Can Russia prevent the world from sliding into a global conflict
The Soviet Union’s exit from the historical stage opened the way for a new global military conflict with its focal point on the European continent. What the United States had done in Korea and Vietnam it repeated in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq.
The US eliminated Libya, made an attempt to liquidate Egypt and the Maghreb countries and is now trying to liquidate Syria. Intensive efforts are being made to destabilize Turkey, a NATO member and an aspiring EU member. People living in the territories that have lost their statehood are forced to rush into the “humanism”-weakened European countries and weaken them even more.
As for the newly “liberated” territory, a new subject of military significance is to be fostered there, one that will direct its aggressive attention toward Russia. In keeping with a world war activation scenario, the US, like the UK in the 1930s, will create an enemy for Russia, which unfortunately “has still not disintegrated” (at that time, it was Hitler’s Germany).
The Islamic State is being carefully nurtured. Islam is being demonized – with an eye to Russia’s Islamic community. Ukraine is turning into Russia’s real enemy. With a little effort, Poland and the Baltic countries can be drawn into a military campaign against Russia.
Serious money is being plowed into creating “a defeatism party” in Russia, one that promotes sympathy for and worship of the US. Anti-Russian propaganda is being conducted as a full-scale military deception and disinformation campaign. At the same time, to all appearances, the US is preparing to enter a military conflict. Needless to say, it has no plans to fight on its own soil. It is doing all it can to destroy the existing nuclear missile parity to shift the balance in its favor. It is developing concepts of a nonnuclear preventive strike against Russia.
The US needs a big war (with the minimum participation of its own forces) for at least two reasons. Without weakening Europe and without imposing a free trade zone on it as the next step toward strengthening the trans-Atlantic “umbrella,” it is impossible for the US to pay off its own crippling foreign debt. Without plunging Europe into a conflict, it will be impossible for the US to restore its dominance over the continent (i.e., its strategic geopolitical status after World War II) and therefore, over the world as a whole. And perhaps another thing: In its continuing rise, Russia has once again approached a line that is dangerous for US domination (and the domination of the US-led Western world as a whole). It has either to be destroyed (which is unlikely to happen) or forced to fight a large-scale war on its own soil. In the 20th century, this scheme brought the West, and specifically the US, the desired result three separate times.
Peace throughout the world was the Soviet Union’s real geopolitical goal. To this end, Germany was divided and the Warsaw Pact was established as a counterbalance to NATO. And now, in the absence of such a counterbalance, NATO is expanding aggressively.
The USSR pursued a comprehensive policy to support the rise of Third World countries. This took time, historically, but without this effort, there would have been no BRICS. India’s and China’s military, technical and political potentials are bound to be integrated into new regional and global collective security systems with our participation.
The US interference in the affairs of the Eurasian continent will sooner or later come to an end, as this is the strategic trend present in Eurasia’s general rise. All the more reason for the US’s hasty efforts to prevent both this ascension and the end of its unlimited possibilities for interference. Time is working against the United States and tension is growing.
If we are to prevent a large-scale conflict without our own involvement and on our own soil we will inevitably face the need to follow the Soviet Union’s geopolitical credo to defend peace throughout the world.
We cannot rest contently with only the general principle of “multipolarity” because in and of itself, “multipolarity” does not safeguard the world against a war of the “poles.” Furthermore, the US is imposing “unipolarity,” i.e., its hegemony as a guarantee of peace. Granted, you have to trust it, believe in its goodwill, which is absolutely impossible even with the most superficial knowledge of the history of the 20th century and the first 15 years of the 21st century. This must be why the US so badly needs to distort this history.
What is called terrorist attacks today, shortly before (as well as during) the Great Patriotic War was known as sabotage and hit-and-run enemy operations. Somehow this seemed to be more accurate and carried no presumption of fear that we are supposed to feel over a terrorist attack – an epithet that, by definition, is designed to intimidate.
We should clearly realize that these military risks objectively exist today and, unfortunately, are growing through no fault of our own. The US, which has the greatest financial resources in the world, is steadily converting them into military might. This is the prime source of rising military tension in the world and the threat of a global conflict.
The containment of this kind of policy by political and diplomatic methods alone is impossible without a viable military and technical element. Therefore, containment is impossible without development risks or risks of this element being used in practice.
We pulled out of Germany and Eastern Europe in general, and NATO immediately moved in, quickly followed by the American missile defense system. We withdrew from Afghanistan, and the US moved in, sharply increasing the overall threat to our southern borders. We allowed Libya to be destroyed and thus paved the way for the establishment of a territory deprived of statehood, as a new resource and breeding grounds for aggression.
The US is now in a position not simply to generate terrorism according to well-known technology (first, we arm bandits and then we pretend to fight them) but also to create a territorial base for transforming terrorist groups into a united army on a continental scale, with imperial ambitions (caliphate).
We cannot allow the creation of such a military-political organism. To be more precise, we have allowed its creation, but now have to terminate this organism.
Considering that, with the exception of Russia, only the legitimate Syrian government wants to terminate this threat, but is unable to do so without our assistance, the forces are unequal. Nobody else will dare help Syria nor would they be able to, even if they wanted to. Therefore, we are helping not Syria but, above all, ourselves. There must be a Syria in Syria, not a social reactor to generate a million-strong army of fanatics with the prospect of their accessing nuclear weapons.
We have no choice. Objectively, we can only reduce our risks by removing the malignant tumor from the continent’s body despite the fact that this operation is not entirely risk-free for ourselves. However, failing to perform it carries even greater risks.
This policy requires a special solidarity of our society. Pro forma patriotism alone is not enough for this solidarity.
I doubt that an oligarch and a homeless person will stand side by side in this cause. This requires long-term trust in the ruling authority and the state to an extent that we have not achieved yet.
Trust in the president does not completely ensure the attainment of this goal, especially considering that he himself is, in a sense, sitting on the fence with regard to our state, government and the ruling party – and with good reason, too. Can the required level of solidarity be achieved without a social component when the extent of social inequality far exceeds the extent of the inequality of labor and intellectual inputs?
For all intents and purposes, we continue to broadcast via all informal ideological channels the following motivational principle: “get rich quick, go ahead and be a billionaire, while he who is not doing so is a fool.”
It is impossible to put this principle into practice on a countrywide basis without theft, robbery and exploitation, and since there is practically nothing to steal outside the country, domestic theft is inevitable – and then you can't be bothered with national unity.
Russia faced this problem during World War I and it was soon overwhelmed. The situation was the exact opposite during the Great Patriotic War. Of course, if the enemy invades Russia today the “immortal regiment” will no doubt take it on. However, history shows us that we should deal with the issue of our own as well as global security through preemptive action beyond the Russian borders – acting justly and in keeping with international law.