Allies in the era of hybrid war
I met such an interesting idea: Russia should not “put pressure” on its closest allies and limit their field of political maneuver, they say, this is not kosher. It is impossible for someone to dictate something, let him decide, “where shall he go”. Those who occupy such an interesting position, firstly, do not understand the meaning of the word “ally” itself. When you become an ally of a certain power, you gain absolute advantages in the economic, political and military sphere, but also restrict yourself somewhat (sometimes very seriously). It was always, everywhere and everywhere ...
By the way, these advantages are sometimes sharply outweighed by the minuses: everything that the Baltic States received from the EU is sharply outweighed by the forced breakdown of economic ties with the same Russia. And the Balts were largely forced to do this, bringing the most Russophobic forces to power. Although they themselves are great. And yet: the Baltic States are friends of the EU and not friends of the Russian Federation. And the funny thing is: no one in Tallinn or Vilnius even stutters on the topic that “we will be friends with everyone and we don’t need to point out”. There is no such thing. People are firmly embedded in the scheme and do not rip.
Why am I, strictly speaking, against the “big-blownness” of such countries as Belarus or Armenia? History the question is very sad: Yanukovych was also a very, very “bag-vector”, well, or he thought so, but the western “partners” of Ukraine thought very differently. From their point of view, Ukraine, from a certain point, was must sign an agreement on euro-association. By the way, I do not fully understand the sincere admiration of Europe in the same Minsk or Yerevan, after the February putsch of 2014. Theoretically, Ukraine is an independent state (like Belarus or Armenia), it can sign or not sign this or that agreement (how beneficial it will be). In Brussels, they looked at things quite differently - Yanukovych was obliged Sign this agreement in Vilnius.
That is, with the Europeans, something like the gangsters: you think that you are just talking to them, but in fact, you should. You already "got on the grandmother." And when Yanukovych did not sign the agreement, the ganba began. At the same time, the same Merkel was completely sure that she was right: Yanukovych did not do what must was done, and for that he must be punished. After that, foreigners carried out a coup in Ukraine, destroyed the state and trampled into the dirt all the notion of the "legitimacy" of the authorities in Kiev. And no one in Brussels, Berlin and Paris even turned red - “everything is a bundle”.
That is, from the point of view of Yanukovych, he led some "negotiations without obligations", having full freedom of maneuver, but from the point of view of the European Commissioners, from a certain point he had clear obligations. That is why when they tell me that Armenia, Kazakhstan or Belarus have the full right to work with the European Union, without looking back at Russia, it makes me laugh. "The claw is tied up, the whole bird disappears ...". Then it suddenly turns out that behind Russia's "closed doors" an ally of Russia assumed a lot of obligations (at least in terms of the EU) and there is no way back (too in terms of the EU). And Russia, absolutely suddenly for itself, will be drawn into a new conflict. Is the current president not signing the agreement? Don't worry, that guy will sign! Cookies do not want? Help yourself!
Such a tough and aggressive policy of the European Union on the former. Ukraine is explained very simply: from a certain moment they began to consider its territory as their property. Merkel does not care about the Ukrainians, but she believes that Putin stole Crimea from her. From here tons of hate. These cranks really believe that it is enough to squeeze some indefinite obligations from the leader of an Eastern European country and that’s it, the game is done! Kiev them! That is, first, some mysterious political dances (independent Ukraine has every right to build its own foreign policy!). “Opsa ... Opsa ...” The clown from Kiev mumbles something vague and promises something there, and these gentlemen are already hurrying to the next room to open champagne: Ukraine is their property! That is, the whole "foreign policy of Ukraine" has been reduced to the acquisition of "colonial status." This “foreign policy of Ukraine” ended. Well, just like blacks from the Ivory Coast in the XVI century ... They also "negotiated" with the Portuguese ... And then they sailed to the sunset in the holds of ships.
That is why, by the way, all the demands of the Ukrainians “to return the Crimea / Donbass” are completely groundless. Your status is not the same. Excuse me. The EU requirements for the preservation of the territorial integrity of Ukraine are the requirements to transfer to them the colony of Ukraine in its entirety. No more, no less. The thing is that Europeans, in principle, do not consider Eastern European countries as equal partners, only as promising colonies, satellites, semi-colonies.
The result of 25 years of independence ”for Ukraine: no one did not invest anything there, but its territory is used as a colony and platform for waging war against Russia, while the site itself is destroyed during the war. That is, all the conversations on the topic “but we are pursuing an independent foreign policy” have been reduced to the self-sale of Ukrainians into slavery for a bundle of glass beads. And that's all. There is no longer Ukraine or “Ukrainian foreign policy”. Such is the process, you see. One way road.
I'm sorry, infinitely curious: what will official Minsk, Yerevan, Astana be able to negotiate with the EU / US? Here, in any case, the conversation will go through one gate, according to the Ukrainian scenario (too different weight categories, too different diplomatic experience). Why, for example, the EU needs Armenia? Azerbaijan, of course. But Armenia? For what, sorry, damn the EU surrendered this mountainous terrain? What is it, diamonds, diamonds, pearls? Everything is very simple: the West needs to remove the Russian military base from there at any cost. That's what the game is about. The Russian military base in Armenia is hampering the West. It interferes. Here is the Big Game around it.
The base must be removed, removed at any cost. Do not believe? But the purpose of the West in Georgia was precisely this: to remove the Russian bases from there at any cost. As a result of the political process, Georgia irretrievably lost 20% of the territory and lost its economy, and even national independence (remnants), but who cares about it in Brussels? They have removed the Russian bases. The result is achieved. How much the Georgians were forced to pay for this is not so important. That's when Georgians remember Sukhum and Tskhinval, then it’s not even about inter-ethnic clashes, the fact is that by replacing the Russian bases with the American military presence, they automatically and for a long time turned the Russians into enemies and lost even the theoretical chances to rebuild the country within the framework of the GSSR .
After “castling” with bases, “restoring integrity” became absolutely impossible. Out train. But the EU, the USA and NATO have everything in the openwork. That is, the Georgians paid for the solution of Western geostrategic problems with the complete disintegration of the country. Most of all I am surprised that the Georgians themselves do not even realize this. They really want to return Abkhazia and South Ossetia, they really want to, they cannot eat as much. And they do not even realize that the West can do everything (even make a second Switzerland out of Sakartvelo), but it is not able to return these territories backwards. It was necessary to talk about this with Moscow before 08.08.08.
That is, the consequence of the “independent foreign policy of Georgia” and the turn from north to west was, in fact, the final disintegration of the country. But the West did not lose, the West won! The Russian bases were removed (I remember, even before the three eights). Thus, Yerevan’s talks with Brussels are very mysterious: Armenia needs a lot from the EU, but the EU needs to remove the 102 base. And what, I'm sorry, can this trade come out? The thing is that the policy is conducted around real interests, and not around some "high principles of democracy." The trouble is that the 102-I base guarantees the military security of Armenia. Approximately, how trade with Russia guaranteed the welfare of Ukraine ...
But if you remove this very base ... Then at the moment when someone else’s bombs and missiles suddenly fall on Yerevan, the Armenian president, to his sincere amazement, simply cannot get through to Berlin. Subscriber will not be available. And Russia? The Russian president in this situation will be able to shrug in surprise: “You asked us to leave and we left ... Solve your problems yourself.” That is, I see the results of Georgia’s “reorientation to the West” and I can draw the appropriate conclusions.
In fact, the allies - a thing very valuable and in demand. Imagine: the summer of 1941, the retreat on all fronts and the rule of the Luftwaffe in the air. Now imagine that suddenly hundreds of RAF or USAF fighters appear on the Soviet-German front ... With experienced pilots. What is it like? Rate the situation. Everyone needs allies, but not all value them.
Incidentally, I do not scare. What is an ally? It’s like with a reliable bank: at some point you don’t have enough money and you take a loan for your business (open line of credit). It’s analogous with an ally: each state system has a specific power resource (North Korea is an example of an unreasonable increase in a power resource beyond economic opportunities). And here you are (so reasonable) feed a certain number of divisions and special services. And then comes the hour X, when everything is bad. And your ally throws you tanks, aircraft, radar, oil, secret agents 007 ... Such things.
The case, by the way, is very, very profitable. If you do not want to turn into North Korea, then in peacetime you should not spend too much money on the power sector. There can be no “overlaps”: remember what the military spending of the USSR led to. Not important: Belarus, Kazakhstan, Armenia - the economic opportunities of these countries are limited. Consequently, the costs of security officials have a certain ceiling, as in Russia (where it is simply higher). The problem is that at the moment of crisis and a massive attack of these resources may not be enough.
Why, for example, could the Roman Empire crush anyone from a certain moment? The cadre military may be about one hundredth of the population. The militia is a very controversial decision. So, gathering legions from everywhere ... They crushed even the Macedonians, even the Syrians, even the Parthians. Stupidly more personnel soldiers, because the empire is much more. Although this is certainly not the only reason for their success. That is, military personnel are expensive in peacetime, and during the war they are somewhat late to prepare. Such is the dilemma.
So there are several ways out of this impasse. The first way out is the North Korean one (the Chinese agricultural divisions and the military settlements of Arakcheev are still somehow remembered). The second way is to have reliable allies already in peacetime. It is in peacetime. Many blame Russia for surrendering Muammar Gaddafi. A strange reproach: before the war he was not "our son of a bitch." And then it was too late. Yes, that is cynical, but fair. But Assad was, was "our son of a bitch" and received the same support, without which "democratic oppositionists" would have devoured him long ago. Help weapons, ammunition, intelligence, food and instructors. True, there is one more way - “the way of Lukashenka”. He gathered to be friends with everyone and "not to grab" with anyone and rely purely on international law. The idea is very, very interesting ...
But, after all, Assad did not want to cling to anyone ... By the way, Assad had oil, and the sea, and a very well-armed army. And he was very, very legitimate. And then he was declared a dictator and began a “hybrid war” against him. The resource and military potential of Assad was several times higher than the potential available to Lukashenko, but very quickly his “redыm ”was on the edge of the abyss. By the way, before the war, Assad was very friendly with both Turkey and France. And precisely these countries became his most implacable opponents. Is something wrong with diplomacy?
The difference again is that, before the war, Syria, unlike Belarus, was a very well-fed and prosperous state. And there was no “collapse of the economy” and “social explosion” there. And Assad did not fly to Moscow / Beijing to ask for money, he had enough of them (this is what is called sovereignty, if someone does not know). And frank enemies (except Israel) was not there. And how it turned out ...
It’s ridiculous to compare the Belarusian social state with the Libyan one. Gaddafi gave the Libyans everything that was promised to Belarusians Lukashenko and even much more. But for some reason they "rebelled."
By the way, yes, of course: the collapse of the economy, as a rule, means a social explosion and a political crisis, everything is so. And it is with these political consequences (and not the reasons!) That the authorities in Minsk are actively going to fight. That Belarusians do not understand their father. Do not understand. When he talks about the independence of the Republic of Belarus, he talks about maintaining his personal power and nothing more. When he says that "the government will be able to protect the country, no matter what, in any conditions, and this is the main thing ...", he says almost the same.
Why is the regime still resist? And everything is very simple: the interested persons from the US / EU are well aware that an attempt to “decisively intervene in Belarus” may ultimately lead to an exchange of nuclear strikes. Just because.
We will continue our “brutal experiments” and present “spherical in a vacuum Kazakhstan”, relying only on its resources and international law, be it wrong. Russia "does not climb and does not interfere," as requested ... And the hard international pressure demanding that the power of the "opposition" be transferred according to the Libyan-Syrian scenario. And the "wild slippers" on the "technicals" ... Meanwhile, the coming of a dozen outspoken "assholes-terrorists" shook the whole of RK. But it was just a “test for lice,” and not a decisive attack.
We look at Egypt, Libya, Syria - the scenario is the same: crowds of protesters, international pressure and well-armed detachments of the “democratic opposition”. Shattering "komba". Honestly, I was seriously surprised by the course of the battles in Syria: some “bogeles” can, of course, hide in the “green” mountains and make forays. But here is another: groups of "terrorists" are attacking in open areas regular armyarmed with guns, tanks, helicopters and airplanes. And successfully attack! I, frankly, was shocked. Just shocked to the depths of the soul, how is this possible? Can you imagine what it means to fight a regular army with combat experience (even if it is Arab, even incomplete - supposedly there was such a problem even at the beginning of the fighting) in the open country? Not having your regular army?
I absolutely can not imagine. That goes beyond my view of such "achievements." A massive partisan war "in the forests and on the mountains" is understandable. But how to beat the Syrian army face to face (by the forces of some armed democrats), I will not tell you even approximately ... Maybe Comrade Yavlinsky will tell. I agree, part of the war is in residential areas, but Syria as a whole is a country that is not rich in dense forests or mountain ranges.
But seriously, Russia has strayed from terrorism in the North Caucasus at the cost of very heavy losses (and despite all the efforts of the Russian special services, terrorism is not defeated there!). China has incredible problems with the Uygur Islamic underground: China is the economy No. XXUMX, China is a very tough political structure ... And yet, northwest China is a highly explosive area and it is impossible to crush terrorists ...
But the Belarusian authorities just laugh at such threats. Do they know something that everyone else doesn’t? Kazakhstan's leaders, apparently, no longer laugh ... Yes, oddly enough, the "hybrid war" is not today's invention. Such a war was against Russia in the 90-s. It was a war: officially, of course, nobody declared it and was not going to declare it, why? But weapons, money and mercenaries flowed into the North Caucasus, and at the same time the “democratic opposition” defended the rights of the militants. And everything was very serious. Without external support, this would all end very quickly.
But Russia in the period of two Chechens remained a great nuclear power, capable of destroying life on the planet. “And what did she give her?” The hybrid war went on despite everything ... There was international law and a nuclear arsenal, but come and go ... The same goes for modern China and Xinjiang. Without serious (precisely serious!) Foreign support, the Islamist underground would have been crushed there for a long time. China is very serious (never France!). That is why the main structures of the “Bortsuns for the independence of Uiguria” are far beyond the borders of China. That is why China will not be able to defeat the terrorists, as Russia (which persistently did not betray the terrorist who lit up at the Istanbul airport), as well as Assad cannot defeat those “democratic oppositionists” whose main bases are outside Syria.
The same “good guys” who are fighting hybrid with China, the Russian Federation and the ATS, literally in a couple of months (open stage) hybridly captured such a rather big country like Ukraine. How much will they spend on Belarus and Kazakhstan? They often say that it’s all about the Kremlin’s wrong policy in the Caucasus. And in general in the Caucasus. By itself, the Caucasus has nothing to do with it. Almost nothing to do with it. It’s all about foreign “interested parties” who use this territory for anti-Russian games. Everyone saw the explosions and battles of two Chechens, but this is only the tip of the iceberg. Everything "most interesting and exciting" is left behind the scenes.
The terrorist war against Russia, China and Syria (and many others) has external causes, bases and finances. That is why the “target country” cannot win them. Once again: in 2010, Syria was a quiet, prosperous country. And no (the wisest) policy inside the country would give anything here. And no "internal dialogue" can be useful here. We are dealing with a new “hybrid war”, for which for some reason they are actively accusing Russia.
In principle, the Israelis could have a good laugh at Russia fighting against terrorists and their accomplices (not always successfully). No one has such a gigantic experience (on both sides of the line of fire) as the Israelis. But they do not laugh: this topic is too sick for them ... They are then cut, then blown up, and they successfully fight off. So the theme of the residents of Tel Aviv and Haifa does not seem funny. Everything is serious and not childish. By the way, I somehow do not meet the articles “from there” on this topical subject. Although, on the other hand, why should they write about it, if they live by it ... And all one is somehow offensive. Or is it "under subscription"?
In fact, a variety of countries have become the target of hybrid attacks involving terrorists. Take, for example, completely European Belgium and France. So what? Successfully they got out? I hope no one has any illusions about the current situation in France? Social chaos, protests, strikes and terrorists ... How it all worked out, right? Pure water coincidence? No politics ... But France is quite a nuclear power, the happy owner of the atomic Charles de Gaulle, a member of the “peace-loving NATA” (Sarkozy started advancing), a member of the UN Security Council and other and other and other ...
And blow up with a "special cynicism." France is literally intimidated by "terrorists": look at youtube "panic in the fan zone after the explosion firecrackers". The French are afraid, the police and special services are powerless ... By the way, where is the Caucasus in France? And the most interesting thing is that France is being blown up by about the same comrades whom she defended from the “bloody regime of Assad”. Life is full of irony. And by the way, compare the political, military and economic opportunities of France and Belarus / Kazakhstan. But. So all the talk about the “full sovereignty” of the Republic of Belarus or the Republic of Kazakhstan can only cause irony to a person in control of the situation. And the option that Russia covers Belarus in every way, and she keeps her invaluable sovereignty, is already of little interest to Russia now. Like the variant with the “Turkic” perspective of Kazakhstan For example, the permanent regime of Asad in Syria has never played games with full sovereignty: they were “friends” with the USSR and with Iran ... And what do we have today?
In Syria, it was planned to do everything quickly, easily and beautifully. And now the new government, and now the democracy ... But it came down to a bloody protracted war. And yet propaganda rages: "Assad must go." And I wonder where to go to an ordinary Syrian who wants to fight terrorism and defend his homeland with arms in his hands? Nowhere to go. According to the plan of the western "friends of Syria", you first need to destroy everything to the ground, and then, on the ruins ... "democratic gopposition" will start to build something ... Here again it is interesting, even if the regular army of Assad ISIL was too tough, who would fence it after the collapse of the Assad regime?
And who will unite those Democrats? In fact, Syria is openly and cynically destroyed in front of everyone. This is a war against Syria and against the Syrian people, and it is being conducted quite openly, and purely for “excuses” there are certain “oppositionists” who are called upon to sanctify this very war. What makes Belarus or Kazakhstan fundamentally different from Syria? Only one: near Russia.
And when the country is attacked, it has only two options: fight (Assad's option) or surrender (Yanukovych's option). International law and “friendship with the whole Galaxy” are fairy tales for first-year lawyers. By the way, in Ukraine there is also no “Caucasus” and there were no Islamists in the hottest days. Cost neo-Nazis. Performers in principle can be changed. Like gloves. Or like the covers on the phone. And Georgia, with its “Rose Revolution”, is the Caucasus itself ...
And yes, moving away from the topic of arrogant allies: Gorbachev loves to boast that he allegedly ended the Cold War. Well, sort of, but right after that, a hybrid war unleashed against Russia with might and main. We just did not know such expressions. Poor was the Russian language.
Not only everything, few can appreciate our restraint. Part of 1
Not only everything, few can appreciate our restraint. Part of 2
- Oleg Egorov
- 3world-war.su
Information