Three years ago, the US withdrew its combat units from Europe. Now America is sending them back to prevent a Russian attack. As Brigadier General Timothy Daugherty explained, "preparing for war is cheaper than waging war." It really is. But then why is Europe not preparing for war?
During the Cold War, there were approximately 300,000 American troops in Europe. A few years ago, their number dropped to 65,000. But there was a lot of that too: it was high time for Europe to abandon US defense assistance. However, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization expanded almost to the very borders of Russia and threatened to take in Georgia and Ukraine, which were formerly part of the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union. From Moscow's point of view, NATO continued to play containment of Russia, moving closer to its very borders.
Context
Russian arrow in the eastern wing of NATO
Javan 12/05/2017NATO, the Minister of Defense and Patriot complexes
Gazeta Polska 01.12.2017NATO gives in to the S-400
Haber7 11/30/2017 Along the way, Washington and Brussels put pressure on Serbia, paying no attention to Russia's historical interests in the Balkans. The US continued to build relationships and gain access to military bases, even in Central Asia. America's policy began to take on the features of the opposite of the well-known "Brezhnev doctrine": what is mine is mine, and what is yours - we will discuss it later.While the consensus in Washington has long been about treating the US Department of Defense as the bedrock of international prosperity and a tool to protect wealthy allies, candidate Donald Trump has hinted at a possible change by saying Europeans are misusing US aid. Since taking office, he has already credited himself for some of the increase in European military spending, but he has continued to sacrifice American interests for the interests of European governments that prefer not to take responsibility for their own defense.
Many in Europe are convinced that there is no serious threat to their security. Few Europeans can imagine Russian troops marching across Europe to the Atlantic. And European governments are convinced that Washington will come to their defense in any case. So why burden European taxpayers when a check can be sent to the US?
Why are politicians in Washington and President Donald Trump so willing to force Americans to take on this burden? Vladimir Putin is a very unpleasant person. This has long ceased to be news. But the world is full of nasty autocrats. And that doesn't make them a threat to America at all.
Despite the agitated rhetoric that has filled Washington, Moscow poses no significant threat to the US. Interfering in the 2016 presidential election is certainly an offensive, but Washington has done the same thing more than once, far more often than Russia, and in many more countries. Washington should insist that Russia refrain from doing this again and promise America that it will not make the same mistake again.
The Russian Federation is the only nation with a nuclear arsenal comparable to that of the United States, but if it resorts to it, it will suffer a devastating blow in response. Although Russia managed to rebuild its conventional forces after the collapse of the USSR, it still remains a strong regional, but not a global power. There is no evidence that Putin has even the slightest interest in confronting America.
Moreover, there are no significant differences between the United States and Russia that could concern their most important interests. Instead, these governments have clashed over minor issues such as Syria (with which Moscow has a long history of cooperation and little value to America) and Georgia/Ukraine (which have nothing to do with US national security). However, both America and Russia fear Islamic terrorism, oppose nuclear Iran and North Korea, and face a potentially aggressive China.
However, Washington is returning its troops to Europe. As U.S. Army Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Milley said, “We in the U.S. Army believe that additional forces are probably needed” to contain Russia. The commander of US forces in Europe, Lieutenant General Ben Hodges (Ben Hodges) said: "We will do this as long as it is necessary."
What are the Europeans doing about Russia? Well, they seem to be really busy. Or at least they think they are putting in enough effort.
Europe currently spends twice as much on its military as Russia. If these funds are being spent irrationally, then the Europeans need to correct this situation, and not hope that Washington will again come to their aid. And they could do much more if they felt in danger. General Hodges praised Lithuania for spending 2.07% of its GDP on defense, but if the Lithuanian government is anxious about the arrival of Russian armored divisions, it should double or even triple its spending. The point is not to crush the Russian forces, but to make any attack too costly and therefore pointless.
The same applies to Estonia, Latvia and Poland. They all seem to be looking forward to the US military. However, in reality, they should wait for the military from their neighboring European countries.
But, if we digress from the border states, we see that much of Europe is too busy with its own affairs to pay attention to these military issues. In 2016, Germany spent 1.18% of GDP on defense needs, in 2017 - 1.22% of GDP, but already in 2018, military spending is expected to decrease there.
It is fair to say that no one in Germany expects the country's armed forces to be able to protect it. The Germans joke that the role of their soldiers is to delay the Russians until the real armed forces arrive. The likelihood of the Germans moving east to defend the Baltics or Poland is minimal at best.
But in this case, who can say with certainty that the Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, Belgian, Danish, Montenegrin, Luxembourgish, Slovenian, Slovak and Czech military will be able to form a powerful expeditionary force capable of repelling the attack of Putin's forces? Again, the probability is minimal at best.
The problem is not a lack of resources. If we consider all European countries, then they have more people than America, and their combined economy is commensurate with the US economy.
Perhaps their military potential is inferior to the American one, but they are not helpless. On the strength index, France and the United Kingdom are next, followed by Turkey. Then Germany and Italy. All of them could do much more if they wanted to.
And the Europeans have vast military manpower at their disposal. The number of the Turkish army alone reaches 400,000 servicemen. Of course, today Ankara no longer looks like a reliable and loyal ally, but if it has ceased to be such, why is it still in NATO? In any case, Italy has 250,000 troops, France 200,000, Germany about 180,000, Greece 160,000 and the United Kingdom over 150,000. Spain has 124,000 troops. And all of them could well increase the size of their armies if they considered that there were good reasons for this. Not the United States, but these European countries should form additional combat units and make more efforts to contain Russia.
More than 70 years after the end of World War II, Western Europeans have managed to rebuild their economies, overthrow alien communist regimes, and draw the countries of Central and Eastern Europe into the common European project. Together they are in many ways superior to what is left of the former Russian Empire and the Soviet Union.
Moscow can take on a weak neighbor like Georgia, but it can't easily swallow Ukraine, much less conquer Europe. And if the latter is in any doubt, in the next few years, the Europeans could easily overtake militarily a weakening power that is facing economic decline, demographic decline and political crisis.
The US is effectively bankrupt. They face trillions of dollars in deficits in the coming years. However, Congress refuses to take tough action, preferring to cut revenues rather than deal with spending. When the problems of federal debt, social spending and obligations to other countries converge at one point, the crisis is likely to force action. In this case, the disorderly interventionist foreign policy of the United States is likely to suffer. It is unlikely that any of the American leaders will want to sacrifice health care or social security programs so that the Europeans will continue to be able to spend money on their domestic needs. Washington should cut spending deliberately and systematically, not feverishly and in a crisis.
Europeans will never stop asking for more US commitments, but US officials should stop paying for Europeans. Washington should retain NATO and other alliances only if they help advance America's security interests. Protecting those countries that are quite capable of defending themselves has nothing to do with US interests.
The materials of InoSMI contain only assessments of foreign media and do not reflect the position of the editors of InoSMI.
It is gradually turning Europe into a huge springboard for the instant transfer of large military contingents and heavy weapons. The transport mechanism, rather rusty after the Cold War, is rocked and lubricated, carefully restoring the lost gears. No one hides the motive anymore - the "Russian threat". On Wednesday it became known that the alliance intends to approve the creation of two new military commands in case of a potential conflict with Russia. One of them will deal with logistics, the second one will "secure" sea routes in the Atlantic and the Arctic Ocean from Russian submarines. About what these actions really mean and how they can threaten Russia - in the material RIA Novosti.
block thinking
Trench snakes, roadblocks, sandbags and tanks dug into the ground - it is possible that this is exactly how NATO strategists see Europe in the future. According to The Wall Street Journal newspaper, citing officials from allied countries, a separate command could be created to speed up the movement of people and logistics in NATO. This issue will be finally decided in November at the quarterly meeting of the defense ministers of the countries of the bloc.
All the military know that the combat effectiveness of any army directly depends on well-organized logistics. Operational folding and deployment of groupings, rotations, transfers, redeployments, pulling up the rear, landing operations - for all this, a transport infrastructure debugged like a Swiss watch is needed. In war, everything is used - railways and highways, civilian airfields, seaports and hubs. Now NATO, together with the United States, is actively putting this economy in order.
“They need to arrange the movement of troops not so much in Europe as from North America to Europe,” notes Deputy Director Alexander Khramchikhin. - We are talking about the transfer of heavy formations, because it is absolutely impossible to resist Russia with what the United States currently has in Europe. However , they are unlikely to actually transfer something, because, firstly, it is expensive, and secondly, because of this, the United States itself will already be exposed.
RIA Novosti https://ria.ru/defense_safety/20171025/1507557690.html
The West makes no secret of the fact that the issue of increasing the mobility of troops in the course of reforming the command structure of the alliance is being addressed among the first. As NATO spokesman Oana Lungescu told RIA Novosti, the allies are even adapting national legislation so that military equipment can move across the border faster.
“To put it in military terms, this is not really logistics, but rather preparing the conditions for the regrouping of troops and equipment from the continental United States to Europe,” says Mikhail Khodarenok, editor-in-chief of the Aerospace Frontier magazine, military expert. “Reliable communications will shorten the time for redeploying units and formations in areas threatened, in their opinion,".
Few roads
The Americans have repeatedly complained about problems with the transportation of military cargo and manpower across the EU. According to the commander of the US Armed Forces in Europe, Lieutenant General Ben Hodges, the railway lines connecting Germany and Poland in the event of hostilities will not be enough, in addition, many European bridges will not withstand the weight of tanks.
"The strengthening of bridges is the first symptom of preparations for the transfer of heavy armored vehicles. For example, when heavy military equipment began to arrive in our Western Military District, the first intelligence sign for the Western intelligence services was just the work to strengthen the bridges," Khodarenok told RIA Novosti.
In fact, Hodges advocates the creation of a "military Schengen" to quickly deliver troops to Lithuania through transit countries. He is sure that the provision of any military operations in the east of Europe will pass through Poland.
A large logistics hub of the alliance is already being created at the Polish Air Force base near the village of Powidz. It is planned to invest $200 million in the military airfield and turn it into a powerful hub to support NATO forces in all the Baltic countries and northern Europe, as well as in Bulgaria and Romania. Khodarenok noted that it is too early to talk about a real build-up of the bloc's forces. But, in his opinion, all the measures taken will contribute to the fact that units and formations of the armed forces of the United States and NATO countries will be transferred to the western borders of Russia much faster than before, which will increase tension between the alliance and Moscow.
"We won't give up the Arctic"
It is interesting that, according to the newspaper, in addition to the logistics command, NATO plans to form another one - responsible for protecting sea routes to Europe in the Atlantic and Arctic Oceans - in particular, from threats from submarines. Obviously, Russian submarines are meant, since the Chinese rarely drop in there.
“Russia is definitely not preparing for such actions, especially in the Atlantic,” notes Admiral Vyacheslav Popov, a member of the Naval Board under the Russian government, ex-commander of the Northern Fleet. “Our defense strategy is aimed at protecting our own borders. It was during World War II that German submarines against convoys from the US to Europe and England. We have no such intentions for the foreseeable future."
Speaking about the Arctic Ocean, the admiral stressed that Russia would not give up its Arctic zone and the Northern Sea Route to anyone and would continue to build up potential there.
Many military experts see the creation of a new NATO command as part of a plan to cover sea lanes for the future transfer of troops and heavy weapons from the United States along them.
The main European military hub of the United States today remains the American airbase Ramstein in Germany. As a key logistics center, it also serves as the headquarters of the US Air Force in Europe and the command center for the joint air defense of NATO countries. The base houses 16 squadrons of military transport aircraft of the 86th air wing and about 40,000 personnel. In addition to Ramstein, the Pentagon maintains another 350 smaller bases in Europe, 40 of which it owns.
According to experts, there is now much evidence that the United States is consistently preparing infrastructure in the countries of Eastern Europe and the Baltics to accommodate a group of troops numbering up to 150,000 people there.
Viktor Goryunov, Belgorod
Lugansk locksmith
You give Novorossiya without the Galitsians! Down with Bandera Ukraine!
You give Novorossiya without the Galitsians! Down with Bandera Ukraine!
You give Novorossiya without the Galitsians! Down with Bandera Ukraine!
You give Novorossiya without the Galitsians! Down with Bandera Ukraine!
Vyacheslav
You give Novorossiya without the Galitsians! Down with Bandera Ukraine!
crush the scum
You give Novorossiya without the Galitsians! Down with Bandera Ukraine!
Crimean
39 Bad Presidents for Ukraine
Temporary victory for Zbigniew Brzezinski
Temporary victory for Zbigniew Brzezinski
AntiBzhiz
Europe, which has lost its mind, is preparing for war with Russia?
Again, just like more than 70 years ago, when Hitler attacked the USSR, Ukraine is chosen as the battlefield. European politicians, perhaps having lost the last vestiges of sanity, rushed headlong to actively support the Ukrainian oligarchs, who are striving with all their might to "push through" the association agreement with the European Union. Russia maintains Olympic calm, but no one knows how long it will demonstrate it .
My Czech colleague Vaclav Danda recently published an article in the PROTIPROUD newspaper under the loud title “Coup in Ukraine – preparation for war with Russia?”. This fact suggests that despite the insanely aggressive information campaign in our media in favor of signing an association agreement with the EU by Ukraine, you can still find politicians and journalists in Europe who think otherwise.
Warsaw should also think about this. First of all, I want to ask a simple question: is Poland ready to pay its price for such a step by Ukraine, which has no money at all? We now have more than 2 million unemployed, and the economy is going through, if not a crisis, then deep stagnation.
And each EU member state will have to pay its share for the maintenance of 45 million impoverished Ukrainians. Supporters of Ukraine's European integration in Poland, which include both the president and the prime minister, are trying in vain to prove that Ukraine's accession to the EU will allow loading the Polish economy.
This sounds simply ridiculous, since it is absolutely impossible to believe that poor Ukrainians, who receive a pension of less than 80 euros and wages of 200-300 euros, specially hid the money somewhere, so that later, after signing an agreement with the EU, they could pull it out and rush to the shops to buy Polish goods.
Thus, it is quite obvious that the reason for the unprecedented pressure on Ukraine from the European Union and the United States is not the economy, but politics. And even a little she, how much unfounded ambitions of European politicians.
Vaclav Danda rightly notes: “... President Vladimir Putin called what is now happening in Ukraine a “pogrom” and called on Ukrainians to remain calm. This, of course, was the last thing the directors of this dangerous theater needed. Their goal, on the contrary, was to cause a civil war and to bring to power a minority that lost the elections. It is also necessary to provoke armed conflicts between the so-called "demonstrators" and units of law enforcement agencies. Such a scenario was used by the special services in Syria. We are seeing the consequences every day.”
I want to express my sincere gratitude to my Czech colleague for these truthful words:
Some may decide that the Czech Euroskeptics should be for the revolutionaries and wish them good luck in their attempts to drag Ukraine into the EU, as this may mean a weakening of centralized tendencies, a "dilution" of Brussels' power and a gradual disintegration of the EU. However, not all so simple. An attempt to include Ukraine in the EU, perhaps its division, is, first of all, a strategic blow to Russia. Russia is the “last bastion” in the fight against the strengthening of the power of the New World Order. Therefore, it is necessary to assess the events in Ukraine in a broader context.
What was the main reason why the well-known and experienced Soros agencies specializing in organizing coup d'état launched "Operation Ukraine"?
President Viktor Yanukovych has refused to sign an association agreement with the European Union that would destroy Ukraine economically and politically. The comrades in Brussels turned white with anger. From the point of view of Barroso and his undercover brothers, the situation is clear: either Ukraine will be ours or fall; we will not allow it to maintain the current level of cooperation with Russia.
And this is the main reason why the “civil war” operation in Ukraine is unfolding like a reality show.
This is nothing less than the psychological and strategic preparation of EU citizens for a war against Russia. At least - to the "cold".
The instability on the Russian borders and the influx of armed "paramilitary" groups heading for Ukraine from all over Europe serve several purposes. Including - to transfer the "revolutionary chaos" across the borders to Russia. More important, however, is the attempt to divide Ukraine and build a new “pro-European state” on Russian borders.
On the streets of Kyiv, - writes Vaclav Danda, - "hired tourists" from all over Europe are also fighting, who, together with the criminal underground, form the core of the so-called "pro-European rallies". This internationalization of the demonstrations of the agency was tested back in Syria, where foreign mercenaries are fighting today, replacing the first protesters on the streets of Damascus.
It is no coincidence that all of our Czech - approx. Author) the main Babishov-Bakalovsky newspapers squeal with delight because of the “revolution in Kyiv”. Particularly noteworthy are the articles by Luboš Palata, who, just in case, in order to "preserve the line", supplies his articles to two newspapers of the Babišov's flock at once - MF DNES and Lidové noviny. Worthy of attention is the innovation of the new Babishov manual of both editions. But, of course, even without Babis (Babiš) in the same vein, in primitive live broadcasts, the "bakalov" Czech television and Radiožurnál "make news".
We will see the consequences of the exceptionally dangerous crisis in Ukraine in the coming days. But, of course, one cannot think that professional revolutionaries from the European Union will give up their "rights" to another colony of Brussels, and that peace will reign in Ukraine again. All this, apparently, is only an overture and a test of strength.
However, the transfer of the "big chaos" closer to our borders this time should not leave us indifferent. The war is thus - so far symbolically - transferred to Europe. Troubled times await us." (End quote).
I would like to add a little to my esteemed colleague. I think that we Poles have a short memory. When Hitler attacked Poland on September 1, 1939, the rest of Europe, represented by England and France, betrayed us. Many European countries, such as Romania, Hungary, Croatia and others, voluntarily rushed along with Hitler to Russia and participated in his atrocities there. And the Polish Army covered its banners with unfading glory, fighting against fascism. Our pilots defended the skies of England.
Poland, unlike almost all European countries, did not submit to Hitler. There were no Polish units as part of the SS troops, but there were Ukrainian, Croatian, Norwegian, Belgian, and French ones. The Poles did not disgrace themselves by such a phenomenon.
Of course, many Poles remember the Warsaw Uprising of 1861 and the earlier suppression of Polish riots by Alexander Suvorov. Russians love to talk about the expulsion of Sigismund's troops from the Kremlin in 1612 and their national hero Ivan Susanin.
But why dwell on these well-known facts of ancient history, when there are still many people living in Poland who remember well how the Red Army liberated us from fascism? And is it worthy for the Poles to participate in anti-Russian actions like the current Ukrainian coup?
Now, in the minds of Polish politicians, the maniacal idea of creating “Wielka Polska” is wandering, in which the territories of Ukraine act as eastern lands. The Baltic states, also actively involved in organizing and supporting the Ukrainian coup d'etat, also hope to get their share of the pie from this process.
Against the background of all these phenomena, the Russian factor is somehow not taken into account. And Moscow's deliberate restraint is probably regarded by some narrow-minded statesmen as a sign of almost weakness. But it would be a big mistake to think that this is really so.
And there is nothing more unforgivable for a politician than his own stupidity.
Dmitry Simes, president of the Washington-based Center for the National Interest and publisher of The National Interest magazine, speaks very well about this.
The experience of the past 20 years shows that words of support from US and EU politicians are unlikely to turn into concrete actions, at least at the level that the Ukrainian economy would need in the absence of Russian subsidies.
Moreover, the Ukrainian opposition should listen very carefully to what US and EU officials are saying. In the case of the United States, the signal is clear: Washington is disappointed with President Viktor Yanukovych, but does not support his violent overthrow. US Deputy Secretary of State Victoria Nuland, according to media reports, expressed this idea at a meeting with opposition leaders.
Anyone familiar with Mrs. Nuland's track record, which includes serving as the US Permanent Representative to NATO, National Security Adviser to Vice President Dick Cheney, Spokesman for Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and, incidentally, the wife of the neoconservative publicist Robert Kagan, knows that this warning is not dictated by a lack of sympathy for the Ukrainian protesters.
The American policy towards Ukraine, supported by both political parties, favors its gradual integration into the European Union and eventually into NATO.
But the United States has never intended to provide it with multibillion-dollar bailouts, preferring instead to rely on IMF loans, which are usually given under very strict conditions. This is the area where Washington could help create more favorable conditions for Kyiv, if he wants to move towards an agreement with the European Union. Yet neither the Obama administration nor the American people have any desire to confront Russia over Ukraine.
Today, the Obama administration is interested in cooperation with the Russian Federation on urgent international issues, such as Iran and Syria. The growing tension between the United States and Beijing also does not contribute to the desire to conflict with Moscow as well.
The European Union is genuinely more interested in taking Ukraine under its wing.
Some EU member states, namely Lithuania and Poland, believe that security considerations require Ukraine to be taken away from Russia. This policy is also part of a centuries-old rivalry with Russia for dominance in Eastern and Central Europe. For many others in the EU, security considerations may be less important, but the encouragement of Ukraine's move towards the West seems to be a symbolic manifestation of the inherent virtue and wisdom of the European project, at a time when Eurosceptics are gaining more electoral support.
If you do not take into account the successful territorial expansion, in most matters the EU has little to boast of. The economic situation in the EU is very difficult, especially in the Mediterranean countries. The EU has not been able to effectively deal with the problems of mass migration and has not found a way to absorb large flows of newcomers. Moreover, European interventions during the Arab Spring can hardly be called a success.
Enthusiasm in London and Paris for the invasion of Syria besieged the turn, first of the British Parliament, and then of the Obama administration, to an agreement with Russia, which persuaded to move to the destruction of the Syrian chemical weapons arsenal.
In such a situation, the entry of post-Soviet countries, and above all Ukraine, into the orbit of the European Union could give European politicians the right to claim that they are still “on the right side of history.”
Despite this, both the European Union and Mr. Yanukovych have learned from their own difficult experience that the EU is not ready to support its rhetoric with money. In the absence of strong support from the United States, the European Union, with its weak military resources, is not ready to take responsibility for ensuring stability in Ukraine, especially in the event of a new “orange revolution”.
Given the fact that it may be easier to remove a weakening Ukrainian president than to replace him with an effective and legitimate successor, Ukrainian opposition leaders should think twice before trying to overthrow a free and fair election or further destabilize a country that It turned out to be difficult to manage even under the most favorable circumstances.
Do not be deceived, there are no daring visionaries like Churchill or De Gaulle among European leaders today. There are not even politicians of the level of Thatcher or Kohl among them.
The current European presidents and prime ministers are, at best, pragmatic, down-to-earth politicians who go with the flow. It is absolutely natural for them to demand non-interference in Ukrainian affairs from Russia and at the same time push Ukraine with all their might to sign a treaty with the European Union. Who will pay for bringing Ukraine closer to Europe, and in particular who will ensure the country's security, are completely different questions.
Experience shows that the smiles of the leaders of Poland and Lithuania during official photo sessions with Saakashvili in August 2008 mean little, and symbolic hugs are not real support. The leaders of the Ukrainian opposition should think about this. (End quote).
Poland has already made a big mistake by agreeing to the deployment of American anti-missiles on its territory. In return, we received Russian Iskander systems in Kaliningrad, which made the people of Poland even more hostage to decisions made not in Warsaw, but in Washington and Moscow.
A further escalation of the Ukrainian conflict threatens to turn all of Eastern Europe into a realm of chaos and fear as tens of millions of Ukrainians flock there in search of a better fate.
It is clear that the goal of the EU is not to ensure their decent existence in conditions when in the EU countries themselves from 25 to 40 percent of the population live below the poverty line, and the unemployment rate has reached a critical level.
At the same time, huge financial resources of the European Union are being spent on inciting the Ukrainian conflict, fooling and duping the Ukrainian society. And none of the politicians answers the question: wouldn't it be better to spend this money on solving our countries' own economic problems. And why should Europeans pay for the fantasies of their officials and the ambitions of Ukrainian oligarchs?
By the way, while recently in Kyiv, I heard this anecdote:
A western journalist asks a lousy, filthy and dirty “Maidanite”, who with apparent pleasure consumes a huge piece of bread with sausage:
Are you for association with the EU?
Are you against Yanukovych?
Are you in favor of Ukraine joining the Customs Union?
Why are you standing here then?
And where will I find such a paradise, even every day?, - follows a completely logical answer for this type of Ukrainians.
It is high time for our politicians dealing with Ukraine to understand that every day of Euromaidan for European money bleeds our economy. And the Ukrainian crisis is quite capable of going beyond the borders of Ukraine itself.
They should not think that Russia will simply hand over Ukraine to the sphere of influence of the European Union. This is the height of either naivety or stupidity.
European politicians do not even allow the idea that Russia can take any action within the framework of the possible to keep Ukraine.
It seems that the EU and the US have forgotten the old truth from Otto von Bismarck - "politics is the art of the possible." However, the “iron chancellor” in relation to Russia seemed to be warning his future followers from the US EU with his less well-known quote: “Even the most favorable outcome of the war will never lead to the decomposition of the main strength of Russia, which is based on millions of Russians themselves ... dismembered by international treatises, they are just as quickly reunited with each other, like particles of a cut piece of mercury. ."
In a war of nerves on the verge of a foul, Putin has the advantage. His actions and the statements of Russian diplomats do not have such a pronounced hysterical naive-infantile tone, which is stubbornly demonstrated by representatives of the EU and the USA at the highest level.
And it is absolutely impossible to imagine such a stupid situation when one of the Russian politicians comes to Ukraine to distribute cookies on Anti-Maidan. It seems that Russia has some kind of trump card, which it is not yet ready to put on the table.
Preparations for a large-scale civil war in Europe are in full swing, and it will not be long before real combat operations and hostilities begin, warns military analyst Yaroslav Stefets. The French will have to reconquer hundreds of square kilometers of their own land. Stefec also doubts that there are no migrants in the Czech Republic. “Someone is lying here,” he said in an interview with ParlamentníListy.cz about this. But his warnings don't end there.
ParlamentníListy.cz: The most discussed topic abroad is the meeting between US President Donald Trump and his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin. Trump is widely criticized for not being sufficiently prepared or for being too peaceful. Others argue that Trump is generally characterized by such a policy: first be tough, and eventually soften his steps. What do you think?
Yaroslav Stefets: I think that Donald Trump is a very pragmatic person who knows exactly what he wants. These somewhat theatrical actions of his are explained by his habit of doing just that in the American environment. Of course, he goes too far, and sometimes his behavior resembles a theater. In any case, his actions make just such an impression on Europeans. Americans see them differently. However, Trump is undoubtedly the kind of person who knows what he wants.
You say he knows what he wants. What goals does he pursue by such behavior, say, in relations with Putin?
Trump is definitely getting what he promised on the campaign trail when he said he wanted to strengthen the US position in the world. He wants Americans to get jobs back, wants the United States to grow production and become a country that gives jobs to its citizens again. His “America First” slogan sounds absolutely clear, and Trump understands that if he hides behind an ideology, he will never achieve his goal. He knows that he must proceed from the real state of affairs in the modern world and cannot hide behind something that somehow deforms or distorts reality. Otherwise, he will lead the United States to war, but, apparently, Trump does not want it.
- Perhaps that is why Trump communicates so peacefully (according to some estimates) with Putin?
Nonsense. He did not communicate with Vladimir Putin peacefully. Who claims this?
- American media...
This is also claimed by our media, although this is nonsense, because Donald Trump did not behave gently with Putin. They made their interests clear and set the rules. And you are talking about a completely idiotic perception of the meeting of two world-class statesmen, which the American press is trying to belittle, since Trump is in almost the same position as Milos Zeman here. Attacks from the media are pouring in on him, and at the same time they are completely groundless. The media claims that Trump was too soft on Putin. However, at the meeting, the boundaries of interests were clearly marked, and it was clearly said: here is yours, and here is ours. Areas where clear rules need to be established have been identified and succeeded, which is very important. In general, this meeting is of great importance, because now both sides (both the United States and the Russian Federation) have enough means to destroy each other. But around them there are still a lot of things that are completely uninteresting to both of them.
What you say coincides with the opinions of other analysts who say that the whole world, including the media, should be glad that the heads of such large states have met and want to reach an agreement. Do you think that the media in this case only harm the process?
Of course. Once upon a time, the media may have been the fourth estate, but they have long ceased to guard democracy. Indeed, in this case, the American media play into the hands of the establishment, which has existed for at least 30-40 years. After the Second World War, certain interest groups formed, who were satisfied that the United States profited from the Second World War, from the post-war development. Investing in Germany brought them incredible returns. But this is not only about Germany, but in general about the whole of Europe. These people managed to return the money home. And they would very much like the situation to repeat itself. Preparations for a large-scale civil war in Europe (if a nuclear war does not happen there) are in full swing, and it will not be long before real military operations and hostilities begin.
- Do you mean places like "forbidden areas"?
No, not only them. Perhaps everything will start there, because in France they constantly say that the French will have to reconquer their own land, because they really lost it. We are talking about hundreds of square kilometers in the vicinity of Marseille. And the same places appear in the Czech Republic. We are told that there are almost no migrants in the Czech Republic, although Germany, especially Bavaria, is outraged that more and more immigrants are arriving in Germany precisely through the Czech borders. Something is wrong here. Someone is lying.
Let's get back to Trump. By meeting, Trump and Putin irrefutably proved that the forces that would like to start a real full-scale war are still out of touch with reality, because there has been a regrouping of forces in the world. The United States is no longer the sole hegemon. Russia and China (although in history, on the one hand, they always portrayed friendship, and on the other, they needed each other) entered into a kind of friendship out of necessity, and their combined forces would have managed to defeat the United States in the war. In general, now the United States does not have enough military means to defeat Russia, despite the large number of bases. The only chance for the United States to defeat Russia is to completely destroy its territory with nuclear strikes, but the United States has no real chances of winning a war similar to World War II. Just as NATO does not have them. Thus, now the United States, even as an ally of the forces of the North Atlantic Alliance, has no chance.
This is a very serious statement. I assume that Russia was also helped by military successes in Syria, where the Russian Federation had the opportunity to test new technologies and weapons ...
Of course, Russia was able to test its weapons there, but that's not the point. It is rather about checking how the weapons and systems of the United States, which are also involved in Syria, react to it. Of course, Russia can also test weapons at home: it has vast territories for this. Strategic missiles are being tested there. Trying out the system in combat is important, but not essential. On the other hand, it is more important to find out how the enemy reacts than he can answer, whether he will have time to react, and so on. Therefore, combat verification is a somewhat misleading concept.
Putin is pursuing an open policy that is radically, simply colossally different from what it was during the Soviet Union. With it, Putin makes it clear: “Look, we have such and such a weapon, and now you are not able to oppose it, so if you try to attack us ...” This is a clear warning. Putin warns by showing these weapons. He warns other states, primarily the United States and the countries of the North Atlantic Alliance, which would join the US. There is no need to talk about NATO as such here, since NATO is, first of all, the United States. Thus, Putin is warning the American forces, who want to unleash a world war, of what awaits them. He warns that the territory of the United States will be destroyed in the same way as the territory of Russia.
Is that why Vladimir Putin is always so worried when states like Ukraine, for example, are going to join, say, the European Union? Because of the construction of military bases near the borders and other things. The reason, I guess, is...
Of course. I don't know how the United States would react if Russia starts building a military base with nuclear missiles in Mexico. The Russian Federation would agree with Mexico (this is not so unbelievable), since cooperation may be attractive for the Mexicans as well. Also, for example, the question arises about the future base in Cuba, as it has shown interest in a new agreement with the Russian Federation, wants to establish contacts and discuss military cooperation. The question is how the United States would react to this, and what steps they would take in response. The Russian border is, of course, huge, and if the Russian Federation does not have a buffer zone, which was Ukraine ...
Air defense system S-400 "Triumph" took up combat duty in Sevastopol
Absolutely shamelessly and brazenly, a coup is being prepared in Belarus on the model of the Ukrainian one. The situation is gradually heating up, and in Belarus they are really planning a Maidan in the Ukrainian spirit. The leadership of the Russian Federation knows this, as well as the leadership of Belarus. This is also known to the Belarusian president. But I don't think he is fully aware of his position. His seemingly erratic actions of late seem to confirm that he senses an impending threat. On the one hand, he talks about friendship with America, and on the other hand, a statement was made that if Belarusian citizens want, they can unite with another big country (although the president did not say which one). Lukashenka is trying to threaten the Americans and says, they say, don’t stir up trouble here, I don’t want riots and I want to keep my power. He is cunning. He would like to be Putin, but he does not pull on Putin and cannot lead the whole state. Belarus lived for a long time on investments from both Russia and the United States and Western countries, and suddenly Lukashenka realized that the time had come to decide something. Either Belarus will remain a state, even if in alliance with Russia, or the same thing will happen to Belarus as to Ukraine, and a civil war will essentially begin there. Now a big chess game is being played around Belarus. A new move is connected with Belarus. I think that Putin and Trump also discussed this situation, clarifying their positions on this matter and their vision of the future.
