One wonders about the timing of the start and methods. Although, in reality, it is already on, but when it goes into the hot and irreversible phase ....
  22. Nyrobsky
    Nyrobsky 20 June 2016 12: 39
    0
    When is the hour X for Washington? The United States will deploy a missile defense base in Poland in 2017, so the world can count on a whole year of peace.

    If you wang, then grandma Wang, measured out a shorter period; - "" "Europe in 2016 will become empty and cold" "".
    If this happens, it is clearly not without the participation of the United States, and something tells us that this time, they will not succeed in serving the ocean and raking in solidarity with Europe.
    Anything can become a pretext for starting a B / D today, even though Syria, even Ukraine, even the Baltic states, and given Obama’s suffering from megalomania, he can easily leave with a loud slam of the door.
  23. Essex62
    Essex62 20 June 2016 12: 54
    -1
    The third world is not vigorous, absurd! This, in the sense of almost all the most combat-ready armies of the world, is against us. Not definitely. The human resource is small, moreover, oh, how not combat-ready and heterogeneous. With patriotic education and preparation of reserves under the liberals, you yourself know how it was. Hence the conclusion, they will start to squeeze us, we have to bury us with a thermonuclear fusion. The United States missile defense system bluff and bluff. Such a quantity of carriers cannot be stopped; the nuclear submarines will be enough for everything to die out there. 3rd will be the last. Only cockroaches will continue to fight. Mutate on gamma radiation, the beginnings of the mind will appear and the countdown of a new civilization has begun. It is only in Hollywood that post-apocalyptic stirring occurs. In reality .......
    The little man controlled in the oval office is more profitable for us, so that he does not buckle (a) and obey big uncles. While the massons from Earth do not dare to escape where. The main condition is not an amoeba on the Russian throne, but this we must not allow. The price is too high.
    1. Essex62
      Essex62 20 June 2016 14: 25
      -3
      And what is the minus? To live hotsa, nehotsa Apocalypse, or Prokopenko have seen enough and believe that they have a full ass with combat capability? Yes, with such human losses that in some countries there are not so many people. So there we managed with great difficulty, with very substantial support from the allies. If the "fortress" did not methodically grind the infrastructure, we were still hell knows how many years they butted with Uncle Adolf. And now these allies are against us, but at the head. Or maybe they are jarring about the throne? So Russia for eternal times Empire, as it were, the liberals and crap were not to their liking.
      1. Vadim237
        Vadim237 20 June 2016 22: 26
        0
        The first serious notes of such a conflict will be the exit of Russia or the United States, or maybe even bilateral - from the INF Treaty, SALT 2 and START 3.
  24. wanderer_032
    wanderer_032 20 June 2016 13: 55
    0
    The logic of war is:



    Or the main and main slogan of the "civilized-exclusive nation" war:
    Let’s drink for us to have everything, but we don’t have anything for it.
  25. Svyatoslav
    Svyatoslav 20 June 2016 15: 53
    +1
    If we call a war - "3rd World", then by definition it will be a war with the use of nuclear weapons.
    Or local conflicts in different regions of the planet (but only mutual).
    Or the fighting of coalitions of countries with escalation, moreover, uncontrolled and the development of all this in exchange of strikes using nuclear weapons.
    I think so...
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 20 June 2016 16: 54
      0
      There will be a war when opponents will beat each other at military facilities - with nuclear weapons.
  26. Olegi1
    Olegi1 21 June 2016 15: 23
    0
    "Neocon hawks can go very far, even for world provocation, and the Third World War, following the example of their predecessor in the dreams of world domination, Adolf Hitler."

    I’ve been thinking about this for a long time: if Trump wins, some kind of provocation thread with Obama leaving the presidium (canceling the crisis elections, etc.) is clearly possible. I hope that it’s smart enough not to mess with us ... North Korea, Iran, Syria are quite candidates for exacerbation.